My yearly Hansei[1]

Reflecting on 2019 business interventions… lessons learnt last year

Dogmatic attitudes or a common sense approach towards improvement?

2019 was a wonderful year, to say the least. Continuing to work with previous clients in fresh projects or getting to work with new clients always brings no less than these two great benefits: getting to profoundly know people and challenging beliefs (mine and theirs) to unleash a crusade for improvement. So, even in the worst case scenario, things would have turned out great… and they did! Hence, let’s comment on the knowledge gathered through such experiences that I’ve sought to arrange intelligibly via my Hansei, for I consider it might turn profitable for all, most certainly for me.

The first issue that has come to my attention is how polarized the world has become. One would have thought that in the dawn of the 21st century civilization should have evolved to a place of better understanding, particularly the acceptance of alternative points of view from fellow humans. Politics, of course, is a highly notorious scenario where one might score as “strongly deficient”, an astonishing red indicator on performance, as very few countries around the world would meet the minimum acceptable mark. But of course, that would be a totally different paper, surely not written by myself; let’s leave it to someone else then. For our matter, the Operational Excellence world has not been a stranger to dogmas. It doesn’t cease to surprise me how entangled we are in excluding alternative perspectives while being baptized in another… once someone enquired me on which sect I belonged to, referring to LEAN or any other! Perhaps the only conceptual merger I find available these days is LEAN[2] SIX SIGMA[3] – LSS, maybe because they are the old guys and have been out there for a while now, but this not always being the case though. A completely different picture arises when more contemporary frameworks and models are taken into consideration: newcomers such as AGILE, SCRUM, DESIGN THINKING, AUTOMATION, DIGITALIZATION, DEVOPS, SCALING UP, CYNEFIN, or even some oldies like DEMING’s SoPK, BALANCED SCORECARD, BUSINESS AND VALUE PROPOSITION CANVAS, and so on… what an array of concepts that we can’t discern on how to use! And are they really exclusionary? Thus, when diving in a transformation project, vicars quickly appear only to establish virtually religious positions that separate people in bands worshiping a particular model, excluding alternative options, and preventing the organization from learning and profiting by establishing cross-pollinating environments. Perhaps this is the endemic “silo focus” yet again, but now surfacing in charming modern ways, just a current version of functional, top down, command and control management. Very human, but namely inconvenient.

I must say, though, as I am an optimist myself, this extremist world we are living in is just a slight step back to gain momentum, that is, a shy backward pendular movement preceding  a better forward progression of mankind. And so it seems, knowledge works in these mysterious ways. We learn through experimentation. When ideas don’t work we discard them and move on, when they do work we adopt them and move on. Dogmatism, in any case, is forever temporary and common sense will always prevail… what a statement and such a relief! For us, the fauna of the Operational Excellence jungle, we will certainly learn to cope with novel ideas, blending them with the former, expanding our systems for improvement… Kaizen[4], Kaikaku[5] and Kakushin[6] within cognizance.

Philosophy, framework or tool?

Another academic-ish debate happening occasionally is whether one method or another may be categorized as the title suggests, and in doing so, perhaps the underlying argument refers to the relevance that a particular person tries to establish for the specific approach that he or she is proposing. Again, my standpoint is quite in the middle: if what one pursues is improvement it really makes no difference. Depending on the circumstance that is faced, any philosophy, framework and/or tool that complements the one in use is more than welcome.

No matter the reason bringing it to the table, this debate has led me to reflect about the categories in, what I consider, a more practical – useful if you will, way. Let’s take LEAN as an example. In what realm would you classify it, and for what purpose? Is LEAN philosophy, is it framework or is it a set of tools? In my opinion it belongs in all three categories. Allow me to elaborate:

As a philosophy LEAN implies, first and foremost, a way of thinking. I believe the lack of such recognition is in fact the root cause of many sterile LEAN improvement attempts. As I mentioned in a recent article[7], negative resilience, or the possibility of returning to the previous situation, is an omni present anti-improvement risk. Trying to change a process using methods and/or tools only, without updating stakeholders’ mindsets (willingly) is almost hopeless. Yet, it’s the most common formula being used nowadays. Cynefin Framework[8] might argue that one is trying to apply Obvious Context tools – so called best practices – to defy Complex Context situations. To me, the evidence of misuse – or no use at all – of LEAN philosophical pillars such as Respect for People, Hansei or Kaizen is overwhelming. Let’s take Respect for People for instance. Again and again I see this notion misrepresented and applied with a pyramidal focus: mainly people acting politely or never confronting superiors’ indications. Whether it is out of courtesy or fear, both fall as distortions of respect, indeed. In a LEAN environment this behavior is severely detrimental. Not that one should be unpolite with bosses, this would be unwise of course, but to surface problems despite hierarchy in order to solve them implies an atmosphere of trust. Respect for people, in my opinion, is an essential philosophical trait established by managers leading every worker to speak up freely due to an appreciation of his or her intelligence and value. No wonder one of the most impactful Muda[9] out there is workforce’s brainpower misuse or neglect.

How about a Framework? In fact, why use LEAN, or for what matters, any other approach? Is it because it’s compulsory? Is it because you just are of its acquaintance? Is it because suddenly it is in fashion again[10]? The real importance remains in mastering the basic concept: continuous flow of customer value-added work, this of course being the topic of another article to be written. In the meanwhile you can seek thousands of documents, written or in video, available on this topic. Having clarity of purpose while selecting an approach is fundamental, of course, otherwise you would fall victim of a one-size-fits-all mentality, or as commonly referred to in the tool category: once you learn to use a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. On the other hand, I suggest to pause and not rush. Everybody wishes to improve… fast! But to do so, the day to day condition of the process in hand must be held steady; most definitely, there will be no reliable progress without establishing a solid ground. Stabilize whatever seems out of control, then standardize the newly acquired stability until turning outputs predictable. Only then begin the continuous improvement journey or even aspire for relevant leaps of innovation.

As mentioned before, LEAN as a set of tools is the most used tactic. Roadmaps that indicate a step by step formula exist. Imaginably it is because this idea is easier to sell and to buy, easier to explain and to understand; and yes, it is a means to achieving some fast results, some call them low hanging fruits. This way a LEAN Project can be appointed with a ROI[11] and payback, therefore approved and funded. Such recipe is a collection of tools applied in a specific sequence. People learn tools they then apply with success, and by doing so they become hammers, turning problems into nails. The issue here is not whether it is good to learn problem solving techniques for it is evident that such a skill is worth having. To avoid the trap demands you understand that when employing any artifact – what you are using, what matters is philosophy – why you are using it, and framework – how you must do so, instead of sticking obsessively to gadgets and tool’s mechanics. 

I must finally say, regarding this last part of my Hansei, my intention is merely to suggest that it could be wiser keeping a holistic posture when it comes to LEAN adoption. To grasp the diverse depths of its missive will multiply results on your efforts, or put another way, to pursue LEAN in your organization using LEAN principles is to dodge wasteful thinking while doing so.

[1] Japanese word meaning reflection, which turns out to be a LEAN philosophical essential. That is, to retrospectively evaluate your path in a consistent manner is a cornerstone for Kaizen (changing for the better).

[2] Occidental term for the Toyota Production System – TPS, now trying to be renamed as Toyota Thinking Process as it is much more than a production system today.

[3] Quality improvement method born in Motorola but made famous worldwide by the Jack Welch’s General Electric administration, even deserving a whole chapter in the “Winning” book he wrote.

[4] Japanese word meaning changing for the better.

[5] Japanese word meaning massive transformation.

[6] Japanese word meaning breakthrough innovation.

[7] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/avoiding-negative-resilience-ensuring-lean-alfredo-solarte-angulo/

[8] https://cognitive-edge.com/videos/cynefin-framework-introduction/

[9] Japanese word that typifies non value added work in eight categories of waste (see TIM WOODS).

[10] How about the great amount of recent LEAN spinoffs? LEAN Startup, LEAN UX, LEAN Office, LEAN Logistics, LEAN Product Design…

[11] Return on investment.