Just like the immense sins of Jack Welch and GE will always tarnish six Sigma it is past time to realize that the conservative, looking backwards to Toyota of much of Lean thinking is a mistake that limits adoption and more importantly innovation.
As a company there is much at Toyota that is just wrong. The 2020 recalls were significant, but frankly not the first year the company has been having major quality contorl issues.
But more important is the fact the company is a liar and a supporter of authoritarianism. As a promponent of the pillars of Lean thats just damn hypocritical. After the failed coup of Janaury 6th, Toyota pledged to no longer fund anyone who supported the attack against US democracy. As of June they are the top fundraiser to those Republicans, giving to nearly a quarter of the 147 GOP politicians who objected to certifying the election results.
Toyota is showing us who they are. A company that stands apart from the principles so important to the Quality profession.
The Quality profession either stays true to its’ principles and ideals, or it is useless. We either support transparency and driving out fear or we don’t. Then we become the shallow, and dangerous crutch of demagogues and tyrants. One of the reasons Six Sigma has immense problems it still has not successfully grappled stems from how it is centered on the tyranny of Jack Welch.
The ASQ’s Government Division has taken a great step recently by endorsing the adoption of ISO/TS 54001:2019 “Quality management systems — Particular requirements for the application of ISO 9001:2015 for electoral organizations at all levels of government”.
We should be demanding elections built on the foundations of good quality. This should be part of electoral reform requirements at the Federal level. We need to oppose attempts to restrict voting. We need to drive fear out of our electoral system.
The United States is a signatory of international standards of policing. And yet no state follows those standards. Federal law needs to respect our treaty obligations and impose these standards, and we need to hold states and localities accountable.
As a quality professional I spend the day figuring out how to truthfully measure results. Yet an entire party has gleefully adopted lies and disinformation. I strive to democratize leadership, to build a culture of psychological safety. And yet all around us we see demagoguery.
Our workplace cultures are influenced greatly by external factors. We cannot hope to drive lies and fraud out of our systems, to create cultures of safety, to build excellence when all around us is a disregard for those standards. For this reason the quality profession must be political. It must standard for truth, for fair standards applied equitably. For driving out fear.
There is a lot of poor to outright bad science in business, leadership and quality circles. We also have a tendency to place anecdotal evidence over objective.
Here are some of the ones I am always on the look out for, on a “horrible to I can live with it” scale. It is by no means an exhaustive list. I tried to avoid “fads” as that is a debatable set.
Myers Brigg (MBTI)
Corporate astrology, pure and simple. Once I see this, I know everything that comes after it is problematic. Books and books have been written on how useless this is. So stop it already.
The research is definitive. There is no such thing as a learning style and focusing on them is basically a waste of time and will distract you from actually creating valuable training content.
This is no rule. It was a guideline thrown out on the fly and because of the nice round numbers has become widely used. No empirical evidence supports it in any way. The only study of any repute, a 2003 study by Enos, Kehrhahn and Bell actually showed completely different ratios – 16% from experience on the job, 44% from learning from others, 30% from formal training and a leftover 10% that they couldn’t quite define. But those aren’t round and cool sounding.
It doesn’t even work as a general principle, it is too rigid to be of any use and doesn’t (again) represent how people learn and do work.
This is just outmoded, the idea that we have a lizard brain has been show to be wildly inaccurate. There are just way better models. Also, the way it is used in most contexts we can just cut it out and not have a loss. It’s time to see this outdated model retired from good in quality circles. The tool using crows will be less likely to plot our demise.
Unfortunately, although thousands of peer-reviewed publications provide very important insights on the impact of nonverbal communication in social interactions, we are exposed to a plethora of false beliefs, stereotypes, and pseudoscientific techniques to “read” nonverbal behaviors. Frankly, I just assume that whatever is being presented is mostly untrue and work from there.
Brainstorming as a crowd
Group driven brainstorming has reducing value and we are better off utilizing brain writing activities.
I love reading about other’s experience, and do enjoy a good case study. However, the belief that case studies of successful (or unsuccessful) organizations present valid advice is not a conclusion that has been tested, and can create an illusion of causality. This constructivist sensemaking is useful, but we should always be careful in drawing wider parallels or establishing ‘facts.’ Call it the ‘Wisdom of Teams’ effect if you want to engage in a little drawing of the illusion.
Similar reasons exist to be careful of benchmarking, which is all opinion and no science.
There is little to no evidence that any of the vague concepts of employee engagement actually improve productivity or even that any interventions will actually raise the scores. The only thing proven about employee engagement is the number of hours folks spend on it.
Does it matter? Mostly not, but sometimes very much so. The approach you bring to the two can be very different, and if you think you are tackling the wrong type of problem you could spend some time banging against a wall.
For an example:
Wanting to reduce cycle time for release of product is a complicated problem. You can reduce the problems and solve for them (e.g. tackle deviation cycle time, specific areas of deviations, processing in the lab, capacity in the value stream, etc)
Ensuring a robust and resilient supply chain is a complex problem. This problem is multifunctional and the system is open.
It is for this reason I continue to use Art Smalley’s Four Types of Problems. This gives a nice setup of language for talking about problems in the organization.
We definitely need a School-House-Rock style song for this, or good rap.
Gemba, as a term, is here to stay. We’re told that gemba comes from the Japanese for “the actual place”, and people who know more than me say it probably should translate as “Genba” but phonetically it uses an “m” instead and as a result, it’s commonly referred to as gemba – so that’s how it is used. Someday I’ll see a good linguistic study of loan words in quality circles, and I have been known to fight against some of the “buzz-terminess” of adoption of words from Japanese. But gemba is a term that seems to have settled in, and heck, English is a borrowing language.
Just don’t subject me to anymore hour long talks about how we’re all doing lean wrong because we misunderstood a Japanese written character (I can assure you I don’t know any Japanese written characters). The Lean practitioner community sometimes reminds me of 80s Ninja movies, and can be problematic in all the same ways – you start with Enter the Ninja and before long its Remo Williams baby!
So lets pretend that gemba is an English word now, we’ve borrowed it and it means “where the work happens.” It also seems to be a noun and a verb.
And if you know any good studies on the heady blend of Japanophobia mixed with Japanophilia from the 80s and 90s that saturated quality and management thinking, send them my way.
The Importance of the Gemba Walk
Gemba is a principle from the lean methodology that says “go and see” something happening for real – you need to go and see how the process really works. This principle rightly belongs as one of the center points of quality thinking. This may be fighting words but I think it is the strongest of the principles from Lean because of the straightforward “no duh” of the concept. Any quality idea that feels so straightforward and radical at the same time is powerful.
You can think of a gemba through the PDCA lifecycle -You plan, you do it, you decide on the learnings, you follow through.
This is all about building a shared understanding of problems we all face together by:
Observation of specific issues where things don’t go as intended, listening to the people who do the work.
Discussion of what those issues mean both in the details of operations but also on a wider strategic level.
Commitment to problem solving in order to investigate further – not to fix the issue but to have the time to delve deeper. The assumption is that if people understand better what they do, they perform better at every aspects of their job
Gemba walks demonstrate visible commitment from the leadership to all members of the organization. They allow leadership to spread clear messages using open and honest dialogue and get a real indication of the progress of behavioral change at all levels. They empower employees because their contributions to site results are recognized and their ideas for continuous improvements heard.
Elements of a Successful Gemba
Define your goal
What is it that you want to do a gemba walk for? What do you hope to find out? What would make this activity a success? A successful walk stresses discovery.
Set a scope
Which areas will you observe? A specific process? Team? This will allow you to zoom into more detail and get the most out of the activity.
Set a theme
What challenges or topics will you focus on? Specific and targeted gemba walks are the most effective. For example, having a emba focusing on Data Integrity, or area clearance or error reduction.
Picking the right challenge is critical. Workplaces are complex and confusing, a gemba walk can help find concrete problems and drive improvement linked to strategy.
Find additional viewpoints
Who else can help you? Who could add a “fresh pair of eyes” to see the big questions that are left un-asked. Finding additional people to support will result in a richer output and can get buy in from your stakeholders.
Bring visibility and sponsorship for your gemba. Ensure all stakeholders are aware and on board.
Plan the Logistics
Identify Suitable Time
Find a suitable time from the process’ perspective. Be sure to also consider times of day, days of the week and any other time-based variations that occur in the process.
Find right location
Where should you see the process? Also, do you need to consider visiting multiple sites or areas?
Map what you’ll see
Define the process steps that you expect to see.
Build an agenda
What parts of the process will you see in what order? Are there any time sensitive processes to observe?
Share that agenda
Sharing your agenda to get help from the operational owner and other subject matter experts.
Doing the Gemba Walk
Explain what you are doing
Put people at ease when you’re observing the process.
When you are on the walk you need to challenge in a productive yet safe manner to create a place where everyone feels they’ve learned something useful and problems can be resolved. It pays to communicate both the purpose and overall approach by explaining the why, the who, and the when.
Use your agenda
Keep some flexibility but also make sure to cover everything.
Open discussion and explore the process challenges.
Ask closed questions
Use this to check your understanding of the process.
Capture reality with notes
Take notes as soon as possible to make sure you recall the reality of the situation.
As a coach, your objective is not to obtain results – that’s the person you’re coaching’s role – but to keep them striving to improve. Take a step back and focus on dismantling barriers.
What did you learn
What did you expect to see but didn’t? Also, what did you not expect to happen?
The ask questions, coach, learn aspect can be summarized as:
Visualize the ideal performance with your inner eye
Spot the specific difficulty the person is having (they’ll tell you – just listen)
Explain that (though sometimes they won’t want to hear it)
Spell out a simple exercise to practice overcoming the difficulty.
After the Gemba Walk
What did you learn?
Were challenges widespread or just one offs? Review challenges with a critical eye. The best way I’ve heard this explained is “helicopter” thinking – start n a very detailed operational point and ascend to the big picture and then return to the ground.
Resolve challenges with a critical eye
Define next steps and agree which are highest priority. It is a good outcome when what is observed on the gemba walk leads to a project that can transform the organization.
Follow-through on the agreed upon actions. Make them visible. In order to avoid being seen only as a critic you need to contribute firsthand.
Hold yourself to account
Share your recommendations with others. Engage in knowledge management and ensure actions are complete and effective.
Key points for executing a successful GEMBA
Gemba Walks as Standard Work
You can standardize a lot of the preparation of a gemba walk by creating standard work. I’ve seen this successfully done for data integrity, safety, material management and other topics.
Build a frequency, and make sure they are often, and then hold leaders accountable.
Best Practice Frequency
Minimum Recommended Frequency
First line supervisors
Each shift, multiple times
Team leaders in individual units
Daily covering different shifts
2 per week
1 per day
1 per week
1 per day
1 per month
Internal customers and support (e.g. purchasing, finance, HR)
1 per month
1 per quarter
Frequency recommendation example
Going to the Gemba for a Deviation and Root Cause Analysis
These same principles can apply to golden-hour deviation triage and root cause analysis. This form of gemba means bringin together a cross-functional team meeting that is assembled where a potential deviation event occurred. Going to the gemba and “freezing the scene” as close as possible to the time the event occurred will yield valuable clues about the environment that existed at the time – and fresher memories will provide higher quality interviews. This gemba has specific objectives:
Obtain a common understanding of the event: what happened, when and where it happened, who observed it, who was involved – all the facts surrounding the event. Is it a deviation?
Clearly describe actions taken, or that need to be taken, to contain impact from the event: product quarantine, physical or mechanical interventions, management or regulatory notifications, etc.
Interview involved operators: ask open-ended questions, like how the event unfolded or was discovered, from their perspective, or how the event could have been prevented, in their opinion – insights from personnel experienced with the process can prove invaluable during an investigation.
You will gain plenty of investigational leads from your observations and interviews at the gemba – which documents to review, which personnel to interview, which equipment history to inspect, and more. The gemba is such an invaluable experience that, for many minor events, root cause and CAPA can be determined fairly easily from information gathered solely at the gemba.