Everyone Loves Legos
Training needs to be easily consumed by students.
People were running and screaming.?LEGOS? were literally being flung around. People were getting hit. My group was furiously scribbling on pieces of paper. Obscenities that would make a sailor blush were betting uttered. Overall, the room was a bizarre Three Stooges parody.?
It was the inaugural lean training class for a global manufacturer.
Simulations have long been used in training quality.?Deming was quite fond of hands-on exercises. His Red Bead and his Funnel Experiments are two of the earliest and best-known simulations.?General Electrics was known for using a small catapult in their Six Sigma training. Many companies use the paper airplane simulation. And anyone that’s been in Process Improvement has seen some version of the LEGOS? game.?
The game is always the same. There are instructions on how the students/workers are to assemble certain LEGOS? in specific steps, then figure out how to improve things.?It’s perhaps the most widespread type of training out there.?It’s relatively inexpensive, easily scaled up or down for various class sizes, and everyone loves LEGOS?. When the manufacturing company I was at announced they were using LEGO? in their new training program, it was not a surprise.
All the key Operational Excellence Folks from around the globe were invited to Corporate Headquarters to be part of the first class. We would be the beta test of the class. Little did we know the only redeeming value would be the nightly happy hour that was part of the schedule.
The exercise was as expected; most students would be “assembly workers” that would “manufacture” a product from LEGOS? (quick side note: I’m using the word LEGOS? but the company went cheap and used an off-brand of plastic building blocks which did not always fit, adding to the frustration in the class).?In addition to the “workers,” there were people running “logistics” (running stuff around) and “managers” (bossing various folks around). Then they had added, “customers” (placing orders) and an “admin section” (taking orders from customers and relaying them to managers who set the production schedules).?The additional roles made the scenario a bit more complex than other simulations I’ve seen in the past. The class was close to 40 people, and we still did not have enough.?Some students had to double up on roles. It took the class close to an hour to figure out who needed to be what.?Not a great start to an event that was to be half a day long.
In addition to playing that game, we, the students, were expected to learn how to run the simulation. We would be responsible for delivering the training when we got back to our factories. But as we were all engaged in the game, we could not facilitate it as well. The Corporate team that created the game were the trainers.
The game was a cross between a demented Dungeons & Dragons and a variety of family reunion picnic games like three-legged races.?It started with the customers rolling 20-sided dice to determine order quantity.?As the orders were processed, more orders came in (at random intervals determined by a 12-sided die), and manufacturing began.?Only one item was “manufactured.”?But to teach students about waste from defects, they included variation in the assembly instructions, so that the two assembly lines produced two different products.?They are pictured below. Can you spot the difference?
?It’s not easy to see. It’s a small piece buried in the center.?The model on the left has a green centerpiece and is how the product is supposed to be.?On the right, it’s red and considered a defect.
?The inspectors struggled to catch defects. Even the customers didn’t catch them all.?There was no accurate tally of defects and rework. I was on the admin team trying to track defects, but we were already over our heads. We had to keep up with processing orders and tracking shipments and could not handle defect data coming from the inspectors. Like other simulations the game was set up to have a lot of problems, so that the students could then fix them and learn the value of process improvement. But there was ?problem that I’d never seen in any other simulation.?
The corporate trainers wanted to showcase the importance of managers leading change.?So, in the simulation the various department mangers were the ones who gathered and brainstormed improvement ideas.?They didn’t include the front-line workers.?We got to go on break as the leaders decided how to improve things.?Upon our return, we were given an assortment of instructions.?Some managers gave detailed directions on what to do. Other managers felt it was good for the teams to be empowered, and they basically told them to feel free to implement their own ideas (despite not being given time to develop them).?You might see where this is going…
The logistics team decided to be innovative and began using “Air Freight” in moving parts …basically they were throwing pieces across the room (I can’t make this up!).
The production team was ordered to have one of their workers help with the delivery of finished goods.?This shifted the workload of other workers and slowed production.?
One person on the admin team got the idea of shouting order requests to the production line to save time, asking the customers to confirm the order as it was being shouted (that didn’t work so well).?Another person on the admin team got fed up with the multiple inputs of information and began using a few choice words to express her displeasure.?Our simulated society collapsed into a corporate version of Mad Max.
It took close to three hours for us to complete 2 rounds, and we called it quits.?The first hour was spent trying to determine roles, figuring out the rules, and setting up the room.?The folks who developed the training had done a test run of the simulation and had expected it to last about 4 hours with the students completing 4 to 5 rounds.?I found out later when they ran their test, they couldn’t round up enough people to play, so they did more of a “walk-through” with the folks who’d been helping develop the simulation.?Seeing how it played with an actual class, they went back to the drawing board.?Since they’d already announced the training would be rolling out in two weeks, they had limited time.
The Corporate team started by scaling down the game.?They had fewer roles to accommodate smaller classes.??The rules were simplified to make it easier for the students to understand and play.?Despite our pleas, they kept the hidden green piece as a defect and the 20 and 12-sided dice. Even with the off-brand LEGO? a game kit cost about $100.?Twenty-six kits were created and shipped to facilities, all without having run another test class. They claimed there wasn’t enough time.
We played the game once at my site.?Even with reduced roles and simplified rules, the students struggled to understand what was supposed to happen.?The gameplay was still too complicated.
领英推荐
As this was my first time observing the class, I noticed something else. The students were overwhelmed in simulations: they had to dig to find defects, the ordering process was all-consuming, and production was at breakneck speed.?Nobody had time to learn what.?Debriefing students after class, we found they did not feel they got anything worthwhile from the training, they felt overwhelmed.?That’s when we decided not to use it again.
From others around the company, I heard similar stories.?They ran the game once or twice and stopped.?Many sites lost their game pieces: ?special dice or building pieces disappeared.?Replacements could not be found because they weren’t LEGOS?. After 6 months, nobody was running the game. But that didn’t mean there wasn’t learning that took place.
Personally, I learned a lot:
These points, and more, formed my presentation, Improving Training for Process Improvement, at a conference for the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI).?After my session, I was bombarded with stories about training as bad as the story I just shared.?It seems not to be an unusual issue.
In the world of Process Improvement, if we are not facilitating events, we’re training others.?We need to take the time to develop and deliver world-class training for your folks.
PostScript:
If you go searching for Process Improvement training, you can get overwhelmed with everything out there.?To get into how to find what’s right for you would fill a book.?The advice I can offer is to narrow your search by considering your training objectives, target students, industry, time, and cost.?These parameters can help you focus on what type of training or simulations might be good for you.?
Here are some links for more information about items mentioned in this week’s blog:
Deming’s Red Bead Experiment
Deming’s Funnel Experiment
The Thiagi group: Improving performance playfully.
My aim is to mentor emerging Quality Specialists through my online product quality training. Watch my free video at (d8tadr.com.au).
1 年Completely agree with your message Craig Plain. Luckily all LEGO simulations weren't created equally. I've taken and delivered this type of training many times. My advice to others would be similar to yours.. to read carefully and choose wisely. There are some great LEGO simulation experiential learning tools out there. Buy one with good reviews and test it yourself many times before delivery. In addition when I use to run such training I always handed out a feedback form at the end to make sure the training hit the mark. Great post as always Craig.