The third requirement to begin any initiative is the presence of talented problem solv- ers. First, let’s make sure we are on the same wavelength here. Just what is a problem?
For this, I rely on the problem-solving methodology popularized by Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe (KT Methodology) in their book, The New Rational Manager (Princeton
P
oint of Clarity Great lead- ership will move us into and through the needed pain so we might change and improve.Sometimes the leadership technique used is one of nur- turance; other times it is sim- ply force.
Research Press, 1981). They define a problem as, “the difference between what is and what should be.” Furthermore, they break down what most of us call problems into three types of concerns. These three concerns are problems, decisions, and potential problems. It is great reading and I recommend it to all. And by all, I mean all, not just those interested in Lean.
Back to problems for a moment… Once a leader develops his plan, he has just created a whole series of problems.
Just how has he done that? As soon as he creates goals, he now has created a new “should be.” For example, if OEE is 60 percent and the goal is to achieve 85 percent, the OEE “should be” 85 percent—
et voilà!—the manager has created a problem for someone else.
In a Lean plant, problems can be broken down into three categories. We will have problems when we have:
1. No standard
2. A standard that is not met 3. A standard that is not ideal
Problems of type 1 and 3 fall generally within the province of management to solve or resolve. The most typical problem is type 2 and these problems need to be solved by everyone. Such problems include the typical customer complaint, the production demand that is not met, the quality standard that is not achieved, and the delivery date not met. In addition, type 2 problems include internal problems such as OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) not achieved or cycle time degradation. Early in the Lean initiative, it must be made clear that everyone is responsible to solve problems. It is the challenge of management to engage everyone in problem-solving activities. As the ini- tiative develops, it can be determined how this is approached. For example, some have used small group activities such as quality circles with great success. At a minimum, all employees should be taught the “5 Whys.”
It is not this large group of problem solvers that is most crucial to the initial phases of a Lean initiative. Most crucial is a small cadre of very talented problem solvers. Even in a facility of 500 people, only three or four are usually required. Many problems, espe- cially in the early days of implementation, are easily solved by a wide range of person- nel, including group leaders, production supervisors, technicians, and of course engineers. However, some problems will crop up that require more technical skills than the typical group leader, production supervisor, or technician will have. In addition, some of these problems require significant dedicated time to do the data gathering and analysis. Many production workers, even if they have the skill to solve these problems do not have the block of time so they can do the necessary data acquisition, reduction, and analysis. These three or four talented problem solvers should be versed in plant operation, as well as a wide range of problem-solving techniques.
There is yet another issue with problem solving that is not well understood by many—that is, the process of standardization is just another name for the process of problem solving. So those who are good at problem solving are also good at standard- ization. The opposite is also true: Those who are weak at problem solving will be weak
P
oint of Clarity A key role of a good leader is to create problems where no problems previously existed.at standardization. In this book, the emphasis on standardization and the emphasis on reduction of variation of all forms is repeated over and over. It is a hallmark of Lean manufacturing to have standardized processes, and there is no substitute for it. So our problem solvers are now doing double duty. First they are fixing problems—and now you learn that the same skills are required to execute the techniques of standardization.
This concept is developed more fully in Appendix A at the end of this chapter. Right now, though, let’s discuss the skills needed by this cadre of problem solvers.
The first and most important technique is logical problem solving. I know of no technique superior to the Kepner-Tregoe (KT) Methodology. These skills can be acquired by attending a training session taught by Kepner-Tregoe—this is really the very best training investment you can make. If for some illogical reason this is not in the cards, pick up their book, The New Rational Manager (Princeton Research Press, 1981) and teach yourself. KT also has a less intensive program named “Analytical Trouble Shooting,”
which is also excellent. Several years ago you could have taken a class at the Ford Train- ing Center entitled, “TOPS: An Acronym for Team-Oriented Problem Solving.” In the class, you learned the KT Methodology as part of completing Ford’s 8D. However, when the Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) was formed and methods in the auto industry became standardized, the TOPS program disappeared. This was a large oversight and should be corrected. In my experience, the KT Methodology has been proven to have the broadest applications and the highest success rate of problem solu- tion. It does have one weakness, though: a scarcity of statistical techniques to assist in the quantification of variation and in statistical decision making.
This is where the Six Sigma statistical problem-solving techniques are so powerful.
Actually, even though we say Six Sigma is a problem-solving methodology, it lacks many of the powerful logical tools inherent in the KT Methodology. Instead, it relies on the simple DMAIC methodology (define, measure, analyze, improve, and control). The Six Sigma tools are extremely powerful when making statistical decisions and in under- standing, mathematically, the risks involved. These Six Sigma tools include statistical and decision-making skills such as multivariate analysis, hypothesis testing for both variation and averages, correlation and regression plus SPC (Statistical Process Con- trol), MSA (Measurement System Analysis), DOE (Designs of Experiments), and Response Surface Analysis. Even if you do not have any Six Sigma Blackbelts, someone should be well-versed in DOE. It is not very time consuming to acquire the basics of DOE, and the applications abound in most manufacturing plants. Those trained in Six Sigma skills are much like the “Deming Statisticians” which are often talked about. For a good description of that group, refer to Out of the Crisis (MIT, CAES, 1982), specifically Chap. 16, by W. Edwards Deming.
A much overlooked set of skills are those required for group facilitation. These skills are not only helpful with groups, they are helpful any time a problem solver must interact with another person on any problem, such as getting information from the line workers. So these skills are very powerful in making a problem solver more efficient and effective. There are various places to acquire this training, and there is even a touch of it in Six Sigma training. However, I recommend you send those people who need these skills to the training as is provided by Oreil Incorporated, (formerly Joiner Associates). Alternatively, buy The Team Handbook (Joiner Associates, 1988) by Peter Scholtes and teach yourself.
Finally, especially if you are in the discrete parts industry, especially electronics, I have found the so-called Shainin tools to be valuable. They have been published in a
book by Keki Bhote entitled World Class Quality (AMA, 1988). If you want to pick up this book, do an out-of-print search and try to find the first edition if possible. It’s superior to later editions and usually less expensive, as well.
Which trainings to do first? The following three are a must!
• Kepner-Tregoe problem solving (clearly the #1 choice)
• Statistical problem solving (such as Six Sigma or at least DOE) is a must
• Group facilitation training
It would be good if one or more of your group of problem solvers was an accom- plished Six Sigma Blackbelt, and if one or more had strong group facilitation skills and were skilled and experienced enough to do a facilitated “spin-around” on a broad vari- ety of problems (described in the accompanying sidebar).
Brainstorming Rules, the Facilitated Spin-Around
The facilitated spin-around is a very powerful way to gather information and resolve several types of problems. For many data-driven, on-the-line production problems, this is not a good technique, however. First, it is normally not needed, second, it simply takes too long. It is good for issues with “soft data,” such as opinions and for decisions that are emotionally charged, such as “should we require all employees to wear a uniform?” It is a technique that will reach very good decisions, but more importantly, because of the process itself, the members will have a strong commitment to implementing the group decisions. The facilitated spin-around is often required to reach consensus. It is critical that your organization be able to use these techniques and have facilitators capable of leading these groups. The technique goes like this:
1. The facilitator introduces:
a. Himself
b. The topic very briefly c. The objectives of the group d. The agenda
e. The planned timeframe for this meeting
2. If meeting ground rules need to be discussed (such as cell phone use, bathroom breaks, and so on), this is done at the beginning.
3. The facilitator reminds them of the brainstorming rules, which are:
a. One item per person per turn.
b. Each person in turn (hence “spin-around” the room).
c. The documenting and posting of each item is done on flipcharts.
(I recommend you use flipcharts. They are much more personal than using a computer projected onto a wall.)
In addition, this small cadre must be available whenever the plant is running. Generally, this entire group is not readily available, but it needs to be man- aged in such a way that at least one of these problem solvers is readily available.
Problem solvers who have requisite skills to solve problems are rare indeed. They must be able to:
1. Readily grasp a situation.
2. Turn it into a meaningful problem statement.
3. Know how to gather and sort through the data.
4. Analyze the situation, including doing a statistical review.
5. Utilize root cause problem analysis.
6. Create a list of possible solutions.
7. Sort through the options, comparing the options to the needs of the business, and weighing the risks of each solution.
8. Decide which one is the best solution.
9. Use project management skills to turn this solution into action plans.
10. Show the leadership to implement those plans, turning them into improved performance for the facility.
It takes an awesome complement of skills to be an accomplished problem solver.
Most managers believe the scarcity of good problem solvers is solely a result of not d. When an item is stated, no value judgments by others are allowed (at this
stage). No agreement and no disagreement is permitted. All items are taken at face value.
e. Discussion can proceed on any item, but only “to the point of under- standing.” Once it is understood, discussion ceases.
f. No other talking or work of any nature is allowed; no side discussions are permitted. If there is a question, it must be directed to the group. This requires a great deal of both attention and patience, not to mention respect for the people and the process.
g. No piggy-backing or modifying of any item is permitted without the author’s agreement.
h. Pass if you do not have an idea on this turn.
i. Spin-around the room until all items are exhausted and documented.
4. The session then proceeds when the facilitator documents the first item and the spin-around continues.
The preceding procedure requires good facilitation, which is a topic in itself, but is unfortunately outside the scope of this book. I recommend you refer to The Team Handbook by Peter Scholtes, ( Joiner Associates, 1988) for further information.
P
oint of Clarity We will have a JIT plant, and thus we will need JIT problem solving.having the necessary skills—by that, they mean the technical skills; and by implication they believe that all of the requisite skills can be taught. These managers then believe that all that is required is to train these people in the necessary technical skills.
Our experience does not support this logic. While it is true that few people have the technical skill inventory listed earlier, there are some who have the requisite technical skills yet are not effective problem solvers because they lack other requisite traits. So what are these other traits that are required?
First, we must define some methodology to solve problems. Various ones exist, but they all take the form of:
1. Some observation/evaluation occurs and it triggers the thought that “we have a problem.” Someone then defines the problem.
2. Observations about the problem area must be made.
3. Evaluations must find the cause of the problem.
4. Solutions must be imagined, created, and compared to values.
5. Decisions are made.
6. The decisions are turned into action plans.
Second, let me say a word about individual personality development. C.G. Jung developed a theory of personality that is widely accepted today. In short, he said there were two major aspects of how we incorporate and handle information (see Fig. 6-1, Personality Types diagram).
1. The first aspect was the “Observing Scale.” This is the way in which individuals accept information. It is done by “sensing it,” by touch, feel, smell, and so on.
We call these people “sensates.” Or this information can come in via the process of “intuition.” This is characterized by such things as “my gut feeling” or “I just sensed that…” Although to most people intuition is a lesser form of accepting information, its value cannot be underestimated, especially in problem solving.
Thinking
Sensation Intuition
Observing scale Evaluating
scale
Feeling Personality Types
FIGURE 6-1 Jung’s scales for personality types.
The twin sister to intuition is imagination, which you will find is incredibly important in problem solving, as is intuition itself.
2. The second aspect in Jung’s personality model is the “Evaluating Scale.” This evaluation gives meaning to the observations obtained. It has two extremes.
One is “thinking” and the other is called “feeling”—although empathy may be a better English word. Pure thinkers make evaluations based on logic and cold hard data. While those with a strong “feeling” function will make decisions based on what we call human values, such as community, human-worth, and quality-of-life to name a few. As you might expect, most businesses are filled with “Thinking-Sensate” personality types. If we plotted them on the scales in Fig. 6-1, the thinking-sensates would be in the upper left-hand quadrant.
The dynamics of personality development are such that at a very early age people start to use a certain type of observation technique and evaluation format. Then, when they find one that works for them, they work to refine it so life is better for them. This process of personality development is almost entirely unconscious, but it is still easily characterized, even at a very early age. It is a dynamic of personality development, that as one end of the observing pole tends to work, for you, then the other end of the scale becomes subordinated. Hence, people tend to become sensates at the expense of the skill of intuition, and one type of information gathering dominates your personality.
Sensing becomes the conscious way to accept information, and intuition is driven into the unconscious. It will remain there until something occurs to cause it to surface. Most people will develop a dominant way to accept information and to evaluate. This then becomes their personality type. For example, one could be a “thinking-sensate” or a
“feeling-sensate,” to name just two. Most people do not develop—at least until they are older—more than two of these dimensions.
