Goal-Setting Theory and Goal Trees

Goal-Setting Theory states that goal-Setting, when done properly, is motivating. A Goal Tree complies to the requirements of a motivating goal-setting, here is why.

Goal-Setting Theory

According to Theory, Goal-Setting (and the underlying objectives) helps to focus onto the Goal and keep focused. Set Goals tend to increase effort in order to achieve them. Once Goals are set, they reinforce persistence as one does not want to admit failure. Goals make us creative or make us learn when necessary skills are not mastered.

Yet good Goal-Setting requires:

  • Specificity, which means clarity of purpose, precisely specified objectives, etc.
  • Challenge or Difficulty, which make achievement a victory and more satisfactory. Goals impossible to achieve are not motivating, though.
  • Acceptance and commitment. Goals forced onto someone may not motivate much.
  • Feedback and appraisal. This is necessary for “calibration” and benchmarking.

The following video made available by Alanis Business Academy tells you a bit more about Goal-Setting Theory.


Goal Tree and Goal-Setting Theory

A Goal Tree sets a Goal, that’s why this logical tree has been created for. It was because many efforts got lost by not knowing what the Goal was that Bill Dettmer derived the Thinking Processes (TP) Intermediate Objective Map (IO Map) into a more suitable tool he called the Goal Tree.

The Goal is set on top of the Tree where it is very visible and symbolically well placed so that everybody know on what to focus. The Goal statement should make sense and be understood by everyone. The Goal is the reason why the organization exists, so being member of the organization obviously requires accepting the Goal and committing to achieve it.

The array of underlying objectives, called Necessary Conditions (NCs), should be verbalized in a clear and specific way. This is verified when building the Tree and checking it with the Categories of Legitimate Reservations (CLR), which also ensure the overall logical robustness of the Tree.

Many of these Necessary Conditions are not fulfilled when the Tree is built (otherwise the Goal would be achieved..!) and fulfilling them is the challenged required by Goal-Setting Theory. A decent share of these NCs will be difficult enough to keep contributors motivated.

In the same way, some necessary skills may not be mastered, thus giving opportunity to learn or find by-passes.

The periodic reviews of the Tree status give opportunities for feedback and benchmarking, as well as appraisal or eyebrows frowning.

Wrapping-up

Going through the requirements of the Goal-Setting Theory, the Goal Tree is not only compliant, but allow the whole (often strategic) intent to be stated in a clear logical way. Reading a Goal Tree is reading the storybook.

If Goal-Setting Theory needed a tool, the Goal Tree is the one.


If you liked this post, share it!


Bandeau_CH38

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Advertisements

Why SMED is quick win in pharma – Episode III

Improving changeovers in pharma industry is a relatively quick and easy way to… quick wins, faster and easier than usually assumed. This series tells you why.

Episode III: How to and Why it works

In the previous Episode I explained the background of the lag of many traditional pharma makers in regards to Industry Best Practices (mainly Lean) and operational performance. I highlighted faster changeovers as leverage for recovering wasted capacity and improve performances. In Episode II I gave examples of  gains that can be expected and why.
In this Episode, I explain how and why it works.

The first approach is the least “risky” one, which will not change anything, thus not jeopardizing compliance to procedures nor quality. It is based on the fact that changeovers take frequently more time than initially allocated and the assumption that the changeover procedure is sound and the time allocation is reasonable, i.e. changeover doable during the allocated time.

Reminder: pharma is regulation-constrained

As I explained in Episode II, in pharma industry all steps of a changeover are prescribed in procedures and traced. Lots of information and proofs are captured, paperwork filled because a great deal of these procedures are mandatory in order to comply with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and/or local regulation.

This means there is a solid reference base available against which to compare actual way of changing over as well as a reference time allocation (standard time).

In other, lesser regulation-constrained industries, such detailed procedures and capture of data might simply not exist or will be much “lighter”.

The procedure fallacy

Industrial engineering, quality assurance and management assume that when procedures are written and approved, they are the tables of the law that personnel will follow thoroughly.

This is not always the case. People on shopfloor are pretty much on their own as management is more likely sitting behind a screen, on a desk in a remote location. So there is room for doing things slightly differently than the procedure prescribes. Often it is about swapping some tasks’ order because it is more convenient or the people’s preference.

Procedures are written for the standard (perfect world) case and won’t help if something unexpected happens, e.g. some material is not available or late. As unexpected events, big or small are likely to happen, people in charge of changeover will have to adapt or wait for instructions.

Doing things in a different order and/or in a different way will impact the changeover duration. It might speed up or delay it. The problem is that people on shopfloor may not have sufficient knowledge/insight about the possible overall impact, like negative side effects, of their even so small changes.

Chances are that procedures will be followed globally but variations will be found in the details of execution. That’s one of the reasons for the differences between allocated time and actual changeover duration.

And chances are that actual duration exceeds the usually generous allocated time, reducing the productive capacity, overall effectiveness and efficiency.

The easy way to reduce changeover duration

Let’s be clear: the easiest way to reduce changeover duration in pharma industry will probably not be the most rewarding one in terms of production capacity recovery, but… it’s the easiest one.

It is easy because it is only about sticking to already agreed procedure and standard time, thus no risk assessment nor quality assurance validation required.

This approach is based on following assumptions:

  • Changeover procedure is sound
  • Allocated changeover time(Standard Time)  is reasonable, i.e. changeover can be done within allocated time
  • Excessive duration changeovers outnumber the shorter ones, hence there is a net capacity loss when summed up

Step 1: Gather data about changeover duration. If there was no data capture or what was in place does not serve your purpose, create a form and capture what data is necessary

Step 2: Start analyzing. Look for trends, correlations and if possible causation

Step 3: Display a graph with changeover durations compared to standard time. Update it real time. The simple display of the graph and the information to shopfloor teams that changeovers durations will be monitored is enough to improve the situation, because now there is some management’s attention on it.

Step 4: Go see, ask why and show respect (this is a Lean management mantra). In other words, go and spend some time observing reality on the shopfloor (gemba). Do not hesitate to ask why this or that to people, they are the Subject Matter Experts. While asking, do not lecture but listen truly, without judgement and without disturbing operations. Try to find the root causes of good AND poor performance.

Step 5: suggest or make the necessary changes (without compromising GMP/safety/quality rules) in order to reduce the duration. Chances are the improvement will require someone with the necessary authority and know-how to coordinate the whole changeover, from new material delivery to leftovers sending back to storage place, including paperwork and human resources allocation to roles. Stress the necessity not to exceed allocated time.

Step 6: when necessary, run problem solving kaizen events. Always have at least one operational personnel involved.

Step 7: Keep capturing data, analysing it and understand the causes of longer AND shorter changeovers. Changeovers that will take exactly the allocated time are highly suspect, but will be dealt later. Watch for trend: after a short while, changeovers should seldom exceed the Standard Time, although some accidents may happen.

Step 8: iterate to step 4.

Results

The last time I used this soft approach (2015), we could recover the equivalent of one week of productive capacity within a period of 3 months, roughly 8% and about 170,000 additional units made available for sales. This was done at zero additional costs as all we needed was better organization, committed and refocused people and more management’s attention.

Of course this improvement was sustainable.

The changeovers done way under Standard Time were the proof of the excessive allocation and/or potential better way to proceed. With the relevant data, it was easy to convince management to have the procedure and Standard Time updated, giving the opportunity to improve further using SMED methodology.


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


Bandeau_CH40_smlView Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Learning Faster

In this video, Clarke Ching explains Philip Marris how to speed up learning by speeding up the audio book playback. While Philip has reservations about this technique, I do use it with several medias:

  • Podcast playback on iPhone x1.5 (x2 is usually too fast for me)
  • Youtube conferences clips, Youtube allows x1.25; x1.5 or x2
  • Pocket, (getpocket.com) the app that stores web pages of files for later reading embeds a vocal synthesizer (at least on iPhone) with variable speed. This app reads in several languages and gives indications about text formatting.
  • Adobe Reader proposes Read Out Loud Text-to-Speech Tool (https://www.adobe.com/enterprise/accessibility/reader6/sec2.html)

I agree with Clarke: the speeding up of the reading saves time while remaining understandable.

If you’d like to share your tricks, post a comment!


About the authorView Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Leader Standard Work

The very first time I heard about “leader standard work” and “scripted day” I was puzzled.

Production manager myself at that time, in my view management must be ready for fixing things and react to all the random events that rain down onto a factory shopfloor. How could a day made of fixing unexpected problems be standardized?

Reflecting on it I realized that a significant share of a manager’s day/week is repetitive routine and can be translated into a standard, improved, simplified, amended, and so on.

Without noticing it, I developped my own daily and weekly routines and was in fact rolling out my private standards.

In later years, when I visited numerous companies as a consultant, I saw many cases of company managers, operations managers and the like not having a routine and lacking daily guidance. They just floated with the stream of daily problems, often drowning in them. The long hours did not result in effective decision making nor appropriate support to their staff.

Lego_022a

Another common issue with management is the reluctance to be on the shopfloor. Highly educated (especially the French…) managers consider beneath their dignity to spent time on the shop floor. The common belief is that a manager is someone having an office and spending time in meetings or behind a desk, a computer screen and on the phone.

No surprise, when line or lower ranking personnel get promoted, they want the same status symbols and soon refrain returning to the shopfloor.

I remember one case in a big print shop. The production manager was a former very skilled and capable technician that got promoted. From then on, he claimed a desk near the top manager’s office and ‘managed’ not to return into the shop. When top management threatened him if he didn’t move his desk into the shop, he demanded a customized office to be build on a mezzanine. What he was truly looking for was a symbol: being literally placed above his former co-workers.

To overcome this phenomenon and as sad it is, a scripted standard work is a (good?) way to get those managers back where they should spend a significant part of their time: on the shopfloor!

The necessary routine tasks are easy to describe and standardize in order to foster consistency and sustained practice. Log sheets prove the standard was fulfilled or makes the deviation apparent, reinforcing accountability.

Understandably any manager, foreman or line leader having a great deal of autonomy and freedom to organize him/herself may not be happy with it at once. It feel like a straightjacket and a return or fall to lower status.

What most of those vexed managers would not recognize is their poor ability to organize themselves in an efficient way and/or to keep ‘their’ routine robust and consistent. How many managers deep dive and forget themselves into things they like and procrastinate or ignore what they don’t like?

The standard work is a means to help them (even against their will) to have their days properly organized and aligned onto the organization’s goal.

In most cases standard work helps to sort and refine the daily tasks to those really meaningful and important. Conversely it is a means to simplify and/or ease the routine, saving fatigue and time for more important / interesting occupation.

Of course such a standard work must keep large time periods free, in order to cope with the unexpected events and urgencies.

It is also wise to coach the managers on their standard work, especially what to look for during routine tours or how to gemba walk. True listening capability when interacting with lower ranking managers and shopfloor personnel is also something that is not easy to develop alone.

How to engage, encourage, energize, praise or reprimand people is also something (newly promoted) managers have to/ should learn from a seasoned and more senior one.

Regular coaching with different coaches is a good way to hone the different skills and avoid complacency.

After a while, the standard will become the new routine, the new normal and the initial resentment vanish.


If you liked this post, share it!

Bandeau_CH38

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

What is a spaghetti diagram?

A spaghetti diagram, spaghetti plot or spaghetti chart is the drawing depicting the physical flow or route of:

  • a part, raw material in a workshop or factory
  • a human worker in his/her work environment
  • a patient in his/her journey in a hospital
  • nurses in their station
  • a file or paperwork being handed over across offices
  • etc.

The drawing of the journey will show how intricate the route is, looking like a plate of spaghetti, hence the name.

Spaghetti chart, what for?

Spaghetti (1)These charts are used to analyze the distance covered, the going back and forth to some place, the wasted time in motion and/or transportation (muda).

People are often unaware what distances they walk in a day and management is unaware of the time spent moving around the place wasting time and energy.

Spaghetti chart are useful to redesign a layout or reposition some equipment in order to reduce the unnecessary walking time and fatigue, which is only waste.

Sometimes it is the order of steps in a process that can be changed for the sake of efficiency.

A spaghetti diagram is a welcome sidekick to Value Stream Mapping, as the later maps the conceptual route through a process while the spaghetti chart shows the actual (or future) physical one.

How to draw a spaghetti chart?

Spaghetti charts depicting the actual situation should be based on real observation. On a prepared sheet with outlines of the facility, machines, equipment, etc. the observer traces the lines as the observed object/person moves from one spot to the next.

Tips and tricks

  • The drawing should be more or less on scale, so that it is easier to estimate the total distance covered.
  • If scale is unknown, count the steps when walking and estimate an average stride length. This will help estimate all the distances and the accumulated distance.
  • When the trail is going and coming forth, draw each line separately in order to count the frequency per time unit (e.g. per quarter, per hour, etc.). it will also help to estimate the total distance by multiplying the segment length with frequency.
  • Try to depict the route faithfully. Do not draw straight lines through walls as I saw once because my explanation was not specific enough!

Bandeau_CH8View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


The 2 for 1 rule to reduce WIP and Lead Time

Organizations with high level of Work In Progress also have long Lead Time, according to Little’s law. High level of WIP clutter the process and tie cash into the process, while long Lead Times do not help agility nor On Time Deliveries.

In order to improve the situation it is necessary to drain the system of excess WIP.

To achieve this, it is necessary to by-pass the ERP system that keeps pouring more work orders into the system due to long lead time. That’s where the “2 for 1 rule” comes in.

> Lisez cet article en français

The principle is to launch one new item into production only once two finished items leave it, or release one new work order when two have been completed.

In this video, Philip Marris explains how it works and why it’s effective.

In the French, longer version of this video, Philip explains the proposed work orders by the ERP have to be managed manually.  The system will keep pushing work orders into the system.

At some point, the data must be adjusted: the time between operations must be reduced. The ERP translates this as the process working faster, thus no more need to anticipate the launches to meet the due dates.

There is no general rule for reducing the time between operations. This adjustment is iterative and has to be done each time the work orders (not WIP) pile up in excess. Repeated small increments are a good way to improve and adjust.

The ERP will launch work orders “later” (without anticipating long delay between processes), thus reducing the work order WIP.

It is somewhat counter-intuitive not to use the ERP to improve operations, instead operations are improved and then “explained” to the ERP by adjusting the data.

It is also counter-intuitive to put worker orders on hold when the system delivers late, managers tend to “anticipate” by releasing orders sooner instead, choking the system even more. That’s where a good understanding of Little’s law helps!


If you liked this post let it know and share it!


Chris HOHMANNView Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Why SMED is quick win in pharma – Episode II

Improving changeovers in pharma industry is a relatively quick and easy way to quick wins, faster and easier than usually assumed. This series tells you why.

Episode II: What Gain? Why?

In the previous Episode I explained the background of the lag of many traditional pharma makers in regards to Industry Best Practices (mainly Lean) and operational performance. I highlighted faster changeovers as leverage for recovering wasted capacity and improve performances.

In this Episode, I explain what gain can be expected and why.

A changeover – as the name tells – is changing over from one finishing series or production batch to the next one. This can mean completely resetting a production line, changing formats or “simply” change the batch and product-related information and paperwork.

Changeover in pharma is more thorough than in lesser regulated activities as most often the lines must be totally cleared from anything related to the finished batch, sometimes cleansed, inspected, approved, reset and restarted.

All steps are traced, lots of information and proofs are captured, paperwork filled. A great deal of these procedures are mandatory in order to comply with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and/or local regulation.

Many (additional or redundant) steps and procedures are the maker’s choice, often as a countermeasure of former problems or deviations. They can also be a consequence of regulation misinterpretation or fear not to be compliant. I will not discuss challenging these self-imposed constraints in this post, but please note these self-inflicted constraints are improvement potentials per se.

The changeover procedure is therefore a relatively lengthy one, closely monitored (mostly afterwards and through paperwork though) by Quality Assurance (QA).

As the big fear is to leave something from previous batch contaminating the new one (it can be a physical part, an information leaflet, etc. in case of packaging) the changeover durations are generously allocated, based on the assumption the more time to perform the changeover, the fewer the risks.

I emphasize; allocated time is much more than strictly necessary to changeover and remaining compliant to procedures and requirements.

On top of that, nobody in management would dare stressing the operators to speed up a changeover in fear of making them forget something or ending up with a quality deviation.

The later leads shop floor operators to extend the changeover duration beyond already generous time allocation, wasting even more productive capacity.

The reasons for the drift may vary:

  • On the positive side, the constant fear to do something wrong or forget something.
  • On the negative side I noticed frequent lack of discipline: operators do not stick to procedures and management is not following-up and monitoring closely enough.

Over time the extended duration tends to be accepted as the new standard, planners including the actual changeover time in their schedule. Nobody questions, nobody challenges.

This is Parkinson’s law: a task will always take all allocated time. Extend the allocation and the task will never again finish before the new allocated time.

Wrapping-up

During changeover production is stopped, which means changeover is non-productive and reduces the production capacity. Changeovers tend to be more frequent as batch sizes shrink, so the challenge is to change over quick in order to minimize the production stop.

Changeover duration often exceed what is really necessary to perform a changeover in good conditions, without taking chances with safety nor quality nor GMP/regulatory compliance.

The main reasons for this are:

  • Generous time allocation
  • Lack of rigor / discipline
  • Immaturity regarding industrial best practices (Lean, SMED…)

Reducing changeovers durations is a way to recover recover wasted capacity and improve productivity by earning more output with the same resources.

Changeovers waste capacity

How Much?

I just explained why a significant part of wasted capacity can be recovered, but how much is this?

Detailed data are not always available to estimate the recovery potential, therefore a rule-of-thumb can come in handy.

Experience told me the “Lean rule-of-thirds”, which means about 30% (at least) of wastes can be turned into savings. This is relatively scale-invariant but of course much easier to achieve at the beginning of a continuous improvement journey than later, in a more mature state.

Thus, a changeover duration of 2 hours or 120mn could be reduced fairly easily to 80mn or 1hr20, especially if the drift from initial standard time happened.

Example in primary or secondary pharma packaging

Based on the same example as above, with a production rate of 60 units a minute (not very high-speed), forty minute capacity recovered means 40mn x 60 units = 2,400 additional units.

Changeovers may occur several times in a shift or at least in a 24 hour timeframe, multiplying the gain.

Now with highly automated, high-speed equipment, these additional gains may be far higher. Think about how fast tablets are packed into blisters or vials filled with liquid.

Big money

Even after patents have fallen into public domain, some original molecules still sell well, especially when customers are somewhat reluctant to use generics. Therefore if each additional unit yields a net profit of one monetary unit ($, €, £, etc.), which is not uncommon for ex-blockbusters, the additional profit is worth the improvement effort and the Return On Investment fairly quick.


Next Episode: How to and Why it works?

If you liked this post, let it know and share it!


 

Bandeau_CH36View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

You are probably wrong when identifying your bottleneck

Things moved on since Eli Goldratt’s revealed Theory of Constraints through his business novel and bestseller “the Goal”. Most of today’s processes are more complex than 30 years ago: supply chains are stretched over the globe, new products are launched more frequently and batches are changed more often, among others. Thus identifying the bottleneck or capacity constraint is more difficult and must also be redone more often.

In this video, Philip Marris shares some “lessons from the road”, real case lessons learned from more than 30 cases in the last 10 years. Surprisingly, if companies were rather good identifying their bottleneck, it turned out that now, in 80% of cases companies are wrong about where their capacity constraint is.

Main learnings are:

  • companies are often confusing where the constraint should be with where it really is
  • ERP data is not a reliable way to identify constraints
  • companies tend to have an outdated / obsolete analysis of the situation
  • new quality requirements often create new capacity constraints
  • (bad) cost cutting decisions create new bad constraints

As a conclusion, he points out that being wrong about where a company’s constraints are is good news since it implies that there are significant opportunities remaining to improve performance drastically and rapidly.


If you liked this post, let it know and share it!


About the author

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


Why SMED is quick win in pharma – Episode I

Improving changeovers in pharma industry is a relatively quick and easy way to quick wins, faster and easier than usually assumed. This series tells you why.

Episode I: The Background

There are roughly two cases to consider when addressing operational performance in pharma industry :

  1. the traditional (big) ones
  2. the tollers and generic makers.

Traditional pharma makers used* to be protected by their patents, granting them several years (about 20) of monopoly in order to payoff the huge initial investments in R&D.

*Many blockbusters drugs have lost patent protection, allowing generic makers to produce and sell them much cheaper. The dramatic drop in revenue for the original makers brought up the term “patent cliff”, a metaphor for the sudden fall of incomes. For manufacturers without other blockbusters to compensate, it is a sudden exposure to leaner and meaner competitors.

Tollers (or subcontractors) and generic makers are not investing in hazardous R&D and will not have patent protection in return. They manufacture for others or “copy” drugs after they fell into public domain and sell at much lower price.

On the operational side, during the blockbusters years – when huge incomes were secured – the (big) pharmas did not care much about capacity exploitation and efficiency. When more capacity was required, new equipment, lines or even whole factories were bought/built.

The payoff was such that it was faster to setup a new facility and run it at relatively low productivity level than to try to improve already installed capacities.

Falling off the cliff

The consequences years after, once most of the blockbusters fell off the patent cliff into public domain and related revenues plummeted, are:

  • huge overcapacities, often whole plants,
  • low productivity* compared to other industries,
  • lower maturity regarding industrial best practices (e.g. Lean Manufacturing, Lean Management),
  • no real sense of urgency** to improve in operations,
  • lack of agility,
  • a “sudden” and unprepared facing of leaner and meaner competitors, meaning ordinary competition,

*OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness), is often in the range 15-35% when in other industries it is rather in the 50-65% range.

**this lax posture of well paid pharma workers, even when “the platform is finally burning”, make them the “spoiled children” from the perspective of others, struggling in harsher competition with lesser compensation.

Tollers and generic makers must be lean and efficient at once because of their business model. They don’t have secured incomes nor a patent shielded-off competition. They compete with makers in low wage countries, with lower sales prices, hence lower profit per unit.

They nevertheless have to invest and carry costs related to regulatory compliance.

Given the circumstances these makers understood much sooner the importance to close the gap with Best Practices in more mature industries. This does not mean that generic makers are all best in class, but they had powerful and early drivers to push them up the performance ladder.

Now that the scene is set, what is the link to quick changeovers?

For traditional pharma experiencing normal competition, investments are no more that easy they once were. Given the many remaining overcapacities, when delivery is poor, the solution is no more installing additional capacity but make better use of the one installed.

When looking closer how the installed capacity is wasted, changeover duration most often pops up as a major cause. And as changeovers tend to multiply with the shortening of runs and smaller, more frequent batches, they become good candidates for capacity / performance improvement.


In the next Episode, we’ll see how much can be gained and why.


Bandeau_CH40_smlView Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Discarded the bloody app, feel better now

It was the one which inspired me my post: “Minimum Viable Product or just crap?”, it kept upsetting me over and over while claiming to be the top app for social media management.

I got rid of it and feel much better now.

Not only can I get beyond the limitations, but I have a much more reliable app now.

Yet for one problem settled this way, how many others are still bothering out there?

How many times did you experience a change in software or a mobile app (probably called “iteration” to make it sound trendy), allegedly improving user experience and driving you crazy instead?

It seems to be the new normal in IT development to issue half-baked unstable and bugged new versions, expecting customers to “give feedback”.

I gave my definitive unspoken feedback: I quitted! My time is too precious to “help” f___g developers finish their messy job.

By the way, got my answer: it was no Minimum Viable Product but just crap.


PS: Yes I know, in the first days of the year we should be kind and express good resolutions, but it feels just soooooooooooo good to slam this virtual door on this piece of…

Bandeau_CH40_smlView Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn