Redux: Rethinking Lean (Six Sigma) Service

Nichloas- Also, I believe you are missing quite a bit if you believe that manufacturing and service are the same. We have not found this to be the case. Regardless, you won't know if you begin with a tools approach. Any tool requires the 3 questions "who invented the tool, what problem were they trying to solve and do I have that problem?" with mind thinking I believe you will find the answer is a resounding "no." Tripp
Replies (0)

Nicholas- Some I agree with here, but do a personal inventory of those that promote "lean" in service or even LEI as the source. You will see tools as the center of workshops and where people begin to "fix" things. They are missing the thinking element and start people off wrong. W. Edwards Deming taught us that we have one chance to teach people the right way. If if lean experts are leading with tools they are starting the wrong way. Most lean interventions I have seen or talked about are all about the kaizen events of 5S (even promoting 5S for Twitter). Regards, Tripp
Replies (0)

Hmm, Interesting debate between Mr Graban & Mr Seddon. I like their two conceptions of improvement. My stake on it : Lean can work well everywhere, even in high variety environment (eg. hospitals). The problem today, seems that lots of organizations, if not consultants, see it as a toolbox solution to improvement, only to fail miserably at it. We all know that. Systems thinking (which is indeed highly present in Lean when one think about it), offers, IMO, a way of looking to an organization that does not put the focus on tool, but mainly on *thinking* (besides, Ohno himself told us that the T in TPS should stand for Thinking, not Toyota, less Tools ;) I think people or society as a whole is being driven by a toolset mentality. Or press button. Whatever, you get the point. A ST archetype that sums it up for me is Shifting the Burden. People tend to look for a tool (symptomatic solution) instead of stop-and-think of a root cause analysis and solution. The approach as advocated by Mr Seddon is mostly tool-less (as could tools in Lean be seen) and prevents that mind trap for people willing to try it. As for standardization... I keep to the belief (it's all about beliefs anyway) that a standard is a sure way to reveal problems. Not fix them. What fixes the problem is the solution you think of and put in place once the problem is revealed. And in service, each "product" is different from the preceding one (different customer). You can't just put a bad product in a red bin or you lose a customer. Lean manufacturing and Lean service share a lot but must surely not be blindly applied one for the other. For me, you're both right in your approches but could probably benefit from learning one from the other.
Replies (0)

Bernard: As I said to Mark Graban, the issue to me is that the assumption that standardization is always a good thing. Unfortunately, we live in that world. How standardization is derived assumption, tools, wrong thinking,etc. is what we are fighting here. The biggest lever for improvement is the thinking about the design and management of work. Much of what I see with regards to standardization is wrong creating the failure demand discussed below. This waste isn't a little, but a lot. What thinking is in place to standardize will impact whether it is done with success or failure. It doesn't end there either as sustainability becomes an issue even if the "right" standardization is in place. Regards, Tripp
Replies (0)

Mark: Let's look at information technology. I standardize my IVR system into a menu of options, customers present their problem differently and the variety is not absorbed by the IVR. The customer is forced to call back in trying to "figure out" the standardized message. This creates failure demand (demand caused by the failure to do something or do something right for a customer). Software forces standardization (typically) because the development process needs requirements to code to. Only the insightful understanding of customer demand can we determine whether standardization is helpful. Most applications of standardization done inside-out, top-down, without knowledge, etc. is done in an entrapping way. See: http://blog.newsystemsthinking.com/blog/bryce-harrison/0/0/the-great-service-epiphany But standardization is only a small piece of systems thinking, there is much more being missed around the thinking problem that is creating waste. Many Lean practioners look to 5S and standard work as starting places to improve organizations (most from manufacturing backgrounds). This is wholly the wrong place to start. Hopefully this makes sense to you. I'm sure you will let me know if it doesn't. Tripp Babbitt
Replies (0)

Standardization has its place in the service industry. Here's my perspective: If the service organization you are working with is in complete disarray, where everyone has their own way of doing everything, one should look for core functions to standardize. My experience tells me that its better to overdo it than 'underdo' it. Only after the starndards have been turned into habits should the org. begin to peel back the layers of standardization where it provides the customer with more value than cost of waste. On an ogoing basis, as the org learns to evaluate everything it does with an eye on waste v. value, things will improve - hopefully forever. We cant all apply one set of rules or beliefs to all companies because each is in a different place in terms of evelotion. Its important to know what the tools are so that you have them when you need them. It has been my experience though, that most of the tools used in manufacturing aren't useful in the service industry. Some definitely are, but most just dont have an impact like they do on the physical environment. The root causes of waste in the service industry, I find, are often different than in manufacturing. However, the way out of trouble and into the minds of profitable customers is through voc and vofl. Lean thinking and understanding human behavior and motivations for each activity becomes much more important because productivity is normally measured differently in service v. mfg. Just my thoughts. www.bernardrosauer.wordpress.com
Replies (0)

To try to bring this back to issues, I'll again question the idea that standardization is somehow the root of all evil in services, namely healthcare. The NY Times has a story today about Intermountain Health and how their efforts to standardize (not commonize or make unthinkingly identical) medical treatments have provided measurable improvement and have saved "thousands" of lives. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08Healthcare-t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
Replies (0)

Seddon, I think the "many people tell me" is a made up construct like the "many people emailed you" about Jim Womack. Just say what you believe, don't hide behind others.
Replies (0)

Thanks for the continued insults, Seddon.
Replies (0)

Folks wanting to learn more about systems thinking go to www.newsystemsthinking.com and read the Fit for the Future series under articles or download free "Understanding Your Organization as a System."
Replies (0)

Brad: Some I agree with here. The one issue that stands out is that tools should be used to decrease failure demand. A misconception I must address, otherwise we will have programs to reduce failure demand. The problem is broader and involves out thinking around the design and management of work. Until we address this thinking problem we stand to make things worse. Please see: http://newsystemsthinking.com/about_command_v_systems.asp Regards, Tripp Babbitt www.newsystemsthinking.com
Replies (0)

Great debate! I’ve blogged on this topic before, www.wordpress.com/bradtotten and I still think it comes down to the fundamental difference between a manufacturing organization and a service organization. Manufacturers sell products, service organizations sell happiness, (you’ll have to check out Tony Hsieh’s upcoming book, “Delivering Happiness”). When it comes to manufacturing products, people expect consistency; ergo standardization is likely a good thing to pursue. However when it comes to service, everyone “feels” his problem is unique. When organizations build blockades to “happiness” by putting everyone through a standard IVR that does not let the customer zero out to a live contact, they drive customer dissatisfaction. While companies may seek opportunities for self-service because they are cost effective and standardize the path to get to an agent, forcing someone to suffer through three or more failure attempts before getting transferred to an agent only adds to the cost. Don’t get me wrong, Lean and/or Six Sigma methodology for continuous improvement are excellent tools and provide an approach to problem solving that is process based. But applying those tools to a customer facing issue in a service organization is like using a pipe wrench to tighten spark plugs. I am a subject matter expert in the contact center space so that where my passions go. Far too long management has put the emphasis on the wrong metrics. While the focus has been on reducing call volumes by forcing self-service, reducing average handle time by having scripted standardized answers or managing the workforce to “acceptable” hold times, the real effort should have been on fixing the underlying problem that created the “failed demand” call in the first place. That’s where the tool finds it proper role.
Replies (0)

Katherine: You make a good point, I didn't mean to overlook the sub-optimization component. The conversation went a different way. You might enjoy this post from a different IQPC site where I have a regular column. http://www.customermanagementiq.com/Columnarticle.cfm?externalID=1198&ColumnID=26 or http://blog.newsystemsthinking.com/blog/bryce-harrison/0/0/frederick-winslow-taylor-the-functional-separation-of-work Most of what you describe is what Deming wrote in The New Economics under Appreciation for a System. Thanks for the thought. Regards, Tripp Babbitt www.newsystemsthinking.com
Replies (0)

I object. I did not 'twist' Mr Graban's words. I think he doth protest too much. I merely asked him, 'who told people to start by standardising?' He should know the answer to that question and it ought to alarm him (and all of us). People tell me Mr Graban has a blog where he claims to speak for 'true lean'. God help us all.
Replies (0)

Tripp, this is just one example of where we agree. As I state in my book, standardization is a spectrum. Too much standardization is bad and we never standardize for the sake of standardizing. Too little standardization can be a problem too, would you not agree? It all starts with customer needs (patient needs -- which include safety, which is often improved with more standardization, given the starting point of most hospitals).
Replies (0)

Tripp: Whether one agrees with your assessment of Lean, TQM etc or not, you make a really good point which I think is being lost in the comments so far: organizations often fail to implement sustainable improvements, whichever approach they apply, because they focus on a part instead of the whole. I've led and been led through TQM, ISO 9001, Lean etc in Canada and the U.S. and while all approaches can be very well implemented, including the necessary change in leadership thinking, most are not. North American organizations seem to always look for the "silver bullet", the magic tool that they can use that will allow them to keep doing what they've always done, but get a different result. So they apply Lean tools without applying Lean principles. They attempt to replicate Toyota’s success, ignoring Toyota’s belief that if you take care of the process, the results will take care of themselves—instead, N.American organizations try to apply piecemeal quality management tools in an effort to affect their financial results—and preferably by next quarter. (The tail is wagging the dog!) They get so focused on measuring how many calls a customer service rep takes and how quickly the call is dispenses with, they forget that it usually takes longer to serve a dissatisfied customer—and even longer to turn them into a very satisfied customer. By definition, systems thinking requires that we look at the whole, and the interdependency of all the parts. Thus the “silver bullet approach” would, by definition, not fit with systems thinking. I could go on & on, as I’m rather passionate about this issue, but suffice it to say Lean, Six Sigma, TQM etc can all benefit from continuous improvement. Regards, Katherine Norenius kn.norenka@gmail.com
Replies (0)

Mark: Your question about how much standardization is enough belies the thinking problem we encounter. It is unique to each organization and is determined by method, not how much is enough or too much? It never can be determined inside-out, it relates to understanding purpose and demand. Which hospital has the same demands as another? None. Even if they were the same . . . the systems themselves are different. The work design, structure, measures, management, etc. are all different. We need to help organizations understand this so they can learn to absorb their own variety of demand. Otherwise, we stand to make their systems worse. Regards, Tripp Babbitt www.newsystemsthinking.com
Replies (0)

Tripp - I'm just telling you my personal reaction to that phrase. If you're trying to standardize the response, good luck - very command-and-control of you (I'm kidding of course). I'm disappointed that Mr. Seddon would put twist my words. I've already pointed out my question was a rhetorical one. Of course total chaos is the not the only alternative. As Toyota teaches, I teach that standard-IZED is a spectrum, you find the point that makes sense. I never said to "start" with standardization, here you are putting words in my mouth. I asked Tripp for a practical example of how much standardization is enough, and instead I've gotten vague language and attacks.
Replies (0)

Mr Graban says: "To say "Lean is tools" is patently false." But that is exactly how lean has been delivered, even Womack acknowledges what he calls the tool age. The tool age is still alive and well. Mr Graban also says: "Now, many organizations and consultants use lean as just a bunch of tools, but shame on them (not shame on lean)." Imagine if Toyota thought that way - it's OK if you do it right, but we acknowledge many people won't... it's like selling cars you know won't work. Mr Graban goes on: "What, exactly, do "systems thinkers" propose as an alternative?" Exactly as Ohno taught: first you must study, get knowledge, find out what your problems really are. You find the problems you thought you had are not your problems. Then Mr Graban says: "You say standardization drives waste... so what is the solution, have total chaos where people can do things however they please??" It reveals the way Mr Graban thinks. Chaos is not the alternative; in fact standardisation creates chaos, it stops service organisations from absorbing variety. Mr Graban might like to reflect on one of my client's experiences. They did lean tools for three years and only when the 'reported savings' of £900m failed to show on the bottom line, did they seek to learn why. I see such debacles as an inevitable consequence of assuming that management's problems ARE their problems (managers think activity = cost); starting with tools (tool heads assume the same) and, hence, stopping their system from absorbing variety. So the bottom line was not only no £900m to show for it, but lots of extra cost too. And who gains? I think you can work that out for yourself. And who was it, Mr Graban, who told everyone the place to start was by standardising? Not Ohno for sure.
Replies (0)

Howard: Nice contrast with the "blue water" comparison of the methods. It seems to be a process like death (Kubler-Ross) Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. I'd just like people to move through faster as there is profit and innovation waiting. Regards, Tripp Babbitt www.newsystemsthinking.com
Replies (0)

Mark: I believe you are over reading this, I am sharing a personal journey and adding why it is different (and in my opinion) better thinking. There is something important to learn here and I am hopeful people understand the impact. Sure some will be offended, but I want them to be curious so they continue an important journey. The counter-intuitive truths and management paradoxes don't have to end with tools, Deming and Ohno's thinking has so much more to offer for those seeking. Regards, Tripp Babbitt www.newsystemethinking.com
Replies (0)

I do not agree that Lean is 90%in agreement with Seddon's account of systems thinking. Although I do accept that Mark might be 90% in agreement personally. There is clear blue water between the two methods. Much of the learning from Systems Thinking is counterintuitive. It makes people angry because they cannot understand what is being said. It appears to go against all logic. That is why it is such a massive shock when you learn the real power for yourself. It all becomes clear.
Replies (0)

I meant all "non-self-proclaimed reformed"
Replies (0)

Tripp, you don't say "all" but you imply it when you place yourself on the pedestal of the "reformed." You're implying all other self-proclaimed "reformed" are operating on a lower plane than the enlightened "systems thinkers." It's not an appealing approach for this movement to take. It drives an unnecessary wedge when we probably agree about 90% of all of this and we're all fighting a good fight against the truly bad thinking (command and control).
Replies (0)

Mark: First of all, I believe you would be prudent to read the article again. A tools-based approach to Lean and/or Six Sigma is the issue. Even LEI training focuses on tools, I have attended their seesions in the past . . . so barring the "flowery language" I can safely say that LEI (like other Lean firms) make money from promoting this thinking. If they know better than they should rethink. It is a short-cut which short-term thinkers love. Secondly, standardization usually is at the heart of failure demand in organizations as orgs can not absorb the variety of demand (I have around 200 blog posts for examples) offered in service as it is greater than manufacturing. Top-down and inside-out types of standardization where forced upon those without knowledge of the work is at issue. Command and control managers, technology vendors and many lean six sigma folks don't understand the work or the customer demand. Instead they lead with the assumption that standardization is always good. The missing element that I see in US service organizations is understanding customer purpose/demand before standardization. The front/office back office design of service industries is "standard" and is a bad assumption. We see this in banks, government, telephone companies, hospitals, etc. We never make any assumptions and challenge all that are made with better thinking about the design and management of work as EVERY system is different. If standardization is emergent with knowledge (from what we call performing "check") than OK. But instead I see folks looking for the standard work or performing 5S without taking these steps. I never said "all" Lean people, I did say that a tools-based approach is damaging in service (as many "lean" consultants come from manufacturing firms and make assumptions about applying mfg tools to service). Systems thinkers believe tools were built by those that had a problem and that teaching people how to think differently will help new tools emerge (rather than copying ones from another service firm or mfg). Further, we believe that unless people change thinking and understand the what and why of current performance applying tools (even with success) will be short-lived as learning wasn't emergent it was because of a tools approach. I believe we are setting the record straight so organizations know misguided systems thinking, lean, technology, six sigma. If you read my posts I am much harder on technology vendors that try to standardize things so they can code technology entrapping the worker (this I have seen for a decade). Regardless, I like the debate and people need to be able to identify whether improvement is sustainable. As a reformed lean six sigma master black belt, I believe the systems thinking approach hits hard issues that are often ignored and that John Seddon has advanced the thinking in applying to service organizations . . . we need to take advantage of not only what he has learned, but how he has learned it. I see differences and refinement, but let's end the blindless copying and assumptions and begin building organizations that can sustain and think making change of method, innovation, reduced costs, improved service, new tools for new problems and better thinking about the design and management of work something each service system can do on its own. Regards, Tripp Babbitt www.newsystemsthinking.com
Replies (0)

Howard or Tripp, if you could share a single concrete example (instead of flowery language), it would be helpful. I was asking questions.... rather than trying to hit anyone over the head with my thoughts (I was trying to get people to think, the goal in a system, eh?). Standardization is not either/or -- neither total standardization or complete chaos. Toyota says "Standard-IZED" because there's grey area, you don't totally standardize everything in a production environment either. In healthcare, standardized work can be driven by the people who actually do the work. It's not necessarily "command and control" -- that's a false premise that well designed standard methods are top down. ThedaCare, a health system in Wisconsin is literally saving lives because they staff members and physicians have standardized some of their practices so they can have consistency in diagnosis and treatment of certain types of patients. The staff own this and they can (they must) improve the methods as they continue to find better ways. The staff love this. The patients and their families certainly love it. Go visit ThedaCare (or another good lean practicing hospital) before you blindly criticize. Riegholt shares a great example from Seattle Children's... this does not have to be "command and control." To make blanket statements that lean people ignore systems thinking principles is not helpful. I agree with Riegholt that there are not simple answers or simple programs. Too many managers want a quick fix and that's one of the major root causes of the situation. For the record, I love Seddon's book "Freedom from Command and Control" and have introduced it to many hospital leaders who were also using Lean method. It's all very complementary. I'm not going out of my way to attack everybody who has ever done anything misguided in the name of "systems thinking" or Dr. Deming or John Seddon. Finding bad cases of misguided implementation does not mean Lean, as a set of concepts, is bad.
Replies (0)

Riegholt I don't think that either Mark or Tripp are trying to sell, the article about selling is for something else on this site. I think that they both hold strong views and both think that they are right. I am with Tripp on the whole argument around services here. As to the label I understand what you are saying, Ohno and Seddon have said as much. Systems Thinking is a very broad church though. Lean suggests cuts and it is associated with a huge volume of baggage including a denial/obfuscation of systems principles. Let us leave room for other people to post their views on here. regards Howard
Replies (0)

From the perspective of an argumentation theorist I'ld like to point at the argument based on authority "what Deming [himself] taught me" and the strawman fallacy "so what is the solution, have total chaos where people can do things however they please?? " The discussion between Mark and Tripp seems not too constructive. To be frank it sounds like two people (consultants) trying to 'sell their method'. If you agree that demand should pull, than offer should push, why not explain your thoughts as clearly as possible, without benchmarking ? Let's see what happens.. btw I think the add above the article might be indicative of an underlying problem. It states: "Boost your salary with Six Sigma/Lean" "six sigma certification 100% online" How did this happen ? Could it be that we, managers with responsibility for primary processes, want (or even need) a label to trust (six sigma, lean, tqm, systems thinking, toc) like a brand, because we donot want to try and find out ourselves ? Hire someone with a cv showing the right label might look like a shortcut to succes. I think there are none. Let's just try, learn and improve.
Replies (0)

Working in a service organisation in the public sector, I recognise what you, howardclark, are saying. Top down is so normal for us that standardisation is naturally associated with enforcement and bureaucracy. Can we not think of standards emerging bottom up, in reaction to real problems instead of being implemented top dwon in reaction to other issues ? I think of the example shown to me Seattle's Children's hospital. The 'tool-tables' layout is standardises nowadays, whereas they used to be prepared the way each individual preparing person seems best, maybe inspired form what the surgeon wanted. How many time was spend searching and checking, you think ? Now the professionals got together and set their own standard, thus stopping wasting time looking for tools. (I hope my explanation comes across)
Replies (0)

I am afraid that Mark Graban is exceedingly wrong. In service organizations standardization not only is one of the major causes of waste, it is itself a symptom of command and control hierarchical thinking. It is a part of the bureaucratic nightmare from which we are slowly starting to emerge. Mark thinks chaos is the alternative to standardization. Systems thinkers know that in a well-designed system, and without a single scrap of standardization around the place, continual innovation, learning and improvement takes place. It is a fundamental difference between production systems and service systems. Workers love it. Their brains are engaged and the freedom it gives them stimulates them to perform. Customers love it. They get exactly what they want out of the service and they bring flowers and chocolates. And funnily enough, chaos does not ensue when the system is designed right. Workers become free for the first time in years. In the public sector you can get a few glimpses at The Systems Thinking Review. There is video of workers at all levels talking about their experiences. The transformation is astounding, their stories warming. Whatever is left, the truth is that in service organizations standardization kills innovation, learning and improvement. It suggests a glimpse at the hidden heart of Toyota, systems thinking principles.
Replies (0)

We propose three questions when anyone wants to use a tool: 1. Who invented the tool? 2. What problem were they trying to solve? 3. Do I have that problem? Otherwise, we may find new tools appropriate for an organization that would be emergent rather than copying what someone else has done. This has roots in what Deming taught me. "Lean" hijacked the thinking process, as TQM hijacked Deming's thinking. We have stopped thinking in the US at great cost, people copying what was good for manufacturing in service . . . dumb. They are different. Orgs and consultants looking for standardization like manufacturing, not the way to go. We propose understanding demand/purpose first not looking for processes to standardize. Variety of demand can't be absorbed with even greater waste than what you started with when you set out to improve. A better way is to think about the design and management of work that way we don't have to look for tools and standardization. Otherwise Mark, we are no better than all those folks that have come back from Japan with a simple answer (JIT, Quality Circles, 5S, etc) that really hasn't changed a thing and we (US) continue to be uncompetitive. Enough is enough, we can do better . . . we have to do better. There is too much at stake. Regards, Tripp Babbitt www.newsystemsthinking.com
Replies (0)

To say "Lean is tools" is patently false, if you consider what is taught by Toyota and the Lean Enterprise Institute. Now, many organizations and consultants use lean as just a bunch of tools, but shame on them (not shame on lean). That would be like blaming the hammer for all of the carpenters that use them badly. What, exactly, do "systems thinkers" propose as an alternative? You say standardization drives waste... so what is the solution, have total chaos where people can do things however they please?? Excessive standardization is waste, don't you think?
Replies (0)