Lean, Six Sigma and TOC comparison (2)

Lean, Six Sigma and TOC comparison (2)


Dave Nave published an interesting article “How to compare lean, six sigma and Toc”, “Quality Progress, 03/2002”. Ten years ago, this article pointed the importance to focus on the “primary and secondary effects” of the philosophies of methods. Don’t you think that the major obstacles to improvement can effectively be addressed using System Thinking (management theory, formal and informal policies, measurements systems, rewards, values,…) ?

ST will guide you to understand what to improve and for which purpose. Lean or Six Sigma guide us to improve the system and the processes the right way in function of the context and the problem to solve.

http://karlin.sdsmt.edu/OpStrat/Supplementary_Material/Six%20Sigma%20Lean%20and%20TOC.pdf

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comparaison du Lean, du Six Sigma et de la Théorie des Contraintes (2)

Dave Nave a publié un article intéressant sur le sujet " How to compare lean, six sigma and Toc”, “Quality Progress, 03/2002”. Il y a déjà dix ans, cet article insistait sur l'importance de se concentrer sur les «effets primaires et secondaires» des philosophies des méthodes. Il énumérait certains des obstacles majeurs à l'amélioration de la performance. Ne pensez-vous pas que ces obstacles peuvent efficacement être abordés à travers une approche systémique (la théorie de management, les politiques, les procédures formelles et informelles, les systèmes de mesure, les systèmes d’évaluations et de récompenses, les valeurs, ...) ?

La systémique nous guide pour comprendre ce qu'il faut améliorer et dans quel but. Le Lean ou le Six Sigma peut nous guider pour améliorer de la bonne manière notre système et nos processus en fonction du contexte et du problème à solutionner.

http://karlin.sdsmt.edu/OpStrat/Supplementary_Material/Six%20Sigma%20Lean%20and%20TOC.pdf

When MBA introduces System Thinking - La pensée systémique en MBA

MBA introduces System Thinking - La pensée Systémique en MBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbjK8pgLzc0

....

The cost of Fear - Le coût de la Peur

Photos Libres

The cost of fear

We are all afraid. Fear is natural. Fear of failure. Fear of success.

For all leaders engaged in a transformation, to overcome his own fear is certainly the first step, not by eliminating fear but at least not allowing ourselves to be dominated by fear.

The goal is not to talk about this « Fear ».

For transforming an organization, one of the 14 points of EW Deming is " Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company”. Fear is not a motivator. It destroys innovation, creativity and trust.
The latest statistics related to the economic environment in Europe show that Europeans are afraid of losing their jobs. The transformational interventions amplify this fear by the association between transformation and productivity (efficiency). Fear of job loss by eliminating non-value added task, fear of not being able to overcome learning new skills, ... should be addressed in a transformational approach. To address these fears, it is important to understand and address them by creating a non-coercive approach that will enable employees and managers to understand and share the interest to change for the better.
The objective here is not to talk about this « Approach ».

The objective is to talk about this fear at the origin of non-quality and non-efficiency : the fear of being sanctioned, of being punished, of getting fired for not meeting a target.

Number of employees and managers develop a huge energy to survive . Just a few examples shared by friends :

- The IT developer who is impacted on its variable wage in case of bug fix following a new IT project. Now there are no bug anymore, but the duration and cost of project is multiplied by 2. Result?
- This administrative employee who is sanctioned to any operational error. The result, the number of error was reduced by nearly 100% thanks a hierarchical instruction. The definition of an error was reviewed ... but errors are still there. Result?
- The employee who ‘s working a huge part of the day to archive emails, to flood of emails to his colleagues, to await the approval of all to take actions .... Result?
- The administrative staff assessed and paid on its ability to accept a customer demand within two days. The SLA is met 100% but the number of requests for return of information has increased. A demand was considered as treated if it is approved, rejected or returned for added informations. The employee saw his bonus increased. More and more customers wait more than two days for the service. Result?
- The employee who works only on the easiest demand because he is evaluated on the number of demand per day. Employees who process more complicated demand are punished for their lack of productivity. Result?

The cost of fear is important. Act on it. It’s an essential step in our journey to continuous improvement.
Besides the negative impact on productivity and quality, it becomes impossible to do improvements for a sustainable transformation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le coût de la peur

Nous avons tous peur. La peur est naturelle. La peur d’échouer. La peur de réussir.

Pour tous leaders engagés dans une transformation, vaincre ses propres peurs est certainement la première étape avant de s’engager, non en les supprimant mais au moins en ne se laissant pas dominer par celles-ci.
L’objectif n’est pas de parler de cette peur.
Pour transformer durablement une organisation, un des 14 points d’EW Deming est « faire disparaître la peur afin que chacun puisse contribuer de manière effective au succès de l'entreprise ». La peur n’est pas le meilleur motivateur. Elle détruit l’innovation, la créativité et la confiance.

Les dernières statistiques liées à l’environnement économique en Europe montrent que les Européens ont peur de perdre leurs emplois. Les démarches transformationnelles amplifient encore cette peur par l’association entre transformation et productivité (efficience). La peur de perdre son emploi par l’élimination de tâche sans valeur ajoutée, la peur de ne pas être capable de surmonter l’apprentissage de nouvelles compétences pour répondre à la demande, …doivent être adressées dans une démarche transformationnelle. Pour adresser ces peurs, il est important de les comprendre et de les adresser en créant une démarche non coercitive qui permettra aux collaborateurs et managers de comprendre et partager progressivement l’intérêt et l’importance de changer.

L’objectif ici n’est pas de parler de cette approche.

L’objectif est de parler de la peur présente dans nos organisations à l’origine de non-qualité et de non-efficience : la peur d’être sanctionné, d’être puni, d’être viré pour ne pas avoir atteint un objectif fixé…

Cette peur est contre-productive. Nombre d’employés et managers développent une énergie colossale pour survivre dans l’entreprise. Juste quelques exemples qui m’ont été relatés par des amis, lorsque j’évoque ce sujet avec eux :

- Le développeur IT qui est impacté sur son salaire variable en cas de bug suite à la mise en place de nouveaux développements. Maintenant, il n’y a plus de bugs mais la durée et le coût de projet s’est multiplié par 2. Résultat ?

- Cet employé administratif qui est sanctionné à la moindre erreur opérationnelle. Le résultat, le nombre d’erreur reportée s’est réduit de près de 100% juste sur base d’une instruction hiérarchique. La définition d’une erreur a été revue…mais les erreurs sont toujours là. Résultat ?

- Cet employé qui occupe une grande partie de son temps à archiver des emails, à inonder d’emails ses collègues, à attendre l’accord de tous pour prendre une action… pour ne pas assumer seul. Résultat ?

- Cet employé administratif évalué et rémunéré sur sa capacité à traiter un dossier client dans les deux jours. Le SLA est respecté à 100% mais le nombre de retour pour demandes d’informations complémentaires vers les services commerciaux s’est multiplié car le dossier était considéré comme traité qu’il soit agréé, refusé ou renvoyé pour demande d’informations complémentaires. L’employé a vu sa prime augmenté. De plus en plus de clients attendent plus de deux jours. Résultat ?

- Cet employé qui systématiquement traite les dossiers les plus simples car il est évalué sur le nombre de dossiers traités. Les employés qui traitent les demandes au fil de l’eau et les dossiers compliquées sont sanctionnés pour leurs faibles taux de productivité. Résultat ?

Le coût de la peur est important. Agir sur les causes profondes à l’origine de ces peurs, est une étape nécessaire dans notre journée vers l’amélioration continue.

Outre l’impact négatif sur la productivité et la qualité, ces employés et managers sont gérés par la crainte rendant toute transformation, amélioration impossible….

Can we learn through comparison ? - Pouvons-nous apprendre en comparant ?

Can we learn through comparison ?

The number of transactions on your website is 45,000 for the month of May 2012. It’s 10.000 less than the month of April 2012. This comparison suggests that the situation is worse. But the situation in May 2012 is 7.500 better than the Month of May 2011 . This comparison suggests that things are better.

Both comparisons made above are correct, but neither of them can draw a conclusion. Today, this comparison is the most common: product sales, weather changes, ... We love to compare data from the situation of the past year, past month and past day. Can we learn through comparison?

Pouvons-nous apprendre en comparant ?
Le nombre de transaction sur votre site Internet est de 45.000 pour le mois de mai 2012 , c’est 10.000 moins bien que le mois d’avril 2012. Cette comparaison suggère que la situation va moins bien. Mais la situation de mai 2012 est 7.500 de mieux que pour le mois de mai 2011. Cette comparaison suggère que les choses vont mieux.

Les deux comparaisons effectuées ci-dessus sont correctes, mais aucune des deux ne nous permet de conclure. Cette comparaison est pourtant la plus fréquente : vente de produits, évolution météo, … Nous adorons comparer des données par rapport à la situation de l’année passée , au mois passé et au jour précédent. Que pouvons nous apprendre à travers cette comparaison ?

Source – Understanding Variation – DJ. Wheeler

 

Not all improvement is transformation

First, let’s define what I mean by transformation : A transformation is to create something sustainable, new and better in terms of effectiveness and efficiency ( “In contrast to efficiency, effectiveness is determined without reference to costs and, whereas efficiency means "doing the thing right," effectiveness means "doing the right thing.",
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/effectiveness.html ) for customers , stakeholders and the whole Organization.

But why improvements are not (always) transformational ? Below, a first reflection…about it.


1.Understanding statistical theory contributes to improvement of management of a system (http://lean-and-systemthinking.blogspot.com/2012/05/working-together-to-understand-measures.html). Recognizing a stable system, understanding common causes and special causes are allow us to understand variation between people , interactions and interactions between people and their System (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) Without understanding the difference between common causes and special causes, the probability is high to improve the wrong things and that things soon come back as they were. (source : Shewart, Wheeler, Deming) I’ve personally lived the experience one more time by focusing on individual or Departments rather than focusing on the whole System. Focusing on improving individual performance through Standard Operating Procedures and individual KPI, on improving Takt Time of a process, on setting up leveling box to manage priorities… lead me one more time to improve the wrong things. Without understanding common causes and special causes, few improvements are transformational. So, we’ve improved the wrong things to create something new but not better.

2.Each of us as individual has his own mental model. How is it possible to transform without challenging what we think and why we think. First, we have to be opened to transform the way we think…. How can we lead a transformation without being ready to learn new things? As individual (insider), a transformation comes necessarily through new questions helping us to understand what’s our Organization is doing and why we are doing what we’re doing. Improving without challenging what we think and why we think will most often lead to the same results than before. Why? Our assumptions about work and people drive the way we design our Organization (rules, incentives, system, appraisals,…). To transform we must not imagine to challenge only one time our way of thinking but we have to be conscious that we will have to continuously challenge our thinking. External questions (Patrick, Jean, Barry, Sarah, Ibby,…) have also contributed along my journey to learn…and continue to support my learning. Although with some, the exchange time was short, their questions have allowed me to discover by serendipity new answers and questions ....Most often those experts didn’t come with advices, solutions or plans but with questions. So, it’s really important to be clear about what you want when you select advice from outside (consultants, educators,…). On what method and on which assumptions do they based their work ? To start, I highly recommend “The leaders’ handbook, P. Scholtes” for any outsider or insider . If we improve things without challenging our thinking, we will not create something new , perhaps something better but for how long ?

  3.I highly recommend to read the book Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows, Edited by Diana Wright, sustainability institute. In chapter 6, D.H. Meadows gives with humility a list of places to intervene in a system (http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/pubs/Leverage_Points.pdf). See below a copy of the list of leverage points to intervene in a system in increasing order of effectiveness.
" •Constants, parameters, numbers (such as subsidies, taxes, standards)
• The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks, relative to their flows
•Structure of material stocks and flows (such as transport network, population age structures)
•Length of delays, relative to the rate of system changes 
•Strength of negative feedback loops, relative to the effect they are trying to correct against
•Gain around driving positive feedback loops
•Structure of information flow (who does and does not have access to what kinds of information)
•Rules of the system (such as incentives, punishment, constraints)
•Power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure
• Goal of the system
•Mindset or paradigm that the system — its goals, structure, rules, delays, parameters — arises from
• Power to transcend paradigms "

She claimed we need to know about these shifts, where they are and how to use them. Forrester (Thinking in Systems, A Primer, Donella H. Meadows) said most people know where these points are instinctively, but tend to adjust them in the wrong direction. DH. Meadows says also it’s a tentative of order (see conclusion) but the higher the leverage point , the more the system will resist changing it. So, effectiveness of improvements is linked with the place you intervene…It’s also another way to reply to the answer. We're not always creating something new through interventions in and on the system and not necessarily something better and sustainable.

4. See also E.W. Deming, Out of the crisis in order to gain understanding on SPK (to be developped in a further post). 


You've certainly other stories, other references or other ways to explain why only a few improvements are transformation. Please share your comments.