Katacon Europe 2018

Many months ago I was approached by the European Katacon organizers to help setting up the 2018 conference. Katacon is about kata, the Toyota Kata revealed to the mass by Mike Rother in the book… Toyota Kata. It’s about patterns of thinking and behaviour to improve and solve problems.

I modestly offered my website, blogs and networks as sounding boards to the event, not able to do much more. Now time has come to advertise the coming event!

Katacon Europe 2018, where and when?

Amsterdam will be the location, more specifically B. Amsterdam, a creative work space bridging startups, creatives, and corporates. (http://b-buildingbusiness.com/amsterdam/)  located Johan Huizingalaan 763a, 1066 VH Amsterdam.

The date is April 18 & 19, 2018 with a preconference afternoon and a Kata geek meeting for early comers to network.

The program is detailed here: http://www.katacon2018.eu/day1.php

What’s offered to participants?

If you go through the program, you’ll see that DAY ONE, besides welcoming and opening speech has 4 mini keynotes on Improvement Kata, before participants spread into study visits or workshops of their choice. Everybody meets again for the networking diner at 19:00 (7 pm).

DAY TWO starts with plenary sessions: reflection from day one, Finding new ways to learn and a testimony about Toyota senseis’ mentoring and comparing Kata with a professional sports coach. By 11:00 it will be time to breakout into various sessions to select (chose twice 1 in 5)  and plenary sessions will resume from 15:30-17:00.

Registration: http://www.katacon2018.eu/registration.php

I hope you’ll find a lot of value and have fun!

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


30 elements of value, entrepreneur’s food for thoughts

What is value? What is a customer willing to pay? Since Lean Thinking and Lean principles are around, many organizations strive to bring more value to the customer. But apart from reducing costs what levers do they have to bring more value to theirs customers?

The article titled “The Elements of Value” published in the HBR september 2016 issue by Eric Almquist, John Senior and Nicolas Bloch, brings no less than 30 answers to these questions.

I strongly recommend to read the article. The online issue can be read here: https://hbr.org/2016/09/the-elements-of-value

In this post I summarize the very minimum about the 30 elements of value and share some of my thoughts about them.

30 elements of value

The authors, all three working for Bain & Company’s, have identified 30 “elements of value”, which are “fundamental attributes in their most essential and discrete forms”, that meet fundamental human needs. They classified these 30 elements into 4 categories stacked on a Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” inspired pyramid to organize the elements of value according to their relative “power”:

  • functional,
  • emotional,
  • life changing,
  • social impact.


Similarly to the popular assumption that (in Maslow’s model) people cannot attain the needs at the top until they have met the ones below, to be able to deliver on higher-order elements, a company must provide at least some of the functional elements required by a particular product category. But many combinations of elements exist in successful products and services today.

A comprehensive cheat sheet for entrepreneurs

I really liked the way the authors presented their findings and I thought this is a nice comprehensive cheat sheet for entrepreneurs, startupers, managers, and for everyone seeking to enrich their value proposition.

What can I do to relieve the pain of my customer? How to bring her some gain? How can I extend our offering? Have a look on the 30 elements and check if the answer to these questions isn’t among them.

The HBR article gives some examples among which Amazon prime. It describes how the service went from its initial shipping offering for $79 annual fee to an extended offer at $99 within 10 years, while conquering significant market share of the U.S. retail market.

I think the 30 elements may find their way into the graphic toolbox started by Strategizer with the Business Model Canvas and the Value Proposition Canvas, as a checklist, a cheat sheet, or seeds for creative brainstorming.

Entrepreneurship is not only for the startupers. Those wanting to reinvent or reinvigorate their business, those who want to keep competitors at a distance or those worrying about a possible business disruption may wisely invest some of their time reflecting on the 30 elements of value as well.

There is probably more value in the article than what I report here. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.

If you liked this post, share it.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Management attention as a constraint – Part 2

In part 1 of this series, I introduced management attention as a constraint. This second post goes on with more reasons why management fail to pay the necessary attention to the factor limiting the whole system’s performance.

Unaware or wrong about the constraint

Management attention might be on the wrong things because manager are unaware of or are wrong about the system’s constraint.

Spotting the real constraint of a system can be tricky, see my series of posts about this topic: How to identify the constraint of a system?

