Is Respect for People a Pre-condition for Lean?

In the Executive Forum that closed out this year's LPPDE, One idea hit me like a thunderbolt: you can't do lean - any lean, but especially lean product development - without respect for people.

When I thought back over five years' of clients - the ones who'd been able to make the most of lean vs. the ones who struggled, and the ones who drank in knowledge vs. the ