Lean Frontiers: Are they differences in getting middle management on board from getting executive management support?
Are there differences in getting middle management from executive management on board for 1) developing the lean enterprise and 2) direct engagement on their part? What are the differences, if any?
Posted on May 9, 2015
Archives by Tag 'peter'
The previous posts have clearly given a good framework around which to establish a basic set of competencies. I would like to add that any person moving into a ‘facilitating’ role needs to exhibit what I call a ‘warm heart, cool mind’ behavioural pattern. The reasoning for this is simply that the overriding mission/purpose for anyone in a Kaizen Promotion Office is to develop people (as opposed to showing off their technical proficiency at problem solving). And to develop people you need a warm heart to establish the rapport so that learning and transfer of skills can take place. Technical ...
Continue reading this entry »
To me it is less a question about whether it is 'visual management' or
'visual control' but more about the 'visual' component.
Dealing with the semantics of management versus control, if pushed, I
would liken the 'control' to a closure of the feedback loop of an activity
whereas the 'management' component a broader description of the tools used
and more importantly what one does with them (Jon, Jeff and Samuel have
given great explanations of this aspect). I really do believe that
Steven's response requires more airtime - coming from the engineering
world I am constantly amazed at the triumph of commercial expediency
reverse engineering itself into supposed 1st ...
Continue reading this entry »
Other than having a good look at the practice of recruitment and
succession planning criteria it is assumed that this person is already in
the position. Clearly incompetence is not going to benefit the business
or, in the longer term, the incumbent so the short answer is clear -
remove.
But before this process is establish it might be an idea to go back to
basics and have a look at these measures (I know they are as old as the
hills but still very relevant):
1. Can't do
2. Can do under supervision
3. Can do on own
4. Can train others
It would be useful to set as a ...
Continue reading this entry »
Before considering the question directly it might be useful to understand that it only applies to the uptown white bread world of organisations that actually have standards, however misguided/informed the underlying thinking that created them may have been. There is, in the real world, a huge heaving mass of the economic sector that has very little comprehension of the benefit that ‘standards’ can bring to the organisation (this issue of establishing standards is perhaps the subject of another debate on The Lean Edge).
I don’t feel that there is a simple Yes/No ...
Continue reading this entry »
The adage that you get what you measure (and then some other bonus
unexpected behavioural outcomes) is as true as ever. This has been lucidly
described in this forum and in the literature. However, the central point
still remains, and that is to achieve a specified result it is critical
for one to understand the underlying processes. I recently listened to an
interview with one of the South African Test cricket team members talking
about how they became the world's best test cricket team (cricket, to my
European and American colleagues is the game played with a flat bat and a
hard red ball ...). What he said, ...
Continue reading this entry »
The wording of the question takes as a given that a KPO should be formed and focusses on the practical aspects of creating and maintaining a KPO.
The obvious linkage between OMCD in Toyota and a "KPO" is seductive to use as a template for other organisations. But one needs to be aware of the scale issue - Toyota's OMCD is a small group (around 25 people) that is Head Office based to serve the entire group globally. To the best of my knowledge there isn't an "OMCD" at each of its manufacturing facilities. ...
Continue reading this entry »
There is a huge difference between the typical “assembly” line production and the manufacturing environment. We are all guilty, to some extent or another, of trying to replicate the ‘sequential production’ paradigm into a world that experiences ‘non-sequential’ work loadings – a world of high product variability, short runs and shared resources. Herewith some ideas for you to consider.
1. Close the feedback loop by linking your output requirements (i.e. your customer) with your input. Use the available forecasts to determine your plant loadings and establish a daily pattern production schedule. Use your existing layout as the basis for your planning – ...
Continue reading this entry »
Nemawashi is a double edged sword. Both edges work equally well. Which edge to use is entirely dependent on the intent of the person initiating the engagement.
I first came across the practice of nemawashi during new model launches. Especially during the (then) traditional sit down meetings to review project progress. Before we started to discuss and agree on the way forward, there was a tendency to every now and then “Shanghai” someone publicly. This, of course, leads to a spiral of retribution … and if that weren’t so debilitating on relationships and more importantly on getting the job done, it ...
Continue reading this entry »
If you had to force a one liner statement from me in answer to the above question I guess it would have to be “To fully and deeply commit to the PDCA cycle, all day, every day”.
But what does this mean practically in terms of behaviour and results? Some very clear guidelines have been offered in the previous sections. Also, many references to Toyota have been made and, having spent 14 odd years in Toyota, I can recognize many of the behaviours described. Of course, whilst at Toyota we did not understand the meaning of Lean – but were schooled ...
Continue reading this entry »
|
By Peter Senge,
- Last updated: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 |
In integrating lean and systems thinking in a genuine learning-oriented culture the part people consistently miss is the 'personal mastery' element, meaning not only personal vision but the willingness to examine deeply our taken-for-granted habits of thought and action and how we may be part of the problem. There are two types of problems embedded here: people who espouse the fad with no real deep commitment and people who are genuinely intent on transforming work cultures who lack the knowledge (and larger learning community) about how to build their own skills and challenge their own habits.
Sandrine Olivencia