MBWA, Micromangement and the difference between the two

Following a recent post entitled "Management by NOT Wandering Around", I received the following comment:

Results results results

 

The stress of the current economic reality is driving our lean program into the ground. The boss is being beaten up daily by his bosses to show some kind of ROI on everything we do. So, instead of patiently watching as we are learning, we run around looking for any signs of measurement that can relieve the pain. Frankly, I would just as soon have him go back to management by teleconference

 

Ouch. It hurts to hear this.

 

This got me thinking about the difference between simply being visible and available in the workplace (which should be encouraging) versus micromanaging (which is quite demotivating).  And, having been micromanaged myself on a particular issue in the past few days, I feel the pain. 

 

Available listens; micromanagement talks.

 

Available encourages improvement; micromanagement demands instant results.

 

Available shows up regularly; micromanagement appears only during crisis.

 

Available shapes; micromanagement pounds.

 

Micromanagement often gets the short-term results it wishes, much as the whining child will often get the ice-cream cone.  But that's no basis for raising a family nor for running a lean operation.

 

Keep on learning. 

 

 

When do email discussions lose value?

You know the drill.

 

You send an email to someone.  That person responds.

 

You go back and forth.

 

And nothing gets done except absorption of Internet bandwidth.

 

What is a rule of thumb to either call a meeting or pick up the phone and get something done??

 

I'm thinking three round trips of email, as a starting point.  But I could be persuaded it's only two round trips. 

 

 

Management by NOT Wandering Around

Ohno said go and stand and watch one thing until you see it break and can understand it.  Management by NOT wandering around.

 

Tom Peters said go and see everything.  Management by wandering around.

 

Despite the seeming difference, I suspect both gurus would agree if they actually talked. 

 

Both would urge each of us to get to gemba, the place where value is added.

 

The difference?  Ohno would be for deeper and narrower.  Peters is more concerned for strategy and scope.

 

Yet going and standing is a central way to do things.  Better

 

See what you can see today as you keep on learning.

A Question to Discern Strengths

 Crucial in any Lean implementation is getting the right people in the right places, doing work they are well suited to do and do well.

 

In short, let people use their strengths and then get out of the way.

 

I recently came across a question Stephen Covey uses for this purpose:

 

"What do you love to do and do well?"

 

A simple, obvious question but one I seldom think to use.  When I do (and if I listen well to the answer), people light up and speak deeply. 

 

Try it as you keep learning.

 

 

Why is everything all lined up?

I walked past a work station last week and noticed something different. 

 

The base of the station had been rotated 45 degrees from the orientation it has had as long as I've worked here. 

 

"What's the story on the table shift?" I asked one of our associates.

 

She grinned and told me the story.  Bottom line was one of her colleagues had correctly and creatively observed that in the current work flow, rotating the table created more room.  "It really works like a top," she exclaimed, "much less congestion as we move material in and out."

 

Which got me thinking. 

 

We like things lined up.  Everything at right angles.  Evened off.  Matching. 

 

Usually, that's a good place to start.

 

But, once you see the vision of the value in a steady stream of small improvements (as this work team has), knocking something out of line makes even more sense.

 

Keep learning.

 

 

Structural Waste

The dome light went out on my car last week.  I headed to the car parts store, looked up the proper replacement bulb in the catalog next to the bulb section, found the bulb and then stopped.

 

I have one bulb in my dome light.  Every car I've ever owned has had only one bulb in the dome light.  Yet the blister pack hanging on the rack at the part store had two identical bulbs in it.  Not one. 

 

With no alternative and considering the $3.29 price for two bulbs to not be worth making a fuss, I bought two bulbs.  One went into my car and the other onto the shelf in my garage which captures all miscellaneous parts. 

 

And I'll forget it is there.

 

In three or five years, I'll need another dome light and do the same thing all over again, leaving me with two orphaned dome lights gathering dust on my garage shelf.

 

So why two bulbs on the blister pack? 

 

Probably a decision to "add value"...for the manufacturer.  Double the output, double the price, all with the same cost for distribution.  

 

Yet it is waste for the end user. 

 

What do we think of when we make these decisions?  The end user?  The one who will complain? 

 

It is not as trivial as it looks, in the rough-and-tumble of business.  It is also a measure of a firm's commitment to reducing waste.  But does someone inside the firm "speak for the customer" in such discussions?  And, if she does, does anyone listen?

 

Value-Added Data Entry

Customer service regularly gets a bad rap.  We seem to expect it to be bad, much like college dormitory food; no matter how tasty the dish, it must bad, just because it came from the dorm kitchen. 

 

So a good example of customer service deserves some kudos plus a chance to learn. 

 

A complex piece of family business required us to wire some money recently via Western Union.  I set up the transaction on their web site and received a preliminary confirmation number for the transfer.  But the web page instructed me to call a toll-free number to complete the transaction.  A little befuddled by this, I nevertheless dialed the number.  As I expected, a recorded voice greeted me and then asked me to punch in the confirmation number, which I did. 

 

To my surprise, after only 10 seconds of elevator music, a live person greeted me, by name, before I said anything.  She then explained briefly why I needed to call, which made sense in the context.  She asked a couple more questions and we were done. The business was completed the next day. 

 

How did this work well?  Western Union was prepared, technically and operationally.  Their systems took my simple confirmation number and tied it into the screen viewed by the person answering the phone.  It all flowed seamlessly, added value and was very prompt.  Someone thought that system through well.

 

Nice job Western Union.  You teach us a good lesson. 

So what DOES an engineer do?

My colleague April recently served on a panel presentation by practicing engineers for high school students and their parents at the engineering college of a nearby university.  Along with the usual questions about engineering education, qualifications and test difficulty, several wanted to know "What does an engineer do anyway?"

 

A Civil Engineer on the panel explained her job was "to make sure buildings don't fall down" which meant she spent all of her time at the computer, crunching equations.

 

An Industrial Engineer explained he too spent all of his day at the computer, making sure all jobs were well-planned for efficient use of labor.

 

Attention then turned to April, also an Industrial Engineer.  Ever the diplomat, she acknowledged there was technical work which required time on the PC.  "But," she added, "the great part of my job is the amount of time I get to spend on the shop floor with our associates, improving processes." 

 

The other IE bristled and shot back a comment to the effect "real engineers don't go on the floor." 

 

His company is also in deep financial trouble. 

 

Coincidence?  Perhaps.  But illustrative of a productive culture.

 

Keep on learning. .

 

 

Trimming Value at the Margins

About four years ago, I wrote about my "jugban" system, a simple container-kanban system I use to replenish the distilled water with which I clean my contact lenses each morning. 

 

This evening, I stopped by the local grocery store to refill the recently-emptied jug in two-jug system.  I put my money in the water dispensing machine and it fed a gallon into my jug.

 

Well, almost a gallon. 

 

Well, actually, only about 90% of a gallon.

 

I've used this same machine for a couple of years.  Yet, over the past six months, I find that I gradually get a little less than what I got the previous time.  To the point now it is quite noticeable.  The price has stayed the same.  But is this just a drift in the controls in the machine?  Or is the machine operator trying to improve his/her margin by dialing back the volume?  The machine stated it had been serviced just a week ago.  But did anyone check the calibration??

 

The water is not a big deal.  But the simple drift, the simple loss of value made me wonder if the owner was also cutting corners on the filtration system or the reverse osmosis membrane. 

 

What I could see (volume of water) made me wonder about what I couldn't see (microscopic quality of water). 

 

Am I doing any of the same things?? 

 

Made me wonder.  I hope it makes you wonder as well. 

 

Keep on learning. 

What price sophistication?

A guy in our local network of Lean companies told me of an interaction he had recently with an exec at his company.  In short, he was tracking the short-term status of one inventory item which had been giving them fits.  To do this, he checked the inventory level at the close of business each day and wrote it down on a sheet of paper to see the trend.

 

The exec saw this sheet of paper and became quite agitated, bewildered why he didn't use a particularly unwieldy piece of software the company had.  My inventory-tracking friend didn't know quite how to respond and the awkward interaction concluded, unsettled. 

 

This story reminded me, strangely enough, of Occam's razor.  A 14th century philosopher and friar, William of Occam is said to have first postulated this "razor" (olde-speak for "rule of thumb") to guide decision making.  Translated in numerous ways, it essentially says "when confronted with multiple solutions to a problem, choose the simplest one."  

 

We have more tools for data and communication than any generation has ever had.  Properly used, they are awesome and speed good decisions. 

 

Properly used.

 

Often, a simple pen and paper is all we need to solve a problem.  That's what William of Occam had.  And we're still talking about him.