This week I include an extract from a recent newsletter by Jim Womack as he discusses the role of the Lean manager as a “problem solver” and how the manager should develop a Lean mindset.

At Efficiency Works in our work with management teams of organisations on the Lean journey we are constantly seeking to find the critical ingredients for the successful execution of Lean. There is no doubt that energetic management support is one critical ingredient for success. When management support is missing the Lean initiatives are often seen by the employees as just another “thing” that we are doing to reduce costs.

But is energetic management support enough to create a culture that thrives on “enquiry” and “experimentation”?

Now over to Jim Womack ……

What do I mean by a lean state of mind?

First, the lean manager eagerly embraces the role of problem solver. This means going to see the actual situation, asking about the performance issue, seeking the root cause, and showing respect for lower-level managers and for colleagues at the same organizational level by asking hard questions until good answers emerge. It’s this critical, probing state of mind that permits lean tools to be put to good use as the lean manager applies the right tool for the specific problem and does this in context on the gemba rather than in the abstract in some conference room. Empty ritual is replaced with a rigorous thought process that engages employees and pulls forward their best abilities.

Second, the lean manager realizes that no manager at a higher level can or should solve a problem at a lower level. (And one of the worst abuses of lean tools lies in trying to do just this.) Instead, the higher-level manager can assign responsibility to a manager at a lower level to tackle the problem through a continuing dialogue, both with the higher-level manager and with everyone actually touching the process causing the problem. The lean law of organizational life is that problems can only be solved where they live, in conversation with the people whose current actions are contributing to the problem. But this requires support, encouragement, and, yes, relentless pressure, from the higher-level lean manager.

Third, the lean manager believes that all problem solving is about experimentation by means of Plan Do Check Act. No one can know the answer before experiments are conducted and the many experiments that fail will yield valuable learning that can be applied to the next round of experiments.

Finally, the lean manager knows that no problem is ever solved forever. Indeed, the introduction of a promising countermeasure is sure to create new problems at some other point in the organization. This is not bad. It is good, provided the critical, probing mind of the lean manager keeps on the case in pursuit of perfection.

In short the traditional manager is usually passive, going through rituals and applying standard remedies to unique problems. By contrast, inside the mind of the lean manager lies a restless desire to continually rethink the organization’s problems, probe their root causes, and lead experiments to find the best currently known countermeasures. When this lean mindset is coupled with the proper lean tools amazing things are continually possible.

Next week we will discuss how to use the “Gemba Walk” to help us improve our Lean state of mind as part of our management standard work.

I have a client who is very excited to have achieved 12 months without sustaining a Lost Time Injury (LTI).  This is a record for this particular site and a great achievement.

But does this measure drive the behaviour we  need to achieve long term sustainable continuous improvement in everything we do for our customers?  Sure, having an injury free workplace is something we should be aiming for because it enables us to reliably supply goods and services to our customers.  Additionally, we have a responsibility to our employees to provide a safe working environment, but how should we measure our safety performance?

The number of Lost Time Injuries, often expressed as the number of LTI’s per million hours worked (LTIFR) is a popular measure for safety.  One problem is that this metric is a “lag” indicator that doesn’t necessarily provide a good indication of how our safety performance will track in the future.  Also the longer we go without having an LTI, the more pressure there is to not report an LTI.  In my experience this means that we find ourselves going to great lengths to make sure any injury does not count as an LTI.  Have you ever heard someone say “If we could just get that person back to work quickly on light duties  we could prevent this “becoming” and LTI?”  This is not showing true respect for our employees, and communicates the wrong messages to our workforce.

I once worked for an organisation that had achieved 2 years LTI free, and in doing so had created so much pressure on the employees that no one was prepared to admit they were carrying injuries.  Eventually there was an avalanche of repetitive strain LTI’s that had been “covered” up and remained untreated because nobody wanted to be the one who spoilt the LTI performance measure. The company’s focus on the LTI measure had actually resulted in injuries that were much worse than they might have been had they been reported and treated earlier.

So, what is the answer?

Wherever possible we should be using “lead” indicators that help us identify problem solving opportunities as early as possible in the process.  So for safety, perhaps we should be measuring how many near misses are reported and how quickly corrective actions are implemented to prevent or reduce the risk of their re occurrence.  By focusing our attention on measuring how well we are improving our processes  to prevent near misses from ever happening  we are shifting the emphasis to “prevention” rather than “cure”.  We are also providing a real mechanism for employee involvement that will lead to a more sustainable set of operational outcomes in the longer term.

Lag indicators may sometimes achieve a result faster, but as a general rule for designing any metrics we should always insist on having lead indicators that drive the right behaviour and provide a more sustainable outcome in the long term.