Doing wrong things much better

I sincerely believe that experimenting with Lean tools was key to spread Lean awareness, ease the principles and tools acceptance and contribute to the Lean popularity.

This was particularly okay in the “tools age”, when Lean was understood as a nice and handy toolbox.

Yet limited and non sustainable successes were hints that Lean could not be “just a toolbox”. Jim Womack, Dan Jones, John Shook and others decoded and explained Lean’s underlying philosophy, the craftsmanship making tools even more powerful, able to transform organizations, save companies and yield significant and sustainable results. So much more than tools.

Unfortunately very few people and organizations understood and embraced Lean Management. This leaves most of Lean tool users stick to their favorite tools, and like kids fascinated by the hammer still run around looking for nails to hit. Any nails.

Ironically the most “successful” organizations with Lean succeed to do wrong things much better.

“successful” here means seemingly good with implementing Lean tools, most probably scoring good on maturity or awareness checks, yet not getting full benefits of Lean in terms of true performance.

What do I mean with “doing wrong things much better”?

Take 5S. The workplaces are neat, clean, free from clutter and with lots of visual indications about where to put things, how to behave and so on. The janitor kit is top notch and the daily a day weekly cleaning schedule is displayed. This good condition is maintained for years now.
That’s all good, but 5S is not about cleaning.

What would be expected after achieving to maintain a clean and neat environment is to eliminate the need for cleaning. Reinforcing cleaning discipline and improving cleaning tools is just doing the wrong thing (keeping on cleaning) much better.

Example number two: rolling out SMED for quick changeovers on all machines seems to be a good practice as the changeovers are necessary evils, do not add value and drain some productive capacity.

Eliminating all the wastes during changeovers is therefore a Lean driven organization’s objective, right?

No it’s not.

Machines with excess capacity vs. customer demand are no good candidates for SMED. The excess capacity should be used to change over more frequently, allowing batch size and Lead Time reduction (this is Little’s law) as well as enhancing flexibility.

Further reducing the changeover duration on machines with excess capacity for the sake of rolling out SMED and “be Lean” will burn up limited resources without benefits for the system as a whole.

  • How many additional widgets can be sold thanks to a global SMED rollout?
  • How much Operating Expenses can be reduced?
  • How much inventories can be reduced?

If these questions are left without convincing answers, the system will not have any benefits but will incur the costs associated with the global SMED rollout.

Applying SMED on a machine with excess capacity is doing the wrong thing (changing over faster a machine that does not require it) much better (it is faster indeed, probably to let the machine idle a longer time).

Example number three: Value Stream Mapping

Its ability to reveal the wastes and obstacles to smooth and quick flow made Value Stream Mapping (VSM) a highly praised and favorite Lean tool. It is used by waste hunters to surface the hidden wastes and improvement points in any process. This is typically a beautiful and strong hammer looking for nails to hit.

Not so seldom do the Value Stream Mappers map a process in search for improvements without consideration of the process’ usefulness. Spending time and using up resources to analyse and improve a useless or very secondary process is nothing more than doing the wrong things much better.

So, what’s missing?

Two things are usually missing in Lean-tools savvy organizations that would bring them to a next level of performance: a system-wide understanding of causes-and-effects and focus.

A system-wide understanding of causes-and-effects means stopping to believe that the system-wide optimum is the sum of all local optima. in other words, getting rid of wastes everywhere will end up with a waste-free system.

Systems are complex, with many subsystems interacting dynamically. Local improvements will not automatically improve the system as a whole because many local optima will compete against each others. An improvement here can severe performance there.

Without understanding the system’s physics and how the subsystems operate, the local improvement initiatives are very likely to end up unnoticed, or worse counterproductive from a broader perspective.

Once the system’s physics are understood, it is key to identify the few leverage points where an action will have significant effect on the system as a whole. Once these leverage points identified, the limited resources must focus on them and not be wasted anywhere else.

How can it be done?

The answer is simple: Theory of Constraints.

Theory of Constraints (ToC) is a body of knowledge that is all about finding and leveraging the limiting factor within a system: the constraint.

Once the constraint identified, the Lean toolbox as well as Lean Management principles and even Six Sigma come in handy to leverage it and get more out of the system.

Used in a synergy cocktail ToC puts Lean on steroids and yields incredible results.

As a focusing “tool” ToC avoids burning up precious and limited resources on the wrong subjects and wrong spots, avoids “doing wrong thing much better!”.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Why is the Logical Thinking Process so hard to sell?

This is probably the greatest frustration for Logical Thinking Process (LTP) fans: why don’t more people get interested in? Why is the Logical Thinking Process so hard to sell?

Please understand “sell” with the quotation marks, I mean promote, advertise, grow the community, attract participants to seminars and courses altogether.

This post is a reflection of mine and an invitation to other LTP savvy and practitioners to share (please use comments) their analysis and thoughts.

The first reason is the weird sounding proposal to learn how to think. I got this reply of course.

Most people are convinced they are able to thinking in a logical way and don’t see the point learning anything about it. Those knowledgeable about the Logical Thinking Process changed their minds acknowledging they believed they were thinking logically until they went through the humbling experience of the LTP.

Make a clear statement that is both rationally sound and without any ambiguity is one example of the “thinking qualities” so many believe to master naturally but don’t.

Guiding an audience through a chain of causes-and-effects with rock-solid logic and in a crystal clear way is another “gift” commonly thought innate.

From what I’ve seen, everybody going through a Logical Thinking Process training course gets a lesson, regardless of how brilliant a speaker the person already was.

The second reason is maybe the jargon. Theory of Constraints (ToC) is full of jargon, metaphors and poetic names that do not help getting into it without a true motivation.

Other business philosophies and methodologies have their own lingo. Lean for instance “requires” to accept Japanese words without being a serious obstacle for its spreading.

The difference I see between Lean’s Japanese words and ToC jargon is that Japanese words are accepted because most people understand them through their translation / transliteration only. To them, those words have no other meanings that can be misleading.

In the Logical Thinking Process, “Evaporating Cloud” most people (with sufficient command in English of course) try to understand the literal sense in the context but can’t.

The Evaporating Cloud makes sense once the metaphor is decoded. It would have been so much easier to call it a Conflict Resolution Diagram (a proposed and sometimes used alternate name), which it really is, first hand.

Explanation about the sticking to the Evaporating Cloud can be read in Lisa Scheinkopf’s book “Thinking for a Change: Putting the TOC Thinking Processes to Use

Besides poetry and metaphors, acronyms are just as numerous. Take “POOGI” that stands for Process Of OnGoing Improvement in ToC’s lingo. The already popular “Continuous Improvement” was obviously not good enough and led to craft a weird-sounding new acronym, requiring more explanations and learning.

Even some ToC and/or Logical Thinking Process aficionados don’t like all the jargon, it is now the language of the ToC community and its mastery the price to pay for any new comer.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Why the Goal Tree is more and more relevant

Command and control management style, based on standardized work and centralized decision-making, becomes increasingly irrelevant as more and more business environments become highly variable and the number and pace of decisions to make soar.

What is required is autonomy and accountability as well as alignment on a well understood Goal. The Goal Tree is an elegant solution for understanding what is to be done as well as the underlying rationale, for communicating it and assessing the progress.

This post assumes readers are familiar with the Goal Tree, if not they may get into it through my articles on this subject.

The limits of command and control management

In a hierarchical organization there are mainly two practical limits to command and control management :

  1. The number of people who can be reasonably be supervised,
  2. The speed of decision-making when information has to travel up and down the management structure.

The more standardized and stable the work, the easier it is to supervise a larger number of people with tight control.

As soon as work can barely be standardized to the details and/or is highly variable, supervision has to give up tightness of control.

When reactivity is required, decision-making has to come closer to the interface where decisions are to be made, otherwise the process would respond way too slowly waiting for the information to travel back and forth.

That’s why tight command and control can still be found in mass manufacturing but would not work (at least the same way) for customer service or front office. There, more than just plain execution of tasks in standardized processes are awaited. Employee engagement is necessary to satisfy the customers, especially when some situations require to “walk the extra mile”.

There is a third limit to command and control management which is social acceptance. In developed countries with highly educated employees there is a strong expectation for empowerment and autonomy. People want to find a good balance between their own satisfaction and the effort they put to create value for their organization.

With lesser (mass) manufacturing and more services and knowledge work, which implies lesser standard work in the classic sense and more need for quick and numerous decision-making, command-and-control management is increasingly inappropriate.

Autonomy and accountability

Granting more autonomy is mandatory to cope with both the actual business challenges and social aspirations. Yet autonomy without guidance and a minimum of control may well lead to something totally different from the expected outcome, or even to chaos.

As control in the former way of command-and-control is no more appropriate, the best way is delegate the responsibility to the doers and let them take accountability. Formal control is then lighter, people are empowered but have to take the responsibility as well as the autonomy.

Accountability for results is the essential counterweight to autonomy. But instead of having constant control, someone frequently “looking over the shoulder”, there are periodic milestones checks, short meetings, KPIs and dashboards to monitor the performance and progress towards the objectives.

Sense of purpose

Autonomy, accountability, empowerment are not enough by themselves to engage employees. They have to understand the purpose of their work and endorse it. They have to understand the link between what is to be done and the higher objectives.

Having a lot of freedom of action but not understanding clearly “what for” will not bring satisfaction as it lacks the sense of purpose. In this breaks down for the intermediate objectives to be met and the string of actions: what for?

The Goal Tree for guidance

The Goal Tree is the tool that shows the Goal to be achieved as well as the whole rationale linking the Necessary Conditions (intermediate objectives that must be satisfied) to the achievement of the Goal.

As such it is a roadmap and a great communication tool. It is easy to read and understand, can be left on its own for people to read or can be presented.

The Goal Tree provides guidance. The links between Necessary Conditions and their goals, which are Necessary Conditions to other goals higher in the Tree, are all based on necessity logic. This reads “in order to have A, we must have/need B”. It is easy to understand, to follow and to convince oneself about the logical soundness of the whole.

In the daily autonomous work, when in doubt about an action to take or decision to make, it is convenient to turn to the Goal Tree and check if the action of decision is aligned with the Goal to achieve or is it contributing to achieve some Necessary Condition ? If the answers are positive, go for it, otherwise don’t waste time and resources on something not contributing.

A Goal Tree is scalable

But what is also great with the Goal Tree is that is scalable. A Goal Tree is most probably a Tree made of nested Goal Trees. One Necessary Condition to the global Tree is someone’s or some department’s Goal. Therefore the underlying Necessary Conditions constitute a lower ranking Goal Tree, and so forth.

Goal Tree

Goal Trees are likely to go viral as their “beauty” and easy of use convince more stakeholders to start their own one to get clarity on their purpose and set of actions to undertake.

Ironically, I “infected” half a pharmaceutical plant with Goal Trees simply starting to use it for carefully planning a small local project. As the people to whom it was presented liked the Tree and immediately caught its potential, they started asking me to support them building their own or even gave it a try without telling anyone until it was ready to be presented.

Why the Goal Tree is more and more relevant

The Goal Tree enables the organization to grant more autonomy to the stakeholders while providing guidance and monitoring. It satisfies or supports most of the requirements for being responsive to customers, quick in new developments, clear about the objectives and so on.

It is a very good supporting tool for any business in which command-and-control management style is irrelevant, and those are expanding. I do believe the Goal Tree is more and more relevant.

About the author
View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Why would I learn to think (logically)?

Most people are convinced of their ability to think logically and don’t see the point of getting a specific training like the Logical Thinking Process  training course.

Indeed, in some extend most of the people have an innate basic logical thinking way, otherwise our world would be pretty weird.

Yet it is also true that many people are unable to structure properly their thoughts and express their ideas with clarity and in a straightforward brilliant logical way. Even so it makes sense in their mind, what they try to share doesn’t always make sense to others.

How many times did you listen to someone and ask (yourself) “so what?” once the speech is over.

