The Trap

My first encounter with the term “Fake Lean” happened some time now, reading the book Better Thinking Better Results by Bob Emiliani. Suddenly all started to make sense to me: so many companies professing they are pursuing Lean but very few examples of successful Lean transformations! - this means the great majority practice Fake Lean and just very few practice Real Lean. The great majority probably don’t even realize it, they just wonder why the expected results are not there … then move to the next “big thing” in the hopes to boost their performance. The main difficulty for this situation is how do you make the difference between a fake and an original, if you never experienced the original? How do you know you’re trapped in Fake Lean? Apart from books, one could think that the multitude of consultants in the field could help companies to correct their course. But do they? Or even worse, are they helping spread Fake Lean?

To better understand what Fake Lean is and how consultants help spread it, here’s the story of Joe, involved in a 2-hour kaizen led by [Big Name] consulting firm.

Here’s what Joe has to say about his experience:

·        “It was about an ever-problematic multidisciplinary process with 30% failures that we never succeeded to address because the stakeholders were never available to talk together”

·        “[Big Name] called it kaizen and succeeded to have all players at the table”

·        “[Big Name] interviewed some people before and did all the preliminary analysis including the problem statement”

·        “[Big Name] came up with “fill in the blanks” template for root cause analysis”

·        “We had breakouts for filling the blanks, but couldn’t finished in the time allotted”

·        “[Big Name] shut me off repeatedly when what I was saying didn’t fit their analysis, so I remained silent most of the time”

·        “We had breakouts for finding solutions for what was previously identified, but was incomplete again, for lack of time”

·        “There were two or three people doing all the talk from about fifteen participants”

·        “That’s how what [Big Name] called kaizen ended, thanking everybody and promising updates, which I didn’t hear after…”

If you are not convinced this is not a kaizen, please see the comments in this post.

It is easy for the ones exposed to Real Lean to see the gaps in the [Big Name]’s kaizen approach, but it’s not so obvious for the ones not exposed to it. For them, it might as well be a kaizen, because that was the name used by [Big Name]. Here’s some red flags that should trigger reflection:

·        Why the stakeholders were never available to talk together about the issue of 30% failures? How come [Big Name] could have all the players at the table?

·        Who decided 2 hours is enough to solve an ever-problematic multidisciplinary process with 30% failures?

·        [Big Name] doing the preliminary analysis from talks to few people – wasn’t the analysis biased? – where is the respect for people?

·        Using filling the blanks template to direct the thoughts of the participants – where is the respect for people?

·        Why [Big Name] deemed it’s ok to move on with incomplete analysis? Where does an incomplete analysis lead?

·        Why there was no more time allotted to complete the analysis? Why this push to finish in 2 hours?

·        Why [Big Name] was shutting off Joe repeatedly? Where is the respect for people?

·        Why the big majority of participants didn’t engage in the discussions? Why [Big Name] didn’t do anything about it? Where is the respect for people?

·        Why [Big Name] didn’t kept the promise to update everybody? Where is the respect for people?

·        What could possibly someone learn something in this environment?

Now let’s look at some unintended consequences of using the [Big Name] approach, in no particular order:

·        A 2-hour kaizen could become the company’s reference point and expectation for how to handle ever-present multidisciplinary problems – “[Big Name] showed us it’s possible”

·        Opens the door for [Big Name] returning because some progress was achieved – “look, [Big Name] got quick results”

·        Opens the door for [Big Name] returning because problems reappear – “we need help and [Big Name] delivers quick results”

·        Problems reappear after the dust settles due to incomplete root cause analysis, but [Big Name] has cashed in for a long time - no ROI, just loss…

·        Problems reappear after the dust settles due to lack of ownership once [Big Name] steps away, but [Big Name] has cashed in for a long time - no ROI, just loss…

·        When problems reappear, the company might dismiss kaizen – “kaizen doesn’t work here”

·        Not knowing how to do preliminary analysis or how to derive a problem statement from it, because it was all done by [Big Name]

·        “Fill in the blanks template” could be adopted by the company as a root cause analysis tool – “for the price we paid, better to use it” - without understanding how to do proper root cause analysis

·        Joe does his best not to be involved with kaizen anymore – “if I can’t speak up, what’s the point?”

·        Participants feel frustrated over lack of follow up – “we have no news; we just lost our time” - and are reluctant to participate in another kaizen “this is not going anywhere”

·        Some participants will modify their CV to mention participation in kaizen, which looks great on paper, but not so great when they must describe what was done

·        The company didn’t learn how to do kaizen but the word kaizen becomes part of the company’s language – “we just finished a kaizen”, “we did so many kaizens”, “next week I’ll be in a kaizen …. ”

These consequences tell the story of the propagation of Fake Lean by the way [Big Name] consulting company operates. They are highlighted in the red flags, where we can clearly see how the Respect for People principle is disregarded. Fake Lean is always related with disrespect for people.

I’ll let Bob conclude: “Fake Lean is the dehumanized form of Lean which does not deliver good business results. Nor does it result in the development of human capabilities. Is the technical application of Continuous Improvement tools and methods, invariably in a zero-sum fashion, without application of Respect for People principle. Real Lean is the application of both Continuous Improvement and Respect for People – the two Toyota Way principles — in a non-zero-sum fashion.”

Why is the situation described by Joe zero-sum? simply because [Big Name] wins and the company loses. [Big Name] gets the big bucks, the company gets the illusion of ROI along with demotivated employees.

When it comes to Real vs Fake Lean, it’s up to the company to distinguish between the two of them and make the right choice.

For more about Lean Transformations pitfalls, please visit: