May
16
There was a once great company that had become mediocre. It was run by a very wise engineer of MIT pedigree and he wished to save the company built by the innovation and intelligence of his father. The company had once dominated markets such as televisions, radios, discrete semiconductors and the like but had either completely lost or mostly lost their market share. Management guru, Joseph Juran, ran around the US talking about the American company that couldn’t make a profit at TV’s that sold their operation to the Japanese and within 6 months, using the same workers and same design, the Japanese turned a profit. He was talking about this company. Key employees at this company risked their status by publicly declaring that the company had poor quality.
The son who is now President of the company decided to do something about it. He first invested in the people side of things by fostering teamwork and a better understanding of each individual. He invested in problem solving starting with tools from a man named Shainin. Dorian, it turns out, was a bit of a miracle worker. He had the power to walk into an existing operation and solve problems in a day that the people who ran the place had not solved in a decade. He also spoke a strange language and insisted everyone also speak this strange language if they wished to save this once great company. Work continued as the once great company internalized the problem solving. They hired PhD students from the great university in the desert and put signs on the entrances of their facilities that they were protected by this problem solving method. They also upgraded the resources of their quality function by hiring people with theoretical backgrounds in quality and statistical tools. They also promoted within, especially technically sound individuals who also had the drive to better themselves at the great university in the desert. The once great company made great proclamations about teamwork and improvements which, while not generally accepted, gave a handful of people cover to go make progress. And progress was made to the tune of about a ten fold improvement.
This type of opportunity creates strange behaviors. Many in leadership learned to game the measurement. Many who believed the message challenged the games players and were forced to take refuge in Chicago under the protection of a great physicist who publicly proclaimed he was smarter that you, but more importantly proclaimed go work with the people I protect or I will come help you. No one wanted the help of this person who was smarter than them, so progress was made. Some saw the message as an opportunity for great personal gain especially if they spent their time self promoting instead of making improvements. This was made possible because people did not know how to handle these folks taking credit for their work. Leadership did not know how to handle these folks because they were afraid to admit they did not understand the things being talked about purposely at a level not to be understood. The greatest of these was one of the former Shainin teaching PhD students from the great university in the desert.
May
11
I’ve been reading Juran lately – for the first time in probably 10 years. Not unusual, I read him a lot in the late 70’s and then again in the mid to late 80’s. He is the basis of the Six Sigma “breakthrough” roadmap – it is from his 1964 book Managerial Breakthrough and from his videotape series “Juran on Quality Improvement” from the late 70’s - early 80’s. He is also the source of many of the “Six Sigma” materials. Just to clarify, he was very clear he got his ideas from elsewhere as well, he just remembered to tell people where.
He wrote an article in July 1955 for the publication Industrial Quality Control that, except for his phrasing and bias towards assuming all workers are men, is relevant and great advice today.
At a gathering of Quality Managers, a young executive was eagerly relating how they had reduced waste in his company, how through quality control they had discovered new things about the process, and how the production superintendent had taken action.
One of the listeners shrugged his shoulders.
“In my company you wouldn’t get to first base with that, and all because of Emil.”
Emil, it turned out, was an “old-time” production superintendent. Emil was set in his ways. Nothing could make him change. And the management was just too softhearted to take Emil off the job because he had 31 years’ service, and had been on his job for 13 years. Emil still had six years to go for retirement. Until then, no progress was possible.
Then a curious thing happened. Another listener interrupted.
“One of our superintendents is just like that – only his name is Charlie.” Then followed a whole chorus of interruptions. Everyone, it seemed, knew in his own company a superintendent, a manager, or a foreman that fitted the description of Emil.
So Emil is everywhere, only his name is something else. But for the quality control man, is this fate or a problem? Is no progress possible, or is the need to find a solution which fits Emil?
I have met Emil in many plants. From him, from his bosses, from his associates, and from his subordinates. I have learned much about him and his attitudes, including his attitude toward quality.
Curiously enough, Emil would rather make good products than bad ones. He likes to have said of him that “Emil does a good job.” Emil would rather have a high rate of yield than a low rate, because then he can make his delivery schedules easier. Emil would rather have his men make high earnings than lose those earnings in rework. I have never met a good production head named Emil or any otherwise who preferred bad work to good work.
The Emils I have met have some other things in common. Out of a long career with the company they can recall many pleasant memories but also some bitter ones. Here and there they have endured an uninspiring boss, a siege of unwarranted blame, or a piece of skullduggery from some industrial adventurer who tried to rush through in two months what takes a year or two to mature.
Emil looks to those experiences for much guidance to meet the problems ahead. He is getting on in years and he is slowing up. No longer does he consider it a calamity if he is passed up for promotion. But it would be a real calamity if he should be blamed for some big failure, and risk losing the status he already has.
It took Emil many years to become a superintendent. Most of the fellows he started with are still on the machine or on the bench. In their eyes, and in his own eyes, he has arrived.
Emil is reconciled to the idea that he will probably never get to be manager. Younger fellows have already passed him up in enough numbers to make this clear. The big thing, for Emil, is not to lose his job as superintendent. The younger superintendents are of a different mind. The last thing they want is to remain a superintendent all their life. They can afford to gamble and take chances with new ways. But Emil is too far along in years and in service to dare to gamble.
So Emil uses the utmost caution to protect his flank. His security is not threatened one bit by the usual day-to-day fires he must put out. He has been doing that for many years, and knows how to cope with the day-to-day problems. Any threat to his security will not come from these familiar problems, but from something which is unfamiliar and untried.
This brings us to the heart of the problem of dealing with this “obstructionist.” Emil is going to “obstruct” whatever is a threat to his security. He would not be human if he acted otherwise. The problem of dealing with Emil is “simply” to avoid a threat to Emil’s security.
For some engineers this is all wrong. They are advocating something that is so logical (to them) and so valuable to the company (in their opinion). Why should this not be adopted forthwith? Why is it necessary to act out a game with Emil, to cater to his whims, to make it seem that it is really his ideas which are being put into effect?
In particular the engineers reproach their own top management. Emil, they say, should be ordered to put these new ideas into effect. Yet this suggestion by the engineers betrays shocking ignorance of the fundamental rules of the organization. If top management is to hold Emil responsible for results, it must give him collateral authority to decide to act. To order him to adopt this or that new proposal would be taking away with the left hand the authority top management gave Emil with its right hand.
So there is no escape from selling Emil himself on the ideas. If the engineers could only grasp this fact! Once they put their minds to it, they could discovery many devices for selling; in fact, they could borrow them intact from other heads in their own company. If they make their first job that of convincing Emil that they are no threat to his security, they have crossed the real barrier.
My own rule for judging whether Emil is going to be a problem is to discover whether Emil has (a) integrity, and (b) common sense. If these are present, the limitations on results lie only in the sales ability of the engineers.
Well said Dr. Juran.
Gary
May
9
On the Shoulders of Giants
Filed Under Leadership | Leave a Comment
Something I wrote some time ago, but I still think it’s relevant. I will, over time, get all of the things I’ve written on here. I hope you enjoy this one.
First of all, there is nothing new in the toolset of Six Sigma. The newest tools have their derivation at least two decades prior to anyone calling this Six Sigma. There are two really valuable aspects of Six Sigma:
- The logical roadmap for the application of the tools
- All of the really bright people out there trying to advance the practice of change management.
I will tell you some stories about the current practitioners in coming months, but first I want to ground us in the real pioneers that led us to this point. I am certain that each of the people I will mention here had a similar group of mentors. My journey began in the early 70’s and I can only tell the story from there.
I believe I am putting these in chronological order of their impact on my development. My personal giants and why –
Lee Weaver – Lee is probably the best professor I have met and he instilled in me a passion for statistics. Lee also worked for Honeywell and so, from the beginning, I was taught the practical side of what was typically a very theoretical subject.
Bill Mitchell – A Scottish gentleman (and I mean gentleman in the finest sense of the word) who NCR had the foresight to make my boss very early in my career. Bill was the first boss I knew who believed his job was to coach and mentor. He taught me that all these decisions we make with increasingly complex toolsets had to be, first and foremost, sound business decisions. He also taught me about truly supporting your people. He said to me the day I went to work for him –
“I will always support you publicly no matter what you do. If I believe you have done something wrong, I will call you behind closed doors and discuss it with you. I will listen to your perspective; you will listen to mine and we will decide what to do. We will both own the decision and never walk out of my office saying that we are doing anything other than what we think it is right. Anything else will weaken both of us.”
I can tell you that Bill was the best boss and mentor I ever had and he lived up to his words. I have honestly tried to structure the same relationship with all of my bosses and all that I have influenced since that day. I can tell you that Bill’s methods caused him considerable pain because I certainly tested the limits. I can also tell you that I have experienced considerable pain because I support people in the same way. Nonetheless, I grew and learned under Bill’s wing and I have seen hundreds of people really blossom and grow when allowed to have freedom to do their job. There is a small minority of people who do not use this freedom to grow. That is too bad for them. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Bill also gave me the job of defining the Quality System at a point in time when I did not have a clue what that meant. It was the greatest gift I ever received because now I understand that all of the wonderful “silver bullets” that are sold today have to logically fit into a system or they have no long-term value. Remember that the “silver bullets” are not the system.
Joseph Juran – I was first exposed to Juran in two ways. I inherited a copy of his Quality Control Handbook early in my career and had the opportunity to support a group going through “Juran on Quality Improvement”, a video-tape series meant to teach people a structured approach to problem solving. I got a copy of Juran’s Managerial Breakthrough as part of that. That book became the basis of what is now known as Six Sigma. I learned two significant lessons from the book – 1) all change happens project by project and 2) breakthrough has to be approached by first taking the time to understand the underlying process (Journey from Symptom to Cause in Juran’s words) before ever trying to solve the problem. Juran’s thoughts on the Quality System expressed in his Trilogy are right. I can still pass ASQ’s CQE or CSSBB exam with Juran’s Handbook as my only reference.
Bob Galvin – Bob is the son of the founder of Motorola and was CEO of Motorola when I joined them in 1983. Bob brought participative management to Motorola a few years before I joined and began a serious push toward improving quality the year before I joined. I will tell you that Motorola was the most exciting place I ever worked and that for the eight years I worked there, I learned something new everyday. I attribute to Bob the opportunity to learn and be excited about my job. Participative Management made us understand differences in people and to respect everyone in the organization. The push for improved quality forced us to find useable tools. It was not acceptable NOT to have real improvement on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. It WAS acceptable to try new things, but fail, at Motorola (we were just expected to learn from these failures).
Bob also introduced Cycle Time Reduction (what we called Lean before Womack) in 1985 or 86 and, although it is not publicized, time was the real catalyst that made all of the defect reduction tools real. Go look at the corporate metrics from 1986 forward and you will find that time reduction was right there, equal to defect reduction. In simple terms, we found we could reduce defects without impacting the basic flow (read that as real cost), but we could not truly impact flow without addressing defects. So by linking time and defects, we found the defect reduction tools useful and also discovered their impact to the bottom line.
Bob changed the measurement system, which gave people who truly believed in this, an umbrella under which to operate with complete freedom. I believe Bob will be recognized over time as the greatest corporate champion of all time (sorry Jack but I knew someone greater than you). Bob is also the model for training the workforce. Motorola has required a minimum of 40 hours per employee per year (that is all employees, not just some) for more than twenty years.
W. Edwards Deming – The only thing I want to tell you is that Deming was right and if you do not understand that – go read Deming. If your only takeaway is to embrace his 14 points in how you behave as a leader, your organization will improve dramatically. I have read everything Deming ever published and I think the best was Quality, Productivity, and the Competitive Position because it was pure Deming – no editing. Remember that he did not say, “Drive out training and institute fear;” he said just the opposite. Also, remember that he did not say NOT to set goals, he said don’t set goals without also providing methods and tools to achieve them.
John Lupienski – In my opinion, John was, and still is, the most influential force on what Motorola calls Six Sigma today. For example, John and myself first documented the roadmap that is used by most providers of Black Belt training back in 1988. John recognized the need for the roadmap. Those who are claiming all of the credit for the roadmap and all of the buzzwords around it did not even have it right when it was sold to AlliedSignal and GE. This point is easy to prove by researching all of the “intellectual property” sold to these two companies. John has always known the next logical step to take in this journey and has driven it regardless of the opposition he confronts. He is also a great teacher who has been sharing his knowledge with Motorola and everyone involved with ASQ in the Buffalo, N.Y. area for at least twenty-five years. John remained loyal to Motorola and Buffalo even though it is clear he could have advanced his career, his fortune, and his personal notoriety by following the path taken by many of us. John is where I still go if I wonder about direction and next steps.
Marty Rayl – Marty is simply the best champion I have ever experienced. Most who have had to deal with Marty would tell you some very unpleasant stories. If you did not cooperate with Marty’s folks at Motorola in the late 80’s, Marty would provide you with one of the most unpleasant experiences you would ever hope to avoid in corporate America. His message? Cooperate with my people or you get to deal with me! The Automotive group of Motorola made outstanding improvements in cycle time and defect levels during Marty’s time there. Marty also taught me to have a “book budget” - to give away books to anyone who would obligate himself or herself to use them. I maintain the model to this day.
Steve Zinkgraf – Steve made this consulting model work. The intellectual property sold to AlliedSignal and GE was unusable and Steve created the backbone of all the training materials that resulted from those efforts while he was an employee of AlliedSignal. Most of you were probably trained using a derivation of AlliedSignal’s intellectual property. Steve taught me to teach DOE in simple useable language. Steve’s work with Minitab in the late 80’s through 1995 set the stage for much of the functionality that exists in Minitab that is specifically geared toward the Black Belt community.
Jack Welch – I do not worship at the feet of Jack Welch like many do, but it has to be noted that he created the largest culture of grasping change and driving it ever seen in the history of the business world. What is called Six Sigma at GE today is the culmination of twenty years of groundwork laid by Jack and his staff. Every leader in business should hope to have a fraction of the influence Jack has had.
Are there others? Absolutely. There are brave people through this whole thing that contributed tools, contributed leadership, or both. They are not the ones claiming ownership or to be creators of all this (imagine the ego of a guy who takes credit for the work of so many at Motorola – no way did a single person create this). They are just people who did some great things at the right time. I thought you might want to know about them.
Gary
May
1
Can One Person Change a Culture?
Filed Under Leadership | Leave a Comment
My partner got an email yesterday that was at first funny, to us anyway, but got me thinking about the question. The email was from a friend who is the president of a division of a larger company. His division does in the neighborhood of $90 million in revenue in a good year, so it’s no small thing. His division is affected by construction spending, so these are not the best of times. He is passionate about Lean and believes in Six Sigma and knows that embracing responsiveness would make this a better time. I’m paraphrasing here, but his email said –
“The wife and kids are fine and life is great. Except work sucks. The culture here doesn’t get it. Not only do they not get it, they don’t even suspect it.”
Wow.
Now to be fair and put things in perspective, this is a guy who has been turning around businesses since the early 80’s and he is in charge because he is making a difference.
But how many of us have said, “if only I was in charge”?
The truth is it takes several people moving in the same direction for something great to happen. Not every company can churn through employees like a GE; in fact I suspect not even the all of the Fortune 50 companies can. So many like my friend, have to work with the culture they inherit and with patience, perseverance, and time in time they will have moved the culture some. I believe it is much like a Ronald Reagan remark I heard once about asking for change of 180 degrees and being happy with 2 degrees (obviously paraphrased).
I had the experience of really being inside a true change culture twice in my life. The first time was confined to a department in medium sized factory. I had three peers of which two were completely in sync with me. The more important part was we worked for an old Scotsman who completely, 100% supported his people - even when they were wrong. The three of us who were in sync went and hired a bunch of really smart, talented people who also had the characteristics of being brave, willing to learn, and willing to teach. We were a force to be reckoned with and we did change the facility for the better. The second time was inside my time at Motorola. It was from 1987 – 1990, when I worked for a PhD physicist wildman who supported his people completely – 100%. Again my peers were in sync and we were allowed to hire really smart, talented people. The larger organization was also in sync and people were reading, discussing, and trying new ideas. It was not the least bit unusual for me to visit one of the six facilities I was responsible for and come home with five books to read. The people who gave me the books expected me to talk about what was good and what was bad about the ideas contained in the books the very next time they talked to me. Pretty heady stuff, we were all learning and changing a culture – and having fun.
Did one person make a difference in these examples – absolutely, with the help of a lot of other people moving in the same direction – a choice that only they could make.
Can change happen otherwise? A qualified yes. I have been involved in lots of change where there was no momentum of the organization. Changed big things, but they were only events, not a culture.
So can one person change a culture?
No.
And yes, if they can get a lot of others to move in the same direction. Every person has a choice.
God bless those brief moments in a lot of our careers where these things have lined up and I am sorry for those of you that have not been so blessed.
Keep looking and learning.
Gary
Apr
29
Out of the mouth of babes
Filed Under Human Architecture, Lean Enterprise, Six Sigma, Strategy Execution | Leave a Comment
I am putting this out there for the entertainment of some of the long time practitioners - sometimes you get something communicated to you that just makes what we do worth it.
From Ernesto Garcia’s and my good friend Patti who works in Treasury at her company -
Interesting…. here are my 2 cents worth on my thinking about Six Sigma / Lean. I will preface by admitting that I am still a rookie at this stuff compared to a “godfather” such as you but having seen the evolution at (name deleted to protect the guilty) and now being in another company who uses Lean/Six Sigma, I have boiled down what I think are the critical success factors and what, conversely, can lead to failure. I agree that labels and silver bullets won’t work…. the bottom line is problem solving, change and process improvement.
To succeed:
1. Do not ignore that this is a culture. Involvement of every individual is critical. Not all people in the organization will be the problem solvers but everyone can shed light on where the trouble spots are, have great process knowledge and, if asked, often have great ideas for change.
2. Do not treat Six Sigma or Lean as an exercise. Do not allow the “belts” to conduct data gathering sessions or process discussions and then leave the process owners without providing any feedback or evidence of what happens next.
3. Pay attention to the control phase. What is the action plan? What are the countermeasures needed should the process indicate slippage to prior state?
4. Make it fun. Use real-world examples. De-emphasize the statistical aspects unless your audience is going to actually use that information. Lots of people don’t like “math”…. go figure! (pun intended)
5. All leadership must understand and embrace the concepts. It’s even better if they believe it.
6. Don’t make it about the size of the project, i.e. the $$$$$. Lots of little projects and small successes add up to benefiting the organization plus they build confidence and momentum amongst the members of the organization.
7. Make it ok to use tools as needed without having to do a whole “project”. Get people thinking about using process maps, fishbones or FMEA’s, for example, in meetings to help focus on the problem and instill some discipline to the discussion. Additionally, make the quest for appropriate data gathering and insightful questioning routine. Do not gather data or use tools just for the sake of it.
8. Make sure your “belts” are equipped to be the teachers and change agents that you need them to be. Focus on their strengths…. not all should be classroom trainers, for example, but should all be capable of transferring the knowledge to the rest of their organization. Assess soft skills when deciding whom to send to training and provide coaching, training and mentoring on those skills to those who are seeking certification. Find a way to “grade” the soft skills as part of the certification or review process. It’s about marketing once these “disciples” are set loose into the organization.
On the surface, this seems pretty simple but it also seems to be overlooked from my observations and discussions with people who have been doing this for a while…. kind of common sense if you ask me. Ask anyone…who doesn’t want to “make his or her world a better place?”
Patti, for what’s it worth. I’ll bet you just made a friend of some old friends of mine. Specifically Mike Carnell.
Well said.
Gary