Now here is the rub. Once a person develops a personality style, they use it and refine it. In fact, they can become very rigid and structured. In some aspects of life, this rigidity of personality will serve them well, but in time the very nature of life will expose us to different challenges, and this rigidity will harm their ability to resolve some of life’s issues. For example, early in life a young man can be a very rigid “thinking- sensate.” Then this fellow gets married and finds that this cold, hard, rational thinking does not work so well with his wife and kids and he needs to adjust.
This dynamic is one reason why there are few really good problem solvers in our busi- ness who are also young. More on that later.
So how does this fit with problem solving? Unlike many aspects of work, while solv- ing problems a person must have both strong sensing skills to make objective observa- tions, but they also must have intuitive skills (maybe a better term would be “imagination skills”) to foresee what could possibly happen, even if it is not currently happening. This is a crucial aspect of the observing process that must occur in problem solving. If a per- son lacks this intuitive skill (imagining), he can only envision what is occurring at that moment in time, and so if the problem just happens to manifest itself in the present con- text, he will see it—otherwise, he will be hampered by some level of blindness. At the level of quality demanded by most companies, it is very rare that we actually see the problem when it occurs, hence those who do not have this intuitive skill are hampered
“A
t 20 years of age the will reigns, at 30 the wit, at 40 the judgment…Benjamin Franklin”
as problem solvers. This intuitive skill is not only needed at the observing stage but is certainly needed in the “creating possible solutions” aspect of problem resolution.
In short, what happens is this. When needed, most businesses hire individuals with a strong “thinking-sensate” personality type. Since they are strong sensates, they are usually deficient in intuition—this is natural, predictable, and largely unavoidable.
Unfortunately, when it comes time to solve a serious problem and intuitive skills are needed, the workforce is, alas, weak in this area. So the company, with the best of inten- tions tries to teach problem solving. Much of the methodology can be taught, but the intuitive skills can’t really be acquired in the classroom. So in the end, real problem- solving skill development proceeds slowly. Since most companies think problem solv- ing can be taught, they are disappointed and usually shrug their shoulders. In fact, the truth is that some problem-solving skills can be taught in the classroom, but for those
“thinking-sensates” the intuitive skills of observation and solution conception are largely taught by life. Sometimes that means just enduring more of life’s experiences to broaden your personality—or in other words, it’s a part of getting older, and wiser.
Hence, my point is that few people have the total complement of skills to be really good problem solvers. Some of the skills can be taught in the classroom, but some skills come to work with the person’s personality and are largely unteachable.
This polarization of skills within an individual has given rise to the concept of group problem solving. Given a group as small as five or six individuals, frequently we will have all four of the personality traits present in one or more of the people. What then happens is that those who are strong “sensates” are very active in the problem defini- tion stage, but may be less involved in the highly intuitive stage of imagining possible solutions. On the other hand, a person with a strong intuitive tendency could assist in the step of creating possible solutions yet be less involved in the problem definition stage. With a small group, it’s very possible to get all four of the poles adequately rep- resented. Now, if the group also has the technical knowledge, it is likely a good problem solving effort will be achieved.
I have taught groups and done controlled experiments with groups and find them to be very effective in finding superior solutions to many problems. But as with so much of life, if you get something good, it often comes with some baggage. And the group, when used for problem solving, does have some baggage—a situation that is threefold, at least.
• First, to be successful the group must be well facilitated; hence, yet another skill is required, that of facilitation, a scarcity in its own right.
• Second, although the process is thorough, it is not fast. Groups need to form and develop. Then there is the whole issue of meetings. Solutions tend to be weeks or even months away. This is anything but JIT problem solving.
• Third, often the issues in Lean implementation have to do with very technical issues, so the group may not have the requisite technical knowledge. Where intimate technical knowledge is an issue, one well-informed person working alone is always more efficient and usually far more effective.
We have a great deal of information on group problem solving, group management, and group dynamics, and what we find is that these skills are not the most important ones to work on during the early stages of a Lean initiative. Typical problems are usu- ally more Lean-specific, and the answers are needed quickly. These characteristics of a problem generally mean they are better solved by an individual.