One of the biggest challenges in transforming an organization into a truly Lean organization is to change its typical reflexes in coping with problems. The way in which organizations deal with problems is predictive of the extent to which they will be able to embrace Lean thinking and doing. If organizations – and particularly their management teams – show important signs of beating about the bush, they probably will have difficulty in becoming Lean.
(more…)
When we look at Lean organizations from a distance, we often only see what meets the eye. We are maybe able to identify their 5S efforts, their kanban system, and can see their TPM boards. And maybe we’re impressed. But what we don’t see is what’s below the surface. What improvements are they actually making? Let’s not forget, most Lean systems are systems that set (visual) standards enabling proper management. But the real tough question is not so much whether a company has such systems, and whether they are sticking to them, but what they do with them. What I always find the most interesting, is what comes out of these Lean systems. What happens on a shift and daily basis with the observations that can be made using these Lean systems? How is “everyone, every day, everywhere”- improvement made a reality? This is the question of Kaizen Teian or the employee-involved proposal system.
(more…)
Finding time for Kaizen. That is a question is regularly get. Continual improvement sounds very interesting and promising as a concept, but when it gets practical, many organizations struggle to find a way to make it practical for themselves. They can’t see themselves sacrificing valuable time to improvement, as productivity will suffer. Or they expect Kaizen to happen all by itself. And when they find out that it isn’t happening, they dismiss the topic, and state that it doesn’t work in their environment and culture. Or they invest the task of Kaizen with a special group of elite improvement agents and find out that change is slow and produces little returns, after which the group is dismantled after the first financial pressure presents itself. So how do we need to organize for Kaizen? (more…)
Nowadays, you almost trip over the whiteboards scattered around the shop floors of many organizations. In most cases, these boards show data on a set of indicators linked to themes like safety, quality, timeliness, speed, productivity and team morale. The idea is that through this data, teams can track whether they are achieving their objectives. To do so, these indicators should not only show the data on actuals (i.e., the voice of the process), but also specific targets reflecting the area’s objectives. Unfortunately, this is much less common. So how then do we track the team’s contribution to the organization’s goals? And even when I do see targets, I sometimes wonder how they were set. A post on setting targets. (more…)
Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. This is the final post in a series of six posts, in which I have tried to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be useful in your own problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This sixth and final post will summarize the analysis, say something about prioritizing counter-measures and conclude on the two questions. I will end the series with some words on how this can help you in your problem-solving efforts and your coaching of problem-solving teams.
Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This fifth post will again dive into the causal event chain, but now at the systemic level. And I will discuss the problem of people not adhering to the standard.
Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This fourth post will take us to the systemic level of our problem. I will further explore the concept of barriers and make the link to standards in Lean thinking. At this point in the logic, I will also introduce the problem of occurrence and the problem of non-detection.
Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This third post will dive into tracing back the causal event chain, introducing and applying concepts like causing events, the initial causing event, and the initial active cause.
Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. Specifically, two questions always slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. In a series of six posts, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof. This second post will introduce concepts like necessary condition, defensive and control barrier, and will apply these to our example.
Problem-solving and particularly the part that focuses on root cause analysis (RCA) has always been one of the topics that has had my special interest. I have coached many problem-solving teams, and besides the sometimes superficial use of problem-solving tools, there have always been two questions that have slumbered in my head, viz. (1) whether you could speak of one root cause, or that you should speak of multiple (root) causes; and (2) whether you should speak of the root cause or rather the root condition. Based upon the way my mentors have trained and coached me in problem-solving, as well as a lot of self-education and practice, I will try to explain how rigorous problem-solving logic (using an example) can help us answer these questions. At the same time, I hope the example and the logic will be of use in your problem-solving efforts or your coaching thereof.
(more…)