Put Down That Tool
This article was originally published by JFlinch on Oct 15, 2009.
What tool should I use for solving this problem? What’s the right tool? There are many tools in the toolbox of lean for problem-solving and process improvement. When an organization teaches people to use the tools, there is often an over-reliance on jumping into using the tool without making sure it’s the right tool.
Here’s my advice: Use the simplest tool possible. When you start to use tools that are more complicated than they need to be, we add unnecessary waste and bureaucracy to the process of improvement. For example, if you already know what to do, then just do it. You don’t need a tool, you just need to execute on your idea. Don’t force-fit your understanding into an A3 or a 5 Why or any other method just for scoring points. I see this often. Someone solves a problem. But there wasn’t a 5 whys done, so people say “that’s not lean, you have no 5 why”. This becomes a dangerous response because then lean becomes about filling out the form, not about the actual improvement work.
These tools are all designed to help us with the process. That’s how they should be evaluated, by how much they help. When skipping the use of the tools leads to repeat problems and underwhelming results, then it is right to challenge someone on their approach to the problems. Focus on the methods, not on the artifacts. Filling out the A3 or the 5 why report is the artifact. My experience suggests to me that using the form can help you apply the thinking. It is a form of standard work for thinking. But the form itself is not the work. The A3 is not the problem, it is just your articulation of the problem. Never put the articulation ahead of the actual work.
I am a tool guy but I have to agree with you. However, I do like using tools to provide structure to what I am doing. I hate starting with a blank piece of paper. For example:
1. I start with an A3 format that prompts me to define the problem and/or process.
2. Create my information flow with the easiest tools(Excel, Powerpoint, Paper, Recorder) available.
3. Then go back and assemble for others to understand.
This last step, call it the assembly process, of putting it on a piece of paper or a Word document does create clarity for myself. Tools don’t solve problems, people do.
I am a tool guy but I have to agree with you. However, I do like using tools to provide structure to what I am doing. I hate starting with a blank piece of paper. For example:
1. I start with an A3 format that prompts me to define the problem and/or process.
2. Create my information flow with the easiest tools(Excel, Powerpoint, Paper, Recorder) available.
3. Then go back and assemble for others to understand.
This last step, call it the assembly process, of putting it on a piece of paper or a Word document does create clarity for myself. Tools don’t solve problems, people do.
I am a tool guy but I have to agree with you. However, I do like using tools to provide structure to what I am doing. I hate starting with a blank piece of paper. For example:
1. I start with an A3 format that prompts me to define the problem and/or process.
2. Create my information flow with the easiest tools(Excel, Powerpoint, Paper, Recorder) available.
3. Then go back and assemble for others to understand.
This last step, call it the assembly process, of putting it on a piece of paper or a Word document does create clarity for myself. Tools don’t solve problems, people do.
Jamie,
Great post. The “that’s not lean, you have no 5 why†line really resonates with me, because in my experience as a lean advocate in my company, people almost universally see Lean as a a prescriptive program. Based on this misunderstanding, I’ve seen two broad categories of people in regards to Lean, the Blind Supporter and the Libertarian. The Blind Supporter suspects that Lean is something good, and is just excited that the tools are so abundant, available, and easy to implement. The Libertarian is against prescriptive programs that interfere with the way things have always been done and that limit his ability to be the firefighting hero on a daily basis. Of course, both of these stereotypes are based on a faulty misunderstanding of Lean.
Looking back on how we initiated our Lean initiative, we could have done a lot of things differently to promote a more accurate view of Lean. Instead of mandating prescriptive tools like 5S, we should have fostered an atmosphere of problem-solving and continuous improvement. With such a positive atmosphere, and with a little technical Lean training, our people would have prescribed their own tools based on their specific needs. Maybe they didn’t need a full-blown 5S system; maybe they just needed to better enforce their daily clean-up schedules through a visual control board. The simplest tool possible!
Lessons learned. Hansei is a powerful tool.
Jamie,
Great post. The “that’s not lean, you have no 5 why†line really resonates with me, because in my experience as a lean advocate in my company, people almost universally see Lean as a a prescriptive program. Based on this misunderstanding, I’ve seen two broad categories of people in regards to Lean, the Blind Supporter and the Libertarian. The Blind Supporter suspects that Lean is something good, and is just excited that the tools are so abundant, available, and easy to implement. The Libertarian is against prescriptive programs that interfere with the way things have always been done and that limit his ability to be the firefighting hero on a daily basis. Of course, both of these stereotypes are based on a faulty misunderstanding of Lean.
Looking back on how we initiated our Lean initiative, we could have done a lot of things differently to promote a more accurate view of Lean. Instead of mandating prescriptive tools like 5S, we should have fostered an atmosphere of problem-solving and continuous improvement. With such a positive atmosphere, and with a little technical Lean training, our people would have prescribed their own tools based on their specific needs. Maybe they didn’t need a full-blown 5S system; maybe they just needed to better enforce their daily clean-up schedules through a visual control board. The simplest tool possible!
Lessons learned. Hansei is a powerful tool.
Jamie,
Great post. The “that’s not lean, you have no 5 why†line really resonates with me, because in my experience as a lean advocate in my company, people almost universally see Lean as a a prescriptive program. Based on this misunderstanding, I’ve seen two broad categories of people in regards to Lean, the Blind Supporter and the Libertarian. The Blind Supporter suspects that Lean is something good, and is just excited that the tools are so abundant, available, and easy to implement. The Libertarian is against prescriptive programs that interfere with the way things have always been done and that limit his ability to be the firefighting hero on a daily basis. Of course, both of these stereotypes are based on a faulty misunderstanding of Lean.
Looking back on how we initiated our Lean initiative, we could have done a lot of things differently to promote a more accurate view of Lean. Instead of mandating prescriptive tools like 5S, we should have fostered an atmosphere of problem-solving and continuous improvement. With such a positive atmosphere, and with a little technical Lean training, our people would have prescribed their own tools based on their specific needs. Maybe they didn’t need a full-blown 5S system; maybe they just needed to better enforce their daily clean-up schedules through a visual control board. The simplest tool possible!
Lessons learned. Hansei is a powerful tool.
Jamie: Thanks for another great blog. Totally agree.
Since Lean is not a set of tools but contains tools (see http://www.netobjectives.com/blogs/Lean-Is-Not-Just-A-Set-Of-Tools ) anytime someone says – “you’re not doing Lean because you’re not _doing_ this” indicates _they_ probably don’t understand Lean. Lean is more an approach and thinking process than using tools. Someone can say – “you’re not doing lean because you’re not XXX” where XXX is an approach or thought process. But there is no 100% doing anywhere in the real world.
Jamie: Thanks for another great blog. Totally agree.
Since Lean is not a set of tools but contains tools (see http://www.netobjectives.com/blogs/Lean-Is-Not-Just-A-Set-Of-Tools ) anytime someone says – “you’re not doing Lean because you’re not _doing_ this” indicates _they_ probably don’t understand Lean. Lean is more an approach and thinking process than using tools. Someone can say – “you’re not doing lean because you’re not XXX” where XXX is an approach or thought process. But there is no 100% doing anywhere in the real world.
Jamie: Thanks for another great blog. Totally agree.
Since Lean is not a set of tools but contains tools (see http://www.netobjectives.com/blogs/Lean-Is-Not-Just-A-Set-Of-Tools ) anytime someone says – “you’re not doing Lean because you’re not _doing_ this” indicates _they_ probably don’t understand Lean. Lean is more an approach and thinking process than using tools. Someone can say – “you’re not doing lean because you’re not XXX” where XXX is an approach or thought process. But there is no 100% doing anywhere in the real world.
Thanks all for your great comments. Since we started the Lean Learning Center 8 years ago we campaigned on the idea that “lean is not tools” and felt like we were a lone voice against the value-stream-map-pushers that were out there. I’m really glad to hear more and more voices on the right side of that battle.
Jamie F
Thanks all for your great comments. Since we started the Lean Learning Center 8 years ago we campaigned on the idea that “lean is not tools” and felt like we were a lone voice against the value-stream-map-pushers that were out there. I’m really glad to hear more and more voices on the right side of that battle.
Jamie F
Thanks all for your great comments. Since we started the Lean Learning Center 8 years ago we campaigned on the idea that “lean is not tools” and felt like we were a lone voice against the value-stream-map-pushers that were out there. I’m really glad to hear more and more voices on the right side of that battle.
Jamie F
Those are some very good points. I agree: Show me someone who says “That’s now lean — where’s the 5 Why?” and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t really understand lean.
In the companies I work with, I’ve found that more often than I’ve not, when reviewing PDCAs — if the fishbone is weak or flat out omitted, I send it back saying, “needs more work.” Sometimes people back into a PDCA, starting with a counter measure they want to implement and thus go through the motions of PDCA to get a counter measure implemented. When some time is put into analyzing the real root causes of the problem, the PDCA takes a life of its own and they’ll find counter measures they would have never considered before.
Still, we have “mini-PDCAs” without a whole lot of data investigation or 5-Why Analysis just for the reasons stated in this blog. As long as there is a check and adjust phase, we let some move forward. It just depends on the problem.
Those are some very good points. I agree: Show me someone who says “That’s now lean — where’s the 5 Why?” and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t really understand lean.
In the companies I work with, I’ve found that more often than I’ve not, when reviewing PDCAs — if the fishbone is weak or flat out omitted, I send it back saying, “needs more work.” Sometimes people back into a PDCA, starting with a counter measure they want to implement and thus go through the motions of PDCA to get a counter measure implemented. When some time is put into analyzing the real root causes of the problem, the PDCA takes a life of its own and they’ll find counter measures they would have never considered before.
Still, we have “mini-PDCAs” without a whole lot of data investigation or 5-Why Analysis just for the reasons stated in this blog. As long as there is a check and adjust phase, we let some move forward. It just depends on the problem.
Those are some very good points. I agree: Show me someone who says “That’s now lean — where’s the 5 Why?” and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t really understand lean.
In the companies I work with, I’ve found that more often than I’ve not, when reviewing PDCAs — if the fishbone is weak or flat out omitted, I send it back saying, “needs more work.” Sometimes people back into a PDCA, starting with a counter measure they want to implement and thus go through the motions of PDCA to get a counter measure implemented. When some time is put into analyzing the real root causes of the problem, the PDCA takes a life of its own and they’ll find counter measures they would have never considered before.
Still, we have “mini-PDCAs” without a whole lot of data investigation or 5-Why Analysis just for the reasons stated in this blog. As long as there is a check and adjust phase, we let some move forward. It just depends on the problem.
Thanks JC.
“Backing into a PDCA” is exactly what some people try to do. They’ve already jumped to a solution, and then try to complete the PDCA process to justify that solution. The PDCA process should instead postpone the solution, making sure we’ve thoroughly thought through it before finalizing their thoughts.
Thanks JC.
“Backing into a PDCA” is exactly what some people try to do. They’ve already jumped to a solution, and then try to complete the PDCA process to justify that solution. The PDCA process should instead postpone the solution, making sure we’ve thoroughly thought through it before finalizing their thoughts.
Thanks JC.
“Backing into a PDCA” is exactly what some people try to do. They’ve already jumped to a solution, and then try to complete the PDCA process to justify that solution. The PDCA process should instead postpone the solution, making sure we’ve thoroughly thought through it before finalizing their thoughts.
I agree that lean is much more than just tools but includes culture change, philosophy, proper metrics, etc. It’s also possible to dodge the really difficult problems that companies face dealing with variation and complexity by de-emphasizing tools. As a result, there are a lot of lean implementations that struggle because the tools of choice (manual, whiteboards, and Excel) are clearly inadequate to address the real world volumes of data and rate of change. Until we have tools adequate to the task to manage volume, variation and complexity, lean will struggle.
As a “lean toolkit” designer, I’m all about the tools but with an orientation to make a toolkit as consistent with lean philosophy and principles as possible while still addressing the complexity and variation that companies find.
Phil
I agree that lean is much more than just tools but includes culture change, philosophy, proper metrics, etc. It’s also possible to dodge the really difficult problems that companies face dealing with variation and complexity by de-emphasizing tools. As a result, there are a lot of lean implementations that struggle because the tools of choice (manual, whiteboards, and Excel) are clearly inadequate to address the real world volumes of data and rate of change. Until we have tools adequate to the task to manage volume, variation and complexity, lean will struggle.
As a “lean toolkit” designer, I’m all about the tools but with an orientation to make a toolkit as consistent with lean philosophy and principles as possible while still addressing the complexity and variation that companies find.
Phil
I agree that lean is much more than just tools but includes culture change, philosophy, proper metrics, etc. It’s also possible to dodge the really difficult problems that companies face dealing with variation and complexity by de-emphasizing tools. As a result, there are a lot of lean implementations that struggle because the tools of choice (manual, whiteboards, and Excel) are clearly inadequate to address the real world volumes of data and rate of change. Until we have tools adequate to the task to manage volume, variation and complexity, lean will struggle.
As a “lean toolkit” designer, I’m all about the tools but with an orientation to make a toolkit as consistent with lean philosophy and principles as possible while still addressing the complexity and variation that companies find.
Phil
Strongly agreed! I think the reason they ask for paper could link to “Result without methods and methods without result” is not “Lean”. We should also be logic that there can be numerous methods outside lean toolbox which we can use to sustain the improvement and keep it continuous! Lean does not produce paper work but somewhere we encourage it which make people at the shopfloor think “It is only paper work activities” and will be over soon!
Strongly agreed! I think the reason they ask for paper could link to “Result without methods and methods without result” is not “Lean”. We should also be logic that there can be numerous methods outside lean toolbox which we can use to sustain the improvement and keep it continuous! Lean does not produce paper work but somewhere we encourage it which make people at the shopfloor think “It is only paper work activities” and will be over soon!
Strongly agreed! I think the reason they ask for paper could link to “Result without methods and methods without result” is not “Lean”. We should also be logic that there can be numerous methods outside lean toolbox which we can use to sustain the improvement and keep it continuous! Lean does not produce paper work but somewhere we encourage it which make people at the shopfloor think “It is only paper work activities” and will be over soon!