The importance of clarity

The first important thing to achieve is to express ideas with clarity. Clarity means that the idea, purpose, objective or goal is expressed in an unambiguous way, letting no room for misunderstanding or interpretation.

Clarity is always important. As an employee to be correctly understood by managers and colleagues and as a leader to be correctly understood by the team members or subordinates.

Imagine the consequences of an ill-stated objective. Stakeholders may misunderstand it and do something unexpected but aligned onto the objective they understood. Such kind of situation can be costly in terms of motivation – the stakeholders are feeling bad about their misunderstanding, resenting their leader for his/her poor objective statement and disappointed for all the energy they put into some action, for nothing – and in terms of resources and time wasted.

Ambiguous or ill-stated objectives are also welcome for some people to smartly escape some chores or refrain to commit to something they don’t agree, don’t want or don’t like. Room for interpretation is also room for later arguing. Something not desirable when some objectives are non negotiable.

Conversely, the inability to clearly explain what has been achieved, why and how it contributes to achieving some objective may make a team member look as a poor performer even so his/her contribution was significant.

It is frustrating to be a brilliant contributor to some project but unable to explain why and how. It is also frustrating to be unable to “sell” a brilliant idea to colleagues, the boss or customers.

Sound logic

The robustness of a cause-and-effect analysis or demonstration is also important in order to convince readers or listeners about the soundness of the ideas expressed.

According to the principles of adult learning, sense and purpose must be fully understood for adults to commit to something. If the rationale of some project or actions asked is not demonstrated in a clear and sound (robust) way, it will invite opponents to fight against it, making use of all “holes”.

Some undertaking presented in a fluffy way with many unanswered questions remaining open is scary. Opponents will have it easy to reinforce the doubts and fears of the audience by pointing out the inconsistencies and “holes” in the reasoning.

Lack of confidence is very likely to turn away customers, stakeholders or decision makers from the best of proposal. Instinctive risk aversion is probably more common than innate logical thinking.

Using “long arrows”

Many people with good logical thinking abilities will mentally cut corners and use “long arrows” in their demonstration. A long arrow is a metaphor for skipping several cause-and-effect steps linking an effect to a cause or the other way round.

While the link exists, it does not appear clearly. The audience cannot understand the rational link between an effect and a cause and may lose trust or interest about the presentation, get stuck because of this logical “hole”, doubt about the reality and validity of the ideas expressed, and so on.

Long arrow example

I have to make a presentation in building n°10, 15 minutes walking from here. It rains. I need an umbrella. I must borrow one.

“Could I borrow your umbrella because I must present my report?” I ask a colleague.

My colleague may ask herself what the link is between presenting a report and her umbrella. She will probably lend me the umbrella anyway, still not understanding what for. I did not feel necessary to explain the whole sequence of cause-and-effect, perfectly clear and logical in my head but strange when expressed that way.

Now imagine asking for commitment to something very important and serious that does not make sense because of long arrows.

Mastering logical thinking is also about avoiding long arrows and being able to detect them. I guess someone trapped with long arrows would be grateful for the help by someone seeing the shortcut and helping to reformulate the idea in a more robust and clearer way.

Mitigate the risk of “negative branches”

Negative branch is another metaphor used in the Logical Thinking Process, were logical relationships are depicting in logical trees. A negative branch is an undesirable effect or chain of cause-and-effect that “grows” from an action or decision taken.

Negative branches are often growing unexpectedly because the action was decided or decision taken without checking the possibility for things to go in an unexpected and undesirable direction.

Some fixes for a problem can result in other problems to arise, sometimes worse than the initial problem that was to be fixed.

Awareness and practice of the Logical Thinking Process hones the ability to “foresee” or at least to prevent negative branches and craft better solutions.

Conclusion

Basic logical thinking is a given and it may appear strange to promote “learning to think logically”. But it is as with many other things supposed to be “common” but aren’t. Common sense for instance is not so common.

Therefore there is a lot of room to improve one’s logical thinking skills.

Once introduced to the Logical Thinking Process, there are daily opportunities to hone one’s scrutinizing abilities. Newspaper, tv news, blog posts, speeches… are not always constructed with sound logic. Fallacious reasoning is easier to debunk, as well as surfacing false assumptions or “insufficient causes” on which some thinking are built upon. Negative outcome can be sensed and hopefully prevented.

Mastering Logical Thinking helps for better analyzing situations, understanding real causes of problem, crafting better solutions and expressing oneself much better.

1View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Can CCPM reinforce Parkinson’s law?

In this post I share a post-mortem analysis of a situation we’ve encountered while helping a company to improve its performance. This company was specialized in custom-made machine engineering and asked for help to improve its On-Time Deliveries performance. We proposed to install Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM), an obvious choice given the circumstances.

Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) is supposed to supersede Critical Path Method (CPM) with its capability to deliver projects on time, something CPM has consistently failed to do for more than sixty years now.

Among the obstacles to on-time project termination is the Parkinson’s law. This law – not to be confused with the disease of the same name – states that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion”,

The Critical Chain Project Management approach recognizes this specific behavior consisting of refining the work, add unrequired features or perform additional tests instead of handing the task over to the next person in charge when finishing a project task ahead of time.

The main reasons for this behavior refered to as “Parkinson’s law” are that someone finishing earlier will:

  • fear to see the allocated time to achieve the task reduced by management the next time
  • fear to appear unable to give a trustworthy estimation of the time necessary to complete a task
  • enjoy the extra time when finishing earlier instead of being late and under pressure
  • enjoy to seemingly deliver just-in time and as predicted something that is ready and waiting for a while

Critical Chain Project Management being aware of the Parkinson’s law, its proponents educate the project members about the consequences of this behavior and put the relay race principles as well as common project buffer in place.

The relay race principles state that when a task on the Critical Chain is nearing its completion, a signal is sent to the next resource that will take over. This resource is then using this early warning to make sure to be ready on the high priority task that soon will be handed over. This is like the relay runner starting to run when the baton is approaching in order to be at top speed when it’s handed over.

The common buffer is a shared protection of the finishing date made of the sum of roughly the half of all individual protection margins. Please see Introduction to Critical Chain Project Management for more details about CCPM protective buffer.

So far so good. Now here is a developers team that was working in constant hassle, with chaotic and permanent priority changes and countless interruptions. Multitasking was so bad that some of the members could not work on a given task more than 3 minutes in average before the next interruption occurred.

Thanks to CCPM, multitasking was banned, interruptions prevented and focusing on one single project at a time became the new rule. The team members soon acknowledged the positive change and the comfort of getting rid of all the hassle and the multitasking.

Yet top management was not happy because the development team did not deliver more by finishing projects earlier, and taking a closer look concluded that CCPM reenforced Parkinson’s law. Indeed, the team members took it easy and did not really rush to the next priority job once their current task on the critical chain was completed.

What went wrong?

Well, nothing went really wrong, simply putting the system under control and stopping the constant chaos let the true problem show up: the team was not managed.

As long as everyone could influence the work on the projects, mainly sales managers and general manager worrying about the delivery date, someone was giving orders. Under such a pressure the developers managed to push the projects to their completion, even they finished late. As things were progressing, even in a total uncoordinated way, there was a general feeling that the process was delivering.

Once the CCPM rules were agreed and installed, sales managers and the general manager refrained to interfere with development team and developers had their list of priorities to work on. What they did not have was a manager taking care about work intensity (another word for productivity), cadence, challenging for continuous improvement. In one word: a manager.

Without the management’s constant challenge and care, the developers simply laid back, feeling legit to do so after all the years of stress and bad working conditions.

Insufficient cause

Reflecting on this story I realized that the top management was assuming that CCPM principles of stopping multitasking and keep focusing on the critical chain priorities was enough to squeeze out the unnecessary individual margins and consequently speed up the development process. This in turn would allow to increase throughput with the same resources.

In the Logical Thinking Process (LTP) lingo, this is an insufficient cause, meaning that by itself it will not be sufficient to cause the expected effect; increasing throughput.

What we consultants, and probably the general manager, considered a given was that this team was managed. As well this was clearly a Necessary Condition, we felt it was “oxygen”, another LTP term for conditions that are supposed so obvious that it is not necessary to express them, just as oxygen is necessary for humans to breath.

Conclusion

The CCPM principles worked well. The chaos was tamed and the developments could finish within the estimated time, now based on so-called focused durations.

The Throughput did increase, but not dramatically. There a three reasons for this:

  1. First reason is that the increase of throughput allowed new projects to start earlier, but given the average length of a project (10-12weeks), the speeding up was not very noticeable.
  2. Second, CCPM was applied on the work packages without challenging the work package contents nor engaging continuous improvement at once. The local management chose to collect data about buffer consumption first, in order to understand where and what to improve. Given the projects durations, this is a slow process.
  3. Third, there was no incentive to improve due to the lack of team management. This later becoming blatant once all other disturbing factors have been neutralized.

So CCPM did not enforce Parkinson’s law. CCPM did what it is supposed to: set the scene for efficient focused work and deliver the projects on promised dates.

CCPM is no cure for everything and no substitute for failing management.


Bandeau_CH160608
View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Samples from LTP training with Bill Dettmer (Day 1)

Paris, June 2016. Bill Dettmer delivers his 6-day Logical Thinking Process training course in our offices. I am attending on the host’s and partner’s side, going through the whole course for the second time (I got my certificate the previous year) as a backup facilitator-if-needed, a master of ceremony, reporter and videographer.

While Bill is sharing his knowledge and experience, I videotape with his consent in order to promote the course and show you samples of what happens during the 6 days.

The following video shows samples of the morning of the first day, once introductions have been made, backgrounds, expectations and motivations of attendants shared.

I am sorry for the poor image quality due to low light, but this is a tradeoff between sharing the experience with the viewers and bothering the course attendants who paid for their seat.

The first morning is spent on some basic theory about the logical relationships, the structure of the different logical trees and how to build them. It paves the way for the afternoon’s exercise in which each participant builds his/her own Goal Tree, then, in turns, presents it to others and have it scrutinized by the others, under Bill’s supervision and coaching.


Bandeau_CH160601View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

The Executive Guide to Breakthrough Project Management – Book Review

The Executive Guide to Breakthrough Project Management is about combining Critical Chain Project Management and “alliancing” or collaborative contracting for a win-win efficient way to manage huge (or small) construction projects.

Soon when reading the guide, it becomes obvious that what the authors describe as efficient in construction and capex projects can be used in many other trades.

Watch the author’s conference

Where I could have used a Goal Tree but didn’t know about the tool then

During the June 2016 Logical Thinking Process alumni reunion, Bill Dettmer asked the participants to share their “War Stories”, i.e. experience with the Logical Thinking Process (LTP) and LTP tools.
I came up with several short stories. In this excerpt, I recall I could have used a Goal Tree but didn’t know the tool at that time.

The story I tell is the one that inspired my post Goal tree chronicles – The pharma plant.

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Bill Dettmer and David Poveda share views about planning

David Poveda is a Colombia-based consultant, Owner and  Director of FLOWING Consultoria. David is well-known for his successful implementations of Theory of Constraints (ToC) and Lean-based solutions, and his expertise about Demand Driven MRP (DDMRP).

Just before the Logical Thinking Process training in Paris, in June 2016, he paid a visit to Marris Consulting and met Bill Dettmer. Both agreed to share thought about various subjects and in front of recording camcorder.

In this 10 minute video, David shares his views about planning techniques and somewhat surprisingly links ToC’s Thinking Processes to planning, especially Bill Dettmer’s Goal Tree .

According to David, the Thinking Processes should be called “the real planning processes“, because they are a complete planning and execution methodology. Bill is somewhat taken by surprise and explains the origins of his Logical Thinking Process (LTP) being in complex problem solving, but realizing with David’s inputs that changing what is done requires competent planning.

David goes on and explains that a Goal Tree is a planning tool for smaller projects as well, and many of David’s clients agree about not knowing how to plan. Therefore the LTP should be taught more widely.