Not able to identify the constraint

Many managers are unaware about the system’s constraint, in other words: what really limits the system performance. Despite the number of people pretending to have basic understanding of Theory of Constraints, few really have enough understanding to spot the real constraint and to manage it as it should. Instead, many of them are still stuck in older paradigms, seeking the maximum output at every process step and trying to minimize unit costs.

True Theory of Constraints-aware people know that this approach is bound to fail as the global optimum cannot be the sum of local optima. Local objectives will simply compete against each other at the expense of the overall performance.

Unaware of the true limiting factor, management simply cannot focus on what matters.

Identifying the wrong constraint

It is common to mismatch bottlenecks and constraints and also common to wrongly identify a resource or a process as a constraint when it is not. When management identifies the wrong constraint, its attention is focused on the wrong spot and the decisions made won’t help the overall performance.

From a Theory of Constraints perspective, management attention is therefore a constraint itself because it does not focus on the right spot, the real constraint.

Lack of focus

As we have seen in part 1 of this series, lack of focus can come from lack of clarity about the Goal, lax attitude or mismatching the constraint. It can also come from lack of self-discipline or a personal difficulty to keep focused on something for a longer period of time.

Another possible cause is the overwhelming number of things managers must take care of. Their attention is required by so many things that they will task switch (notice I didn’t write multitask), losing their focus to a new problem as soon as it pops up.

Manager’s time is a scarce resource so it must be used wisely. Therefore, managers themselves must know what to focus on and, maybe more important is to understand what’s NOT to spend time on.

Especially in an industrial environment opportunities for improvement are literally endless. It’s very easy to start project on something that looks good and promising but doesn’t benefit the system as a whole.

Therefore it’s very important for management to refrain giving attention to everything and discriminate what will benefit the system and what is just a local improvement.

From a Theory of Constraints perspective, If making more goal-units (often money) is your goal, throughput is your obsession. And if throughput is your obsession, you’ll have literally to sit on the constraint and make the most out of it. Keep focused!

Not enough feedback

Senior management and middle management may be well aware about the organization’s Goal and the system constraint, but do not pay enough attention to give feedback to the teams lower in the organisation. Without clear guidance, those teams can go astray without even noticing, burning up precious and scarce resources working on the wrong subjects. This is a variant of lack of management’s direction and lack of management focus, described in part 1 of this series.

Lack of management support

Subordinates may be willing to work on the right thing but for some reason need management support they can’t get. Management then turns out to be the blocking point, thus the constraint.

There are some legit cases for which subordinates cannot act without management support, but if subordinates are too dependent upon management, there is something wrong.

Many organizations don’t use the principle of subsidiarity, which means delegating action to the lowest possible level. Some managers love to be asked over and over for help and support, but keeping subordinates in this dependency is not a good investment for the future. The flattered managers, making themselves indispensable, are in reality trapped as they have to continuously backup their teams.

Managers should develop their teams to be more autonomous so that they can focus on manager’s tasks, like taking care of the system’s constraint and not turn themselves into one!

Lack of management commitment

Some managers do not buy-in the objectives, the strategy or the organization’s Goal. This may be the case after a merger and acquisition, when a new vision is set by the acquirer, for example. Those managers stay with the new structure to collect their paycheck but pay only lip service to the job to be done. Lack of commitment creates lack of focus and probably a lax attitude.

I’ve met such kind of middle managers in charge of a critical process or constrained resources that didn’t give a dime managing it properly, even after in-depth explanation of its importance for the whole organization. Needless to say that their future wasn’t as comfortable as their past from this point.

Distracted managers

Managers may be attracted (distracted would be more appropriate) by some project or endeavour they like but without connection to the system performance as a whole. Especially nowadays with the hype of the concepts like factory of the future, the industrial internet and the like, it’s very easy to get allured by some new technology and behave like a big child in front of brand new toys.

While dreaming about their new “toys”, the distracted managers don’t take care about the actual critical resources that limit the system throughput.

If you liked this post, share it.

Comments welcome.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


Management attention as a constraint – Part 1

A system’s constraint, the limiting factor that is an obstacle to getting more Goal units* from the system, can be pretty difficult to identify (hence the success of my post on the topic: How to identify a constraint?!).

*”Goal units” can be money, profit, services to citizens, number of patients treated, free meals served, or whatever the organization delivers to achieve its Goal.

The Theory of Constraints community discusses the management attention as a constraint for a long time now and Goldratt himself called management attention the ultimate constraint (the one remaining when all others have been elevated). My own experience convinced me that management attention can indeed be a constraint for the whole system, from the beginning.

Misaligned organization

Striving to achieve the organization’s Goal is management’s sacred mission and it is management’s duty to align the efforts of their subordinates to achieve that objective. Lean Management uses the “True North” metaphor and Hoshin Kanri or Policy Deployment to achieve it. The Logical Thinking Process calls it the Goal and have the Goal Tree as a roadmap and benchmark. Both approaches and their tool sets can be combined.

Now too often management does not clearly communicate about the Goal neither ensure their staff’s energy and initiatives are well oriented towards achieving the Goal.

Surprisingly, some senior managers are not clear among themselves what the organization’s Goal is. Bill Dettmer published a paper on such an experience with a crowd of executives and almost as many Goals as people! The paper is downloadable at http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/WhatisOurGoal-v5_000.pdf

Management’s attention is on something else, but not on the main objective.

When this happens, scarce resources are often wasted for meaningless purposes, on the wrong things. The longer this goes on, the stronger the evidence that management attention isn’t focused, for whatever reasons, on what really matters.

Chances are that middle managers lacking a clear stated and often reminded Goal define their own objectives for the need of guidance.

Self defined objectives

When subordinates define their own objectives because they have no “True North” to align their own and/or their staff’s work, they may define these objectives to fit their own purpose, their own views or to optimize their department’s performance. Doing so, the probability is high that the self defined objectives will be in conflict with another department’s objectives and at the expenses of the overall organization performance.

Myths and false assumptions

Lack of clear communication about the Goal and lax management may let myths and false assumptions flourish. Most often, myths and false assumptions are the result of lack of clarity, misunderstanding or overinterpretation of some “strategic intent” or senior management statements.

Management attention must foremost be on clarity of purpose, second on the alignment of all actions towards achieving the Goal. With constant attention and frequent repetition about the Goal and checking the progress towards it, deviations as well as false assumptions and misunderstandings can be detected and corrected.

Lax management

Many people have been promoted to management positions even so they lacked the necessary soft skills. Some because it was a reward for past dedication and good job, others because they were technically good and the assumption was they would also be good at managing others. The latter often does not happen.

Unfit for their position, uneasy especially when taking command over former colleagues, lacking the charisma and know-how, many hide themselves behind computers screens or in meetings and shun contact with their subordinates. Management attention is purposely not on what matters because of a form of cowardice, or to put it softer, because of uneasiness.

In order to keep social peace, middle management (at least in France) often tries to avoid frontal assault against deviant behaviors, absenteeism, poor performance and sub-standard achievement.

The situation is often paradoxical between the pressure from above to achieve the objectives and at the same time the strong recommendation not to mess up with work force to avoid social unrest, that middle management is torn between conflicting objectives.

This probably led to management positions popularity to sink to an abyssal low. The younger generations don’t want management jobs anymore.

Additionally, the new generations and their ways of teaming up, networking and work around obstacles. They have no interest in traditional management. They don’t want that kind of job and do not pay the same respect to rank like previous generations did. For them and growing part of the workforce, leadership is more important than status.

All this lead many middle managers to compromise and get lax in their management or give it up for good. Management positions are now harder to man as this kind of job lost much consideration.

Therefore, even if those managers know well about the Goal they should work to achieve, their ability or personal lax attitude does not transmit the necessary energy or inputs to their teams.

Next: Management attention as a constraint – Part 2

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


Goal Tree Chronicles – Coloring the Goal Tree

The 3-colors system is a well accepted assessment and visual management tool by Goal Tree builders and users. The principle is simple as it uses the traditional Red-Amber-Green color code to indicate the status of each entity in the Tree.

In a Goal Tree, Necessary Conditions are enablers to the above entity. As soon as enablers are not in place or “unstable”, the outcome they should enable cannot be considered as in place, delivering or achieved.

In this post, I detail how to color a Goal Tree.

How to color a Goal Tree?

Start at the bottom, with the very basic Necessary Conditions. Have the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) assess each Necessary Condition for its status. As soon as a basic Necessary Condition, which is a requirement or prerequisite to the above entity to exist, is Amber or Red, the above entity can only be Amber or Red. The color, symbol for the status, propagates upwards like in a line of dominos when the falling one pushes the next.

Goal Tree

Reminder: in “my” 3 color system, green stands for granted, constantly available, steady… Amber means unstable, not totally fulfilled, variable… Red means missing, non-existent, not at nominal value, etc.

Therefore, the assessment can be quite quick. The SMEs should know what’s going on on shopfloor, how process behave and deliver. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) may give additional information.

In a starting project, chances are that many identified basic requirements are not yet fulfilled, so their boxes in the Goal Tree are red. As soon as such an entity turns Amber or Red, no need to assess the above related entities, they are Amber or Red by definition.

Related: Goal Tree: How green is your tree?

The requirements that are Green need to be followed upwards nevertheless to see if their above related entities are Green as well, or if an additional Necessary Condition coming in sideways has a non-Green status. If this is the case, the above entity takes the color of the worst of the underlying Necessary Conditions’ color.

The limits of the 3-color system

It can happen that despite an entity having all its underlying Necessary Conditions set to Green can’t be assessed as Green. Facts and figures just don’t allow it. How come?

Well, remember: underlying Necessary Conditions are enablers, not triggers. Unlikely what happens with sufficiency logic where a cause is literally sufficient to produce the effect, the necessity logic used in the Goal Tree states that if a Necessary Condition is missing, the expected effect can not happen, but conversely, the underlying Necessary Condition existence is only enabling the effect to happen.

Entities in a Goal Tree are also called Intermediate Objectives and in order to achieve an objective, 3 conditions are required: having the necessary means to achieve the objective, knowing how to achieve it and being motivated to achieve it.

Related: What it takes to achieve your objective: Means, Method and Motivation

In case a should-be green Intermediate Objectives isn’t green, you should check the Means, Method and Motivation.

If you liked this post, say it, share it!

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


About Clarity, Focus, Discipline, and Engagement

This post is inspired by Karen Martin’s (author of Shingo Research Award-winning book, The Outstanding Organization)  interview by Ron Pereira (Gemba Academy). In this interview (https://www.ksmartin.com/videos/the-outstanding-organization-interview/) Karen explains the importance of Clarity, Focus, Discipline, and Engagement. These are the four fundamental behaviors or common patterns in successful organizations, that are strong foundations upon which to build improvement programs up to outstanding organizations.

This interview resonated with me especially because the company I was trying to help at the very moment I heard the interview lacked every one of these four “pillars” and I truly believe this was the cause of all its trouble.

Here is my take on Clarity, Focus, Discipline, and Engagement, piggybacking on the interview. These opinions are mine, they may not reflect Mrs Martin’s opinions.


Clarity is first of all about the clarity of purpose, about making it very clear for everybody within the organisation what the organization is supposed to achieve. Why the organization was put in place in the first place and/or what Goal the founders are/were pursuing?

This Goal can be referred to as “True North” in Lean parlance and is called the “Goal” in the Logical Thinking Process. Both are a long-term objective that will turn a Vision into reality.

Once this purpose is clearly communicated, everyone can align his/her actions onto the organization’s Goal. Management is supposed to derive contributing intermediate objectives that make sense to their subordinates, in their daily jobs, while ensuring alignment onto the Goal.

Yet when circumstances require swift decisions, even without management around to give instructions, the clarity of purpose helps subordinates to take consistent decisions with the organization’s Goal.

Clarity is also, according to Karen Martin, about the lingo in the organization. Indeed, many employees use acronyms they are often unable to explain or worse, don’t understand! This makes it tough for any newcomer or temporary help to be at ease with the job, procedures, etc.

It can lead to misunderstandings, errors, interpretation, ambiguity, and slowing a process that could run smoothly if everything was clear.

For knowledge workers or for those that can work from home, without as much guidance and reminders than in a corporate building, clarity about the Goal is also important in order to keep focused.


With clarity of purpose it is easy* to focus on what really matters. Resources and time can be well used on what is important. Conversely, lacking clarity opens many options to go astray and waste precious and scarce resources on the wrong things. Alas, the latter is more common than the former.

When some people lose their focus, it is easier for themselves, for management or even colleagues to remind the Goal and what to focus on and why, when the Goal has been stated with clarity, communicated, and repeated.

Focus requires also to track progress with KPIs and review the progress regularly in order to correct the deviations.

*Staying focused needs discipline.


Discipline is about the ability to stay focused on the objective or to accept being reset onto the right objective. Discipline is also about sticking to the rules, using the defined standards, the official good practices, methods, systems and tools. Without sufficient discipline, chaos finds its way in. Little variations, little bits of ill-used freedom may lead to major problems.

It doesn’t look very harmful to download data from an ERP into a spreadsheet and drive processes from this copy, but at some point data may be so divergent that the situation becomes a mess. A little deviation messed up in unexpected proportions.

How many times manual data inputs do not follow the rules and the dataset is littered with entries that should be in the same format but do not accumulate properly because of scripting variations?

Now some degree of freedom is necessary to adjust to the circumstances as no procedure or work guide can describe every possible case and provide all necessary answers. So discipline is also acting in the interest of the organization while remaining the closest to the rules and standards. The latter should be adjusted with the lessons learned.

I was shocked to hear that some people in an organization, without the position giving them the freedom to act like this, chose themselves to stop reporting or stop attending meetings. I was even more shocked to hear that management did not react to these deviant behaviors. Here the lack of discipline goes both ways, bottom-up and top-down.


Engagement is the commitment to work on achieving the organization’s Goal. It is, in my opinion the result of Clarity, Focus and Discipline that provide the necessary framework, with sufficient empowerment to adjust to circumstances plus the feedback and management support to keep motivated.

Many surveys show that disengagement is way more common than engagement. So if we start from disengagement all the way back up, we can assume that disengaged staff doesn’t take it so seriously with discipline, as they don’t care.

If there is no motivation and probably poor discipline, focus is not likely to be kept on what matters. And if focus isn’t kept nor reinforced, it doesn’t matter if the purpose and the Goal have been communicated with clarity.

Employee engagement is key and engagement is something the organization can only facilitate but not order nor buy.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


Don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you

If you check the Internet for this quote, chances are that it will be attributed to Confucius. It’s variations can found in many religions and cultures (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule) and can be easily understood as a basic code of conduct in a relationship based on reciprocal respect.

Now here is an incoming (unsolicited) e-mail from an unknown lady. She’s offering me to give a course in some public sector in-house university. For me the interest is limited, but the mail is very polite.

The proposal does not fit my agenda nor the usage I’d like to do with my very scarce private time, but in order to be polite and acknowledge the opportunity, I will of course answer.

The irony is that immediately after my answer was sent, an automatic mail message came back, explaining that my correspondent wants to shield herself off any unwanted e-mail (spam of course) and therefore, if I wish to overcome the digital blockade, I have to go through a procedure to identify myself.

If I don’t, the time invested in my polite reply will be lost as well as my nice guy reputation.

Hmm, isn’t it ironic that this lady, protecting herself from unsolicited e-mails:

  • doesn’t apply the same rule to herself
  • amplifies (involuntarily I believe) the inconvenience for the people she’s more or less asking a favor from.

So I went through the procedure and invested more time. I then felt this could be shared as a post on my blog and invested much more time.

Thank you lady. If you happen to read this post, please meditate on this maxim: Don’t do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you. And check your anti spam policy.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn



Quick look back to 2017

The first days of every new are usually the time to reflect about the past twelve months and make plans for the next twelve to come. As I write this post, 2018 is already 13 days old but probably not too late to look back to 2017 blog-wise.

This blog went online in January 2014. Tada! 4th anniversary!

In these 4 years, the blog accumulated 401 post, was visited by 110,132 visitors / 197,589 views. 142 visitors found worth enough to click the follow button. Thanks to them all.

This is all organic.

Twitter and LinkedIn are my best sounding boards, with reblogging from or embedding in other blogs.

In 2017, I found time to write and publish 53 posts. Roughly one per week.

Besides this blog I try to feed my French website, my latest French Blog and my YouTube channel. All this mostly during the weekends when the family members still sleep or don’t care about me… Some of my posts were written during traveling, or while walking and dictating to my smart phone.

What blogging plans for 2018? Try to post regularly, try to share value, have fun.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


Are the 5S the first steps to SMED?

This is a classical debate among Lean newbees and even among specialists: are the 5S the first steps to SMED or not? As so often there is more than just a binary choice.

Yes, 5S are the first steps to SMED

Let’s start with the pros. The 5S are a good way to restore basic conditions enabling efficient and safe work in a “legible” environment, where the clutter is taken away and everything is made simpler and visual.

5S do not only get rid of the clutter but require to fix broken equipment, replace worn out tools, overhaul machinery… 5S define rules for sharing common hand tools, locate items, make the current condition immediately visible and from far away.

The very example of this is the shadow board outlining the tool’s shapes. When a tool is missing or hung on the bad location, it can be spotted from a distance, saving the walking to the board to discover the needed tool is not available or out-of-order.

This works with document files, with the famous slant line across the file’s back. Any missing or ill-positioned file breaks the line.

5S will save a lot of time searching for tools, fixtures, documents and avoid mismatching the different versions. 5S rules are defined by the area workers themselves. They are regarded as Subject Matter Experts and the decision of how work environment should look like is delegated to them. With some limits though; 5S rules can never trump safety and health regulation rules, for example.

5S are especially recommended when trying to reduce the changeover duration with SMED.

When trying to reduce all wasted time when changing from one production batch to the next or from one production series to the next, searching for tools, jigs, fixtures, documents, parts, material, etc. is no option.

Prior good 5S help a lot smoothing the changeover operations and significantly reduce the waste of time.

5S are easy in appearance, but hard to sustain. Therefore I respectfully consider them as a school of rigor and discipline. If an organization is not capable to bring its operations and supporting departments to a high level of 5S maturity and sustain it, chances are that introducing more demanding and more complex tools and methods will fail.

That’s why I agree, 5S are the first steps to SMED.

No, 5S are NOT ALWAYS the first steps to SMED

When an organization is in the “burning platform” state, meaning quick action is required to fix a major problem, restore customer service, or bring back a decent performance level, starting with a 5S program deployment is probably not the best option. This would look like arranging the chairs on the sinking Titanic, or in plain language: diverting precious time and resources focusing on the wrong objectives.

It might surprise newcomers to SMED, but two specialists having opposite opinions about starting a SMED program with or without 5S might be both right. The good choice is simply condition-related.

If more productive capacity is direly and urgently needed, 5S is not the best option to start with. “You don’t ask people to tidy up their workspace!” as one once angrily argued. And he’s right, but he didn’t consider other conditions than the ones he was familiar to.

If the main objective is to let operators learn about the Lean basics and hone their waste-spotting capabilities, 5S would be a good pick for a starter. It brings people to gradually understand the importance of rigor and discipline as well as to continuously improve the work environment and work execution itself.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


What it takes to achieve your objective: Means, Method and Motivation

When facing a challenge, many subordinates quickly complain about the lack of means and  scarce resources. But what it takes to achieve an objective is more than just means.

The common complaints about means

Complaining about scarcity of means or resources is a convenient way to push the responsibility of the difficulty of the challenge and the possible failure to the boss, and often comes without any evidence for the resources really being scarce.

You may like my post Do what you can, with what you’ve got, where you are

Time allocated to achieve something can be considered as a means. If the management gives no time or too few time for some tasks but expect a result nevertheless, the complaint about not having enough time can be legit.

This is the case with daily machines cleaning  (Autonomous Maintenance) after the shift is over, allocating some time to stop production and clean, lubricate and visually inspect the machines for the sake of failure prevention. But if production is late and management orders to work till the very last minute, there is no time left for the daily basic maintenance. If this is repeating over and over, the machines’ condition may decline and a serious failure stop them for a longer period.

Some means are absolute prerequisites to achieve the objective and if they are not granted, the objective may be out of reach, despite the alternative or creative ways people try.

Means are also often confused with method or a process, and people complaining about insufficient means are in reality worrying about how to proceed. Having the appropriate means is then synonymous to knowing how to do, with the hope that this or that tool, machine, equipment, etc. will bring the solution with it.

The triple prerequisite to achieve an objective

Besides appropriate means, the method or way to proceed is another prerequisite. If you get all the parts necessary to assemble a computer but have no idea how to assemble them, you have all the necessary means but are still unable to have a working computer. Therefore, the second prerequisite, besides means, is method or know-how or knowledge, procedure, instructions, etc.

There is a third prerequisite to achieve an objective: motivation. If you have all necessary means and have necessary know-how and skills but no motivation (or will, desire), the objective will not be achieved.

The triple requirement for achieving an objective is to have appropriate Means, Method and Motivation, which can be memorized as 3Ms.

Now when assigning tasks or objectives to teams, managers better make sure the means are provided, the know-how or skills are available and check the motivation.

This post was inspired by an explanation of my friend and mentor Bill Dettmer during a Logical Thinking Process training course. You may listen and watch Bill’s explanation in the video beneath. To understand the context you may read my post Goal Tree Chronicles – Enablers vs.triggers.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn