Tuesday, October 13, 2009

You Might Have the Wrong Plan If…

ChangeCartoon

You might have the wrong plan or approach to solving a problem if:

  • The leader or project owner comes into the problem solving meeting with a list of action items already formulated and starts delegating them to the “participants” in the meeting.
  • People are talking negatively about the plan in their cubicles or around the water cooler and no one is stepping out as a spokesperson for why it is the right plan/approach.
  • Groups of people are openly showing resistance to change.
  • The attendance at the status meetings declines every time the group meets.

You are on the right track to a good plan if:

  • People eagerly start listing activities that need to be accomplished and volunteer to take care of them (following through).
  • People in the participant group are heading off resistance from others without escalation to the project owner or leadership.
  • People have a sense of pride and ownership of the process they have a hand in crafting.

This is most applicable when the problem at hand crosses departmental and/or geographic boundaries and would be best solved using true employee involvement from a cross-disciplinary team.

* I’m obviously not an artist so please cut me some slack on the cartoon.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Using Data to Refine Perception

If you find yourself saying the following:

I don’t need to spend time putting a measurement system in place to tell me what I already know. I’m living the issues every day. I know where the problems are and what to do to fix them.

Shark photo credit to Stock Exchange user: lumix2004You might be in a situation where perhaps you should reconsider your position. Sometimes it is necessary to collect data for other reasons - like convincing others.

Three indicators that investing time collecting data might be worth the investment:

  1. People say they agree with you about what the problems are and what needs to be done to fix them, but their actions are to the contrary. [persuasion via demonstration]
  2. When the same problems keep recurring despite having a process or countermeasures in place to prevent them. [verification]
  3. Other problems keep getting all the attention and resources from the leaders and your peers, despite your recommendations or insistence otherwise. [proportional prioritization – magnitude/scale]

Perception is reality. Data is an effective tool to influence perception in order to provide an opportunity to improve the reality.

* Note: Statistics can be [mis]used or misunderstood to support almost any theory like the relationship between shark bites and ice cream sales. I don’t mean for you to use data in a deceptive way just to influence others to support your position. Make sure the data and your understanding of the situation match - checks and balances.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Pattern-Based Process Improvement

blown glass pattern Pattern-based process improvement is a practical method of making improvements where an exhaustive analysis and re-engineering exercise is prohibitive. The process consists of looking for patterns to identify key characteristics of a process that might provide valuable insight about opportunities to improve the process. A prerequisite to finding patterns is having data or information available for review.

Real world example

Objective: Improve how parts are scheduled across manufacturing work centers to reduce late orders and unnecessary expediting.

Background: A supervisor of a manufacturing facility schedules orders on a number of similar manufacturing work cells. He normally uses the following information to create the schedule based on his experience, a few rules of thumb, and some light calculations:

  • order due date
  • current schedule of orders on the work cells (capacity vs. loading)
  • change-over time (the  time it takes to change the machine to accommodate a different component part or assembly)
  • order quantity
  • estimated production time (time it takes to process the parts through the work cell)
  • physical size and shape of the part on order

Method: The supervisor uses intuition based on a large number of observations to make decisions (Bayesian statistics) when creating the schedule. The idea behind pattern-based process improvement is to begin to quantitatively blend the supervisors experiential knowledge and Bayesian intuition with the data to create standard work that improves the predictability of the scheduling process.

Start by looking at the historical data about how the work cells were scheduled in the past. This method works best when the data is in a spreadsheet or database so the data can be looked at from several angles. Sort and group the data multiple ways looking for patterns or trends – good and bad. How much you can learn from the exercise depends on how much information is available and how valuable that information is. For example:

  • Are there part sizes or size ranges that are commonly scheduled on certain work cells more than others?
  • Are there work cells that have more downtime, more change-over time, more schedule changes, or expedites?
  • Is there a pattern to size vs. quantity or quantity vs. work cell?

If you can find a desirable pattern or a trend, determine if it is possible to create a rule that would make the pattern a more consistent part of the standard scheduling process. If the pattern is associated with a negative result, determine if there is a way to detect the pattern early, or eliminate its presence completely. It is important when using pattern-based process improvement, the output of the process is monitored carefully to fully understand the effects of the change. Sometimes changes introduce new issues. This should be looked at as an iterative improvement process, not a “set it and forget it” tactic.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Blood Donation Delays Trickle Away with Lean Methods at Red Cross

While donating blood yesterday, A Red Cross administrator described a few ways they were implementing Lean methods to improve the donation process - for both the donors and the workers. Some highlights follow:

Big self-qualification poster at the entrance that can save a potential donor time waiting in line to sign-in and read the comprehensive qualification manual just to find out they can’t donate because they are on antibiotics, or travelled to Africa recently. About 12 common disqualifying reasons are listed.

Red Cross Name Tag Red or Green name tags indicated if the donor is a first time or repeat donor. That can sometimes be an indicator if they might have more questions or they may not be familiar with the process.

in-use Ready, In-use, and Open signals to indicate to the workers when the donor is done with the computerized screening questionnaire, or the screening area is occupied or ready for another donor.

Work area re-layout to minimize worker walking distances, but still maintain confidentiality.

The administrator I spoke with was very positive about the improvements which indicates she believed the methods would allow them to better serve the donors while making their jobs easier as well.

“In other areas where they have implemented these changes, they have trimmed 10 to 17 minutes off a
blood donor’s process.”

According to the August 2009 Central North Carolina Red Cross newsletter

I ended up waiting 45 minutes to get my blood drawn even with an appointment, so there is obviously room for improvement, but it was encouraging to see the progress. This was a mobile team so they have several other challenges to overcome that frequently slow or hinder progress:

  • every day they work with a different team of people coming from neighboring counties and states
  • they have to tear down and rebuild their work areas daily, sometimes multiple times per day
  • located in different venues with different floor plans, sizes, and entry/exit paths

Just knowing they are working on saving time for donors shows respect and makes me feel better about the Red Cross.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Data Tells a Story, but are You Reading the Whole Story?

spc_chart Eighteen years ago I learned an important lesson about the intersection of data and people. The data alone rarely tells the whole story.

The engineering manager was preparing his weekly report for the staff meeting. He asked me, the intern, to investigate a SPC (Statistical Process Control) chart gone wild and summarize my findings. The chart graphed several “critical” dimensional characteristics of a headlight reflector for one of the highest selling vehicles at the time. This was a simple task.

Injection molding is a complex process, so the machines were instrumented with several sensors to monitor and record important process parameters. I strolled down to the production floor control room and pulled up the historical data from the data acquisition system for the previous week. I saw a dramatic change in several readings which were consistent with the dimensional hiccup on the SPC chart. Based on the readings and my knowledge of the injection molding process, I could predict which process settings were probably changed by the technician.

Ahh, the Story is developing.

I went out to the machine where the parts were being made and checked the Process Deviation log to verify my predictions and see if the technicians documented any changes. For the most part they did, and I was correct in my analysis of which process settings were changed. I also verified the gage at the quality check station was calibrated and working properly; it was.

I summarized my findings in a report based on data I collected in the control room, the shop floor, the quality check area, and the SPC chart. Unfortunately, I was missing one source of data from my findings... the technician who made the changes.

When the manager’s weekly report came out with a small reference to the Dimensional problem, the 2nd shift technician was upset because he felt like he was being unfairly criticized for deviating from the standard approved process and for causing the problem. He left a “See me” note on my chair.

And now the rest of the Story

The technician “kindly” explained to me that the reason for the dimensional problem was that the mold, which is normally water cooled, developed a crack in the steel that caused water to pour out of the mold (bad). Normally the mold would be taken to the tool room to get repaired, but the part it was making was for one of the highest selling cars and the other duplicate mold was already in the tool room for routine maintenance.

In order to keep the mold cool and maintain a safe work environment (no water all over the floor and machine), they ran compressed air through the water lines. This required numerous changes to the machine settings to keep the dimensions in the functionally acceptable range. The dimensional variation was much different from normal, but was still acceptable for assembly and to the customer.

Now regardless of whether or not it is consistent with best practice to run the mold in the non-standard condition, it was obvious the technician was doing his best to work in the interest of the company. Unfortunately, by neglecting to check with the person responsible for making the process changes, my report left the impression the technician was just not doing what he was supposed to do – something others might assume to be evidence of bad intent, laziness, or some other negative trait. This could have been avoided by applying the following advice:

“In order to understand why somebody does something, you’ll find the answer faster if you look for what’s right about their behavior, rather than what’s wrong.”

Craig Henderson

The above quote was taken from the presentation Nobody Likes Bad Change by Craig Henderson. This is a philosophy that has guided my work since that day - long ago.

Friday, August 14, 2009

“Cash for Clunkers” - a Typical Sales Campaign?

monster truck A caller on the radio was commenting that the “Cash for Clunkers” program should have included used cars because the people with the least fuel efficient cars can’t afford a new car - even with a $4500 credit. I don’t know if that statement is true or not, but it got me thinking about the real objective behind the program.

Was the program designed to:

  • get the worst offending gas guzzlers off the streets (environment/ecology)
  • incentivize people who planned to buy a new car, but were waiting for one reason or another to buy now to shore up the Automotive sector and consumer confidence (quick temporary sales increase)
  • provide a unique opportunity to someone who normally could not afford a new car (grow the market)
  • a combination of the above
  • none of the above

One had to meet specific qualifications to take advantage of the program, so was this program designed like any other marketing/sales campaign that targets one or more specific demographics to improve the likelihood of meeting the objective? Should it have been?

Regardless, the advances in technology and availability of data, as a partial owner of the automotive sector, provided the opportunity to use data mining and fact-based analysis to determine the optimum market to target to achieve the program objective. The charts below are an example* of a few types of information that could have been used if this program were treated like a typical sales campaign using data mining to determine who to target and how.

Cluster Descrimination for Demographic Comparison

Naive Bayes Attribute Profiles for Profit Categories

Naive Bayes Attribute Characteristics for High Profit

* The charts are prepared from customer and sales data from a fictional bicycle company, AdventureWorks. The objective of the data-mining in the charts was to determine the characteristics of a customer and their purchase patterns that indicate the probability for a high profit sale.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Remembering a Friend

This post is dedicated to an old friend and former co-worker that passed away. Jim wrote this poem about me that I have carried in my wallet for the last 13 years.

MR. WILLLLLLSSONN

One day in May
in the year of 1993
came a young man
with Zach and Christy.

Still wet behind the ears
but out to make his mark.
An lo and behold
he comes to our industrial park.

He tackled every job
with great diligence.
eventually we decided
he had some intelligence.

We sent him to Atlanta
for some additional training.
Lunch at the Three Dollar Cafe
really caused some eye straining.

We did our best to guide him
but couldn't stop his meeting fun.
His dress we tried to improve
but a belt to him was none.

He demonstrated great ability
in almost every area of exposure
but financial expertise was lacking
according to Chuckie's disclosure.

The decision to leave us now made.
We'll not try to change his mind.
We're sure he has made the right choice
and someone else has made a great find.

Farewell to him we must say
and put all our sorrows aside.
The loss will be ours for sure
but we'll just have to roll with the tide.

Just knowing you, young Mr. Willson,
has been an experience to behold.
The limit of your bright future
by only your mind is controlled.

We wish you the best forever
and hope you don't miss Alabama.
Go north young man with family
Back home again in Indiana.

A. NONY MOUS