After studying the design of an existing process, I was asked “Why do we need to know the ideal state of the process?” It’s a good question.  While there are many good and important reasons to understand the designed capacity of the process, I’d like to consider three points with you today.

Point-1:  Deming said “If you can’t describe what you are doing in terms of process, you don’t know what you’re doing.”  The process itself exists in layers within the Business Process Architecture.  What does that mean?  Some might imagine an onion that has concentric circles, some might imagine a diagram of an org-chart that shows different levels of resolution, some might imagine a Quality Management System with its differing forms of written documentation.  All these visualizations illustrate that layers exist.

The same concept applies to the process itself.  The closer to the work, the more granular the process understanding might need to be.  The reverse is also true.  The further from the work, the higher the process understanding might actually be.  Because of this fact, the practitioner might need to discern at what level of detail is it appropriate to problem solve.  Having a clear understanding of the process design enables that discernment which then enables good discussion, collegiate debate, and process-oriented problem solving that is practical and tactical.

Point-2:  When it comes to managing the operation, understanding the maximum capacity of the process is important.  Without this understanding, the risk is to expect too much from the employees.  The unintended consequence might be to work the people harder and not smarter.  If an operation understands the maximum output based on the work content time of that process, then it can make better choices related to overall staffing, to cross training, to the use of over-time, to adjusting the capacity of the operation based on ebbs and flows in the volume for the period.  It can find the time to do all the work with the same resources.  It can shift from “fire fighting mode” to pro-active problem solving and people development.  The operation can actually work smarter not harder.  There is a science to it.  There is a method.  Understanding the ideal state for that process is the foundation of the method.

Point-3:  Lastly, I will consider briefly the topic of revenue recognition.  As you know, in some areas, the practice might be to recognize revenue as the transaction/product moves through the process.  What is the science behind deciding how much revenue to recognize and at what points in the process?  I submit to you that understanding the design of the process and the work content time for the process in a systematic and methodical manner might help enable discussions related to the practice of revenue recognition and how the business chooses to recognize revenue.  While the LEAN practitioner might not be an expert in accounting practices, his practical and tactical skill in process design and development might be helpful in enabling fact-based dialogue related to accounting practices.

In closing, the reason why a business might need to know the ideal process state and maximum capacity extends beyond the practice of continuous improvement and moves into the business areas of capacity management and accounting practices.  All three of these areas (continuous improvement, capacity management, and revenue recognition) has a practical impact on the business.

 

In LEAN theory and practice, time is extremely important.  In fact, as practitioners we use the measure of time in at least fifteen different ways.  These measures of time inform us about the process and the eco-system in which it exists.  These measures of time enable our technical LEAN practice.

1. Takt Time
2. Work Content Time
3. Value-Add Time (VA)
4. Non-Value Add Time (NVA)
5. Business Value Add Time (BVA)
6. Turn Around Time
7. Cycle Time (cycle time study)
8. Wait time or Queue time
9. Lead time
10. Available production time
11. Utilization
12. Set up time
13. Run time
14. Tear down time
15. On Time delivery

In basic Lean Six Sigma training, which emphasizes continuous improvement, time is introduced indirectly in terms of understanding value-add steps in a process for which the customer is willing to pay for.  The old adage that says “time is money” rings true in this case.  The steps for which the customer is willing to pay literally take time to deliver.

From the list above, you can see there is more to time than value-add, non-value add, and business value-add.  One might conclude by looking at the list above that LEAN is not only about seeing and eliminating waste.  LEAN is also about time.

Time itself is important in the  practice of LEAN: the time available for work, the time it takes to do the work, the time associated with waste in the process, the time the customer is willing to pay for, and the time the customer experiences.

The basic question “what time is it?” takes on different meanings in LEAN.  It’s important to know what time it is.

In the ASQ Global State of Quality 2 Research Report, “Discoveries 2016”, we  learned that less than 2% of companies that embark on a Quality journey achieve world-class levels of performance (1).  The question is “Why?”  While this is a loaded question and cannot be solved in a single blog, what I’d like to do is to begin a dialogue with the community of practice around the subject.

When we look at the practice of Quality over the past 40 years, we see many corporations jumping onto the Lean, Six Sigma, or Lean Six Sigma, or Lean Sigma bandwagon.  So, why is it that over this same time period, we see so few corporations achieve world class performance?

I have given some thought to this question.

My observation is that when a company begins its Quality journey (I will refer to this journey as “LEAN” though it might be inclusive of other Quality initiatives) it usually starts with training and certification of belts.  These are the practitioners of the trade.  Many companies bring in consultants and hire MBBs to get the change language out to the many employees so that they might become practitioners and help the company achieve its goals.  Then we know that after the initial few years the momentum lags and the company asks itself “why“.  There are many thought leaders in the industry that have sought to understand this problem and have raised the discussion from the toolbox to the mindset, behaviors, and culture.  This is very true and necessary.  I think, however, that there is more to the conversation, more to the practice, and more technical skill to be developed.

From a practical and tactical standpoint, there is simply more to LEAN practice than continuous process improvement.  Over the past 20 years of education and practice, I have come to understand that the application of LEAN really falls under four distinct areas for the practitioner to master.  Those areas are in: Process Design and Development (I refer to this as Process Design and Development Methodology TM), the practice of LEAN Operations Management, the practice of Quality Assurance and Risk Mitigation using LEAN/Quality techniques, and the practice of Continuous Improvement (CI).

There is LEAN science behind all four of these areas of practice.  My observation is the emphasis in industry, however, is really on culture change and the practice of continuous improvement.  Our commonly used belt structure is focused on the CI quadrant with a few tools sprinkled in that are applied in the other quadrants.  Upon reflection, I can see why that might be the case from a business standpoint.  Usually, when the LEAN journey begins, the thought is to reach many employees and enable them with skill to improve the way the work gets done.  Continuous improvement can be practiced without achieving world-class performance, and we know this to be the case for 98% of the companies that try it.

To achieve world-class performance, there is more to the practice than simply improving processes.  Processes get designed and developed, processes are managed in an operations within the organization (regardless of the type of operation), processes experience errors and sometimes risks are identified that might need to be mitigated.  In all four quadrants, the practice includes practical and tactical techniques based on LEAN Science.  I have come to understand this to be called “Applied Lean for Operations (TM).”  It is “the art and science of LEAN Sigma practice beyond certification.”

My intention with this blog is to begin a discussion and share with the broader LEAN Community of Practice the technical areas in which we can grow as LEAN practitioners.  We have the opportunity to add value to our companies, organizations, and communities with expertise that extends beyond certification.

I hope you will join me in the discussion.  Good Cheer,

Azizeh

Blog-1 References:

(1) globalstateofquality.org  published research done by APQC and ASQ entitled “The ASQ Global State of Quality 2 Research Report, Discoveries 2016”

Disclaimer: The postings on this site are the author’s and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy, or opinions of UL or any other organization for whom the author has done work presently or in the past.  The author reserves the right to change her opinion on these subjects at any time in the future.