The buzz around Demand-Driven Material Requirements Planning is getting louder. If you don’t know what it is all about, here is a video primer.
It happens often with methods and tools that look simple: people giving it a try think they master the subject when in reality they more or less failed with their trial. It is not different with the Logical Thinking Process.
The Current Reality Tree is maybe one of the logic trees the most attractive to rookies. The classic Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Processes as well as Bill Dettmer’s Logical Thinking Process propose a structured and step-by-step approach to go from gathering “undesirable effects” or UDEs to revealing the root causes via a Current Reality Tree (CRT).
Even so the two approaches have slight differences, they follow the same construction and analysis pattern and both the stress the need to build the CRT with the mandatory logical soundness. Therefore there are rules to follow as well as a check process called the Categories of Legitimate Reservations (CLR).
Alas, what most people recall is that the Current Reality Tree is built by connecting UDEs with cause-and-effect sufficiency logic relations using a simple if…then… verbalization. Then, look at the bottom of the tree and somewhere there lies the mother cause of all evil. Kill this root cause and the whole tree of negative consequences will collapse. Tada, job done.
The apparent simplicity of building a CRT and some overconfidence, mixed with the laziness to go through thorough checking ends up with disappointing trees which are not logically robust.
Besides the risk of failing to find the right causes to problems and consequently proposing inappropriate solutions, the analysts may be taken by surprise by someone listening to their brilliant demonstration and pointing out flaws of logic. Embarrassing.
This can be devastating, because even if the analysis is ultimately leading to the real core problems, the doubts raised during a flawed presentation may end up in disbelief or rejection of the conclusions.
As Bill Dettmer warns in his personal style at the end of his 6-day intensive Logical Thinking Process Training Course, “You are now armed and dangerous”. In essence he gave the participants potent weapons, but their lack of practice may lead them to shoot themselves in the leg.
Well, considering my own scars, I can only agree.Follow @HOHMANN_Chris
Paris June 28th, 2017. The 6-day Logical Thinking Process Training Course with Bill Dettmer is just over. We asked the participants not in a hurry to rush to an airport or train station if they would share their thoughts about the course in front of a camcorder?
Cédric, Sverre and Leo were so kind. Bill asked them about their favorite takeaways and advices for people willing to take the course.
As a veteran with 5 attendances (being part of the organizing party) I delivered my testimony long ago, however, I reflected on what I would say now.
My favorite part of the course changed over the sessions, which is understandable with all that repeat. Now my favorite part is working hands-on on trees, cross presenting them and have them scrutinized. That’s the closest we can get in a room session while working on somebody’s real-world case.
This brings me to my advice: come prepared (read the pre-course reading material) and have a real-world problem to work on. The best is a problem with which the participant has enough inside knowledge and enough influence – if not power – to make change happen.
What happens during the course?
This last June 2017 session was in my opinion a good one because the cases were mostly about founding a new business, spinning-off from actual one, or trying to reinvigorate an existing fading one.
With entrepreneur spirit and most of the options open, the Goal Tree was piece of cake. Well it seemed to be piece of cake. Once in front of a large empty sheet of brown paper and a demanding mentor in the back, the candidate entrepreneurs had to turn their brilliant idea in a compelling and robust Goal Tree.
The Current Reality Tree (CRT) brought most of them back into their unsatisfactory actual state, but at least with clear understanding of what causes the Undesirable Effects (UDEs). Conflicting objectives or decisions were uncovered and creativity called in to dissolve the conflicts.
Logical Thinking Process / Theory of Constraints’ Thinking Processes aware readers recognize the Evaporating Cloud (EC) to do that.
On the group went, injecting solutions into their current reality in order to turn the UDEs into Desirable Effects (DEs). This was done thanks to the Future Reality Tree (FRT), a kind of logical (and virtual) proof of concept to test the solutions.
Bill instructed the group to look for possible Negative Branches that may grow out of a seemingly brilliant idea and end up in a new and unexpected UDE. When such a branch is spotted, the trainee can be happy to have tested the solution on paper before messing up in real world! Luckily there are ways to trim such unwanted negative branches and it’s part of the training.
The final exercise is to list the possible obstacles to implementation and overcome them with a Prerequisite Tree.
Five trees per attendant gives a lot to review and scrutinize! And just as many learning opportunities!
A Lean Coffee is a semi formal* meeting in which participants choose the topics they want to discuss, vote for the topics and then discuss the most voted topics during a limited time period. At the end of the ‘timebox’, the group decides to continue or switch to the next if they feel they got enough.
*by semi formal I mean the meeting is structured, but either agenda-less or very flexible about contents.
Lean coffee start is credited to Jim Benson and Jeremy Lightsmith back in 2009 in Seattle.
Advantages of a Lean coffee
Traditional meetings are moderated in ‘push mode’: the organizer sets up an agenda and invites participants. Those may have different interests in attending the meeting, ranging from very high to almost none. Nevertheless it is often difficult to avoid attending even if interest is low and there is seldom a way to influence the content as an attendee.
In Lean coffees, the moderator ‘pulls’ the topics from the attendees, which gives everyone an opportunity to have his/her point of interest discussed. If a proposed topic does not get many votes, the attendance may not be the suitable one or the topic is indeed of no interest.
Another specific meeting may be organized or the topic left off the list.
Pulling the topics from the attendees is also a way to show respect and fight the eighth muda. Jim Benson states “When we invite people to meetings and give them a strong agenda up front, we are completely robbing ourselves of the wisdom the attendees would bring with.”
In other words, Lean coffees trades passive listeners for active resources and knowledge sources. Attendees are not supposed to leave their brains at the door but bring them in and use them.
Lean coffees are time-boxed, which forces to keep focus on the subject. The participants get a feeling of greater intensity and effectiveness compared to traditional meetings.
Here is a selection of videos about Lean coffee.
One young employee told me “I don’t like my manager to ask me over and over again about the progress of my work. I like to get my objective and then be let on my own to achieve it, I’ll report when I’m done”.
Well I thought, you have never been project manager nor in charge of a team. You probably barely know anything about project management techniques and the difficulties to synchronize multiple outcomes, and probably voluntarily ignore the existence of dependencies between tasks for your own selfish comfort.
This kind of cocky open arrogance from someone without significant experience is not something a seasoned project manager will appreciate. Chances are that facing such a mindset, the manager will reinforce his/her control.
It is one thing to demand empowerment, autonomy and be willing to take accountability, it is another to give periodic feedback about the progress of a task or project.
What managers or project managers don’t like at all is the tunnel effect, a common metaphor in France and in project management parlance that describes the extended period during which, the customer and/or the project manager are left in the dark, without any clue about the progress of the job do be done.
At the end of the tunnel, when customers and/or project managers discover the results, chances are that the outcome is not satisfactory or can even endanger the whole project! Something that could have been prevented if there had been periodical feedback, assessment and realignment if required.
This is why software development went for methods insuring loops, scrums, instances during which the stakeholders can share the state of current development, mitigate the risks and even take into account late changes.
Giving periodic feedback is not only something to please customers and project managers, it is also something useful for colleagues and other stakeholders that are dependent on tasks or outputs. By getting feedback and insight, those stakeholders can adjust their own schedules and actions according to current progress.
Management at all levels is highly facilitated through shared visual management, like for example using a Fever Chart, a simple visual dashboard/indicator introduced by Critical Chain Project Management.
Therefore, even in organizations granting a large autonomy to their associates, there is no such a thing as getting an objective and returning to report when it’s achieved.
When implementing some solutions, like in continuous improvement, project managers better take care about the frustrations related to the S curve.
The “S curve” is the shape of the performance curve over time. It describes a latency (t1) before the performance p1 takes off after the improvements have been implemented, then a more or less steep rise before stabilization at the new level of performance p2.
This latency time after the first improvements until improvements become noticeable has several possible causes and can pose different problems.
The most trivial reason for a lack of significant effects after a while is that the solutions put in place do not produce the expected effects. It is therefore advised to estimate in advance, at the moment improvements are implemented, when the effects should be noticeable, in order to have an alert when the estimated time is elapsed.
Another trivial reason is a long cycle time. This may be the case with lengthy process of transformation, processing time or latency inherent to the process before the success of the operation can be judged. Typically, these are technical lead times, time required for chemical or biological transformation processes or “responsiveness” from third-party organizations, etc.
The delay may be due to the improvement process itself, which may require several steps such as initial training, implementation of the first improvements, measurement of their effects and time to analyze them.
Another reason, that may be coupled with the previous one, is Little’s law. It states that the lead time through an inventory or queue of work in progress (WIP) is equal to the value of this inventory divided by the average consumption. This means that if the improvement occurs at a point decoupled from the measurement point of its effectiveness by either inventory or WIP, the effect must first propagate through the queue before it can be detected. Everything else being kept equal.
Please note that this delayed improvement phenomenon or “S curve” described here in the context of continuous improvement can be found in the implementation of any project.
This discrepancy can be a problem for Top Management awaiting return on investment and wishing it as quick as possible. This is all the more true if the activity is highly competitive because an improvement can determine the competitiveness and/or profitability of a project, an offer or even of the whole organization.
It is therefore recommended that the project leader reminds the likeness or certainty of the S curve, even to the managers pretending to know it. Under pressure of business they tend to “forget” it.
The second problem with delayed effects concerns those closer to execution who expect some benefits from improvement, such as problem solving, elimination of irritants, better ergonomics, etc.
Assuming that the operational, shopfloor staff have been associated with the improvement, their frustration and their impatience to see changes is even more important. Without promptly demonstrating that “it works”, there is a significant risk of losing their fate, attention and motivation.
In order to prevent this, the project manager must choose intermediate objectives in short intervals in order to be able to communicate frequently on small successes.
The recommendation is to look for a weekly interval and not exceed the month. The week represents a familiar time frame to operational staff, and the month being, in my opinion, the maximum limit. Beyond the month it usually becomes an abstraction and attention gets lost.
Motion and transportation count among the 7 basic muda or wastes, that should be eliminated or at least reduced to their bare minimum in order to be leaner.
Now, with the probable rise of robotics, will robotic motion (and transportation) still be considered a waste?
The Lean definition of waste is any consumption of resources, including time, that does not add value. Motion and transportation do not transform nor modify parts or products to something of greater value for customers.
If the transportation means or resources used to move parts or products change to high-tech solutions, the definition of waste remains valid. They may reduce the related time, the strain on human operators, be autonomous but whatever, moving or transporting something is still a (necessary) waste.
The same applies for robotic motions. Thanks to their multi axis construct, robots may be more efficient in motions than humans, thus reducing time, nevertheless, the motion remains a waste.
What about vacuum cleaning robot,robotic lawn mowers or autonomous vehicles?
These devices deliver a service a customer is ready to pay for: having a clean floor, a cut lawn or being transported somewhere. In the current state of technology, there is no way around a moving device.
I am not aware of self cleaning flooring and clean room solutions may not be affordable for households.
Motion and transportation are in those cases part of the value-adding process. That said, if the vacuum cleaner, lawn mower or autonomous car travels more than necessary for purpose, the excess motion/transportation is… a waste.
Any thoughts to share? Use the comments.
Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) is probably the most widespread and well-known among KPIs in industry, which does not mean that everyone likes it. OEE rescue is a series of posts that aim to balance the love-hate comments about this KPI as well as debunking some myths and misconceptions.
In this post: OEE is composite and does not tell much per se
Yes, OEE is composite. OEE is expressed in a single dimensionless value. It’s a ratio, a multiplication of 3 other ratios (availability, performance and quality).
Not familiar with OEE? Follow this link
What I immediately liked when I discovered OEE is the fact that multiplying 3 fractions leaves the result smaller than the smallest fraction, meaning it is a very aggressive and challenging KPI.
Any worsening of one of the 3 constituent will amplify the worsening of OEE, which in turn should trigger quick countermeasures to stop the KPI to plunge.
I do not agree OEE per se doesn’t tell much. The original intent, I assume, was to provide management with a single value in order to get an instant feeling about how the overall performance stands, as well as a convenient benchmark when comparing machines, lines, workshops or factories. And it does the job well..
This advantage of being synthetic is also a drawback as it is necessary to “disassemble” OEE to its components in order to understand which of the availability, performance or quality is the evildoer.
But again, I see here an interesting “constraint” for management: the head of department will review OEEs and get a broad feeling about how well the various lines or cells of his/her realm are doing. When intrigued or alarmed by a poor OEE, he/she will turn to the supervisor or line leader to get more information.
The latter needs to know more precisely what’s going on as it is his/her responsibility to keep OEE at best. This required dialog is, from my point a view, a good way to have management commit to interact in both directions: top-down and bottom-up.
I suspect that the managers not liking OEE struggle to drive and maintain theirs on the expected level. Instead of looking how to boost their OEEs, they probably prefer criticizing the concept.
It is one thing to display a quality rate of 93%, a machine availability of 90% and a performance rate of 95%, which at first glance look good, and another thing to report a OEE of 79.5% which is exactly the same (0.795=0.93×0.90×0.95), except for the perception.
Yes, OEE is humbling.
By the way, there are other KPIs that are composite like the On-Time-In-Full (OTIF). When OTIF is bad, is it the On-Time or the In-Full part that hurts? You don’t know until you dig deeper into the details. Would you dare replying to your furious customer measuring your performance with OTIF that this KPI is composite and does not tell much per se?