Just read an interesting post by Gina Trapani who blogs at http://smarterware.org/ that I thought I'd share here. It speaks to the heart of focused change.
Getting things done is not the same as making things happen.
You can…
…reply to email.
…pay the bills.
…cross off to-do’s.
…fulfill your obligation.
…repeat what you heard.
…go with the flow.
…anticipate roadblocks.
…aim for “good enough.”
Or you can…
…organize a community.
…take a risk.
…set ambitious goals.
…give more than you take.
…change perceptions.
…forge a new path.
…create possibility.
…demand excellence.
Don’t worry too much about getting things done.
Make things happen.
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Showing posts with label Problem Solving. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Problem Solving. Show all posts
Monday, December 14, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Changing Behaviour
I have been challenged with involvement and compliance in an office waste reduction initiative. In our self assessment study, we identified that meetings and emails demanded 20% of our office workers week. The same self-assessment indicated that 78% of the time for emails and 57% of the time spent in meetings was considered wasted by those who participated.
Regardless of this result, people working in the office were reluctant to rate themselves and provide feedback to each other on what they considered wasteful and how to improve. Third party audits are snapshots in time - we are looking for ways to engage and change the office culture to eliminate waste.
I ran across an interesting approach taken by Barnes-Jewish St. Peters Hospital (BJSPH) in St. Peters, MO. If you have been struggling with the carrot/stick approach to changing behaviour, their model may be of interest. Click here for their approach.
Anyone seeing the results of our self assessment agrees that we are on the right track. What is your experience in changing behaviour to support "doing the right thing".
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Regardless of this result, people working in the office were reluctant to rate themselves and provide feedback to each other on what they considered wasteful and how to improve. Third party audits are snapshots in time - we are looking for ways to engage and change the office culture to eliminate waste.
I ran across an interesting approach taken by Barnes-Jewish St. Peters Hospital (BJSPH) in St. Peters, MO. If you have been struggling with the carrot/stick approach to changing behaviour, their model may be of interest. Click here for their approach.
Anyone seeing the results of our self assessment agrees that we are on the right track. What is your experience in changing behaviour to support "doing the right thing".
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Sunday, November 1, 2009
An on-line 5-why problem solving tool
I have had several questions come my way lately about how 5-why can work as an effective tool for problem solving. I explored this topic on this blog at this post in the past.
I thought it might be fun to create a tool to manage the 5-why process for team problem solving on-line. I could not find one, so I built a 5-why problem solving website. Its free for anyone who wants to try it.
You can explore it by adding a problem here:
http://www.leanjourney.ca/5Why/5why.php
To explore the 5-why example in the earlier post click below:
http://www.leanjourney.ca/5Why/problemsolve.php?qid=1&qcode=uocz3vae
Have fun!
Norm
www.normanbain.com
I thought it might be fun to create a tool to manage the 5-why process for team problem solving on-line. I could not find one, so I built a 5-why problem solving website. Its free for anyone who wants to try it.
You can explore it by adding a problem here:
http://www.leanjourney.ca/5Why/5why.php
To explore the 5-why example in the earlier post click below:
http://www.leanjourney.ca/5Why/problemsolve.php?qid=1&qcode=uocz3vae
Have fun!
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Innovators and Integrators
I read an interesting blog from Steve Shapiro through a link in his newsletter that I thought I'd share here. What struck me most was the frame of reference as integrators and innovators. It re-enforces and expands the 5-why concept;
“(As innovators,) we are architects of companies and industries. An architect is not a ‘reengineer.’ To illustrate this point, I often ask clients what is the difference between an optimist, a pessimist, a reengineering consultant, and an architect. The optimist looks at a half filled glass of water and sees it as half-full. The pessimist looks at the same glass and sees it as half-empty. The reengineering consultant sees too much glass. Cut off the top. Downsize. An architect looks at the same glass and asks questions such as ‘Who’s thirsty?’ ‘Why water?’ Or ‘Is there another way to satisfy the thirst?’ It is this questioning, challenging and rethinking that differentiates architects from those who rearrange the deck chairs on The Titanic.”
Find solutions everywhere. Embrace open innovation. And think like an architect. Ask the difficult questions. Assess what matters most. And build a core competency around integrating point solutions.
Read the entire blog post here
Norm
www.normanbain.com
“(As innovators,) we are architects of companies and industries. An architect is not a ‘reengineer.’ To illustrate this point, I often ask clients what is the difference between an optimist, a pessimist, a reengineering consultant, and an architect. The optimist looks at a half filled glass of water and sees it as half-full. The pessimist looks at the same glass and sees it as half-empty. The reengineering consultant sees too much glass. Cut off the top. Downsize. An architect looks at the same glass and asks questions such as ‘Who’s thirsty?’ ‘Why water?’ Or ‘Is there another way to satisfy the thirst?’ It is this questioning, challenging and rethinking that differentiates architects from those who rearrange the deck chairs on The Titanic.”
Find solutions everywhere. Embrace open innovation. And think like an architect. Ask the difficult questions. Assess what matters most. And build a core competency around integrating point solutions.
Read the entire blog post here
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Typical approach to solving problems - Fly Swatting
Lean teaches us to look at problems as treasures. An organization that has no problems cannot improve. In order to learn and grow, we need to take risks, make mistakes, discover problems and solve them. The first step to continuous improvement is finding problems.
So, by changing the environment so that discovering problems is encouraged, we create a no blame and learning organzation. An organization where the people are engaged in improving their processes, eliminating waste and adding value for their customer. An environment where people want to work and contribute to the organizatons success. Companies who embrace this philosophy become the employer of choice and typically see a noticable reduction in turnover.
An end result of a systematic approach to problem solving is continuous improvement, lower cost, quicker response and higher profitability. All the things that businesses strive for!
And now I have another problem. All these people finding problems and working to solve them is akin to swatting flies. Everyone is swatting away, but we are not looking for why the flies are gathering in the first place. We need to ensure we get to the root cause of the problem and solve that, rather than the symptoms (swatting flies).
This requires a formal approach to problem solving (so that we get to the root cause) and a systematic approach to improving our system (the value stream) so that we get results sooner and focus our resources on what is important for system throughput. The more responsive our system is to customer demand, the better we can act and improve profitability.
So a great start to a lean journey is to insist that your leaders find and solve problems, and are looking at the business processes as a value stream. A great measure of success would be system throughput and lead time!
Looking to improve your operation? Start by asking your people what value they add for your customer and what problems they are solving!
Norm
www.normanbain.com
So, by changing the environment so that discovering problems is encouraged, we create a no blame and learning organzation. An organization where the people are engaged in improving their processes, eliminating waste and adding value for their customer. An environment where people want to work and contribute to the organizatons success. Companies who embrace this philosophy become the employer of choice and typically see a noticable reduction in turnover.
An end result of a systematic approach to problem solving is continuous improvement, lower cost, quicker response and higher profitability. All the things that businesses strive for!
And now I have another problem. All these people finding problems and working to solve them is akin to swatting flies. Everyone is swatting away, but we are not looking for why the flies are gathering in the first place. We need to ensure we get to the root cause of the problem and solve that, rather than the symptoms (swatting flies).
This requires a formal approach to problem solving (so that we get to the root cause) and a systematic approach to improving our system (the value stream) so that we get results sooner and focus our resources on what is important for system throughput. The more responsive our system is to customer demand, the better we can act and improve profitability.
So a great start to a lean journey is to insist that your leaders find and solve problems, and are looking at the business processes as a value stream. A great measure of success would be system throughput and lead time!
Looking to improve your operation? Start by asking your people what value they add for your customer and what problems they are solving!
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Zero Quality Control
I picked a book off the shelf this morning and browsed through it again. I'm always amazed at what I miss the first few times through a good read. This time, I actually read the preface!
The book was Shigeo Shingo - Zero Quality Control. In the publishers message, Norman Bodek talks about engineers and their approach toward quality. He says that according to Shigeo Shingo, there are three types of engineers - Table engineers - who spend their time in meetings arguing about problems on the shop floor, Catalogue engineers - who spend their time browsing for the latest gadget to solve these problems, and Nyet engineers - those who put the kibosh to any improvement suggestion.
He suggests that instead, we should strive to become Improvement engineers, by spending the majority of our time on the shop floor - observing problems, making suggestions and working with those who do the work to implement solutions to problems. Go to the Gemba!
His quote from Shingo really hit home - "My medicine works, but only if the patient takes it". How often have good suggestions been discarded, forgotten or ignored.
It’s tough to change the mindset when what we have done so far has brought us so far. Becoming a successful company was no accident.
Making the company the best that it can be means challenging your paradigm, looking at things differently, going to the gemba and working with your team to drive out waste. That's a lot of work - and not as comfy as the board room chair. I guarantee the result of this effort will not only open your eyes, but it will shock and amaze you. Because continuous improvement means just that - you can ALWAYS do better.
Norm
www.normanbain.com
The book was Shigeo Shingo - Zero Quality Control. In the publishers message, Norman Bodek talks about engineers and their approach toward quality. He says that according to Shigeo Shingo, there are three types of engineers - Table engineers - who spend their time in meetings arguing about problems on the shop floor, Catalogue engineers - who spend their time browsing for the latest gadget to solve these problems, and Nyet engineers - those who put the kibosh to any improvement suggestion.
He suggests that instead, we should strive to become Improvement engineers, by spending the majority of our time on the shop floor - observing problems, making suggestions and working with those who do the work to implement solutions to problems. Go to the Gemba!
His quote from Shingo really hit home - "My medicine works, but only if the patient takes it". How often have good suggestions been discarded, forgotten or ignored.
It’s tough to change the mindset when what we have done so far has brought us so far. Becoming a successful company was no accident.
Making the company the best that it can be means challenging your paradigm, looking at things differently, going to the gemba and working with your team to drive out waste. That's a lot of work - and not as comfy as the board room chair. I guarantee the result of this effort will not only open your eyes, but it will shock and amaze you. Because continuous improvement means just that - you can ALWAYS do better.
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Making 5-Why work for you
One of the simplest tools to use in solving problems is a 5-why analysis. It is also one of the least understood and poorly applied tools. It seems that simple concepts can be the most difficult to apply and execute.
In almost every instance where I have seen it used, the answers to the "why" seem shallow and the root cause of the problem - or even the real problem - is seldom identified or resolved.
So how does a tool that we all learn to master at an early age become obsolete as an adult? Kids at 4 years of age are masters at this … why-dad, why-mom, why, why, why, they’ll drive you nuts if you let them. And they get the answers and the understanding they seek through the process. But we lose that mastery when we grow up and enter the world of business.
Problem solving can be a bit like swatting flies. We see a fly (the problem) and swat it. But we don’t get to the source of the flies … what is attracting them and what the cause is in the first place.
In many businesses, problem solving takes a similar approach. We solve the problems as we find them, but we don’t know if we are working on the right problem, or the biggest problem with our limited resources.
That becomes increasingly important in these tough economic times. When everyone is tightening their belts, how do I make sure my limited resources are focused on the biggest problems in the organization?
Using 5-why is not enough. The 5-why process is most effective when it is used in combination with “therefore” and “so that”. If that sounds confusing, its because we lost the art of asking “why” when we grew up. As 4 year olds, we did not accept an irrelevant answer. So lets re-learn the key to making this work.
Think of problem solving as the branches of a tree (or the file structure in your computer).
5-why is useful in identifying potential causes of the problem. The “why” opens up more branches of the tree. This gives us many more potential avenues to pursue.
Using “therefore” moves us closer to the trunk. If the answer opened by the “why” question can not be returned by a “therefore” test, the answer to the why is not relevant. For example, if we follow the line of questioning that Kent Blumberg used on his blog post:
The “why” process takes us DOWN the chain
The gas bill is high, Why
The gas consumption is high, Why?
We turned up the thermostat, Why?
We shiver if it is set lower, Why
We are wearing shorts
The “therefore” process takes us UP the chain
We are wearing shorts, therefore
We are shivering, therefore
We turned up the thermostat, therefore
The gas consumption was high, therefore
The gas bill is high
By validating the “why” answers with a “therefore” statement we ensure the path remains relevant and we are on track. This process will help eliminate the shallow responses.
Now that we have validated the “why’s” with “therefore’s” we need to ask “so that”. The “so that” statement relates how effective our solution is to our goal.
We are not wearing shorts “so that” the gas bill is not high.
Our solution of “not wearing shorts” to meet our goal of “lowering the gas bill” may not be the most effective. Perhaps we could have had a better answer when we asked why the gas consumption was high.
By combining the “why” analysis with “therefore” checking and “so that” validation we have an effective tool to get to the right problem and the right solution.
How did problem solving become so complicated? It seemed so much simpler when we were 4 year olds.
Norm
www.normanbain.com
In almost every instance where I have seen it used, the answers to the "why" seem shallow and the root cause of the problem - or even the real problem - is seldom identified or resolved.
So how does a tool that we all learn to master at an early age become obsolete as an adult? Kids at 4 years of age are masters at this … why-dad, why-mom, why, why, why, they’ll drive you nuts if you let them. And they get the answers and the understanding they seek through the process. But we lose that mastery when we grow up and enter the world of business.
Problem solving can be a bit like swatting flies. We see a fly (the problem) and swat it. But we don’t get to the source of the flies … what is attracting them and what the cause is in the first place.
In many businesses, problem solving takes a similar approach. We solve the problems as we find them, but we don’t know if we are working on the right problem, or the biggest problem with our limited resources.
That becomes increasingly important in these tough economic times. When everyone is tightening their belts, how do I make sure my limited resources are focused on the biggest problems in the organization?
Using 5-why is not enough. The 5-why process is most effective when it is used in combination with “therefore” and “so that”. If that sounds confusing, its because we lost the art of asking “why” when we grew up. As 4 year olds, we did not accept an irrelevant answer. So lets re-learn the key to making this work.
Think of problem solving as the branches of a tree (or the file structure in your computer).
5-why is useful in identifying potential causes of the problem. The “why” opens up more branches of the tree. This gives us many more potential avenues to pursue.
Using “therefore” moves us closer to the trunk. If the answer opened by the “why” question can not be returned by a “therefore” test, the answer to the why is not relevant. For example, if we follow the line of questioning that Kent Blumberg used on his blog post:
The “why” process takes us DOWN the chain
The gas bill is high, Why
The gas consumption is high, Why?
We turned up the thermostat, Why?
We shiver if it is set lower, Why
We are wearing shorts
The “therefore” process takes us UP the chain
We are wearing shorts, therefore
We are shivering, therefore
We turned up the thermostat, therefore
The gas consumption was high, therefore
The gas bill is high
By validating the “why” answers with a “therefore” statement we ensure the path remains relevant and we are on track. This process will help eliminate the shallow responses.
Now that we have validated the “why’s” with “therefore’s” we need to ask “so that”. The “so that” statement relates how effective our solution is to our goal.
We are not wearing shorts “so that” the gas bill is not high.
Our solution of “not wearing shorts” to meet our goal of “lowering the gas bill” may not be the most effective. Perhaps we could have had a better answer when we asked why the gas consumption was high.
By combining the “why” analysis with “therefore” checking and “so that” validation we have an effective tool to get to the right problem and the right solution.
How did problem solving become so complicated? It seemed so much simpler when we were 4 year olds.
Norm
www.normanbain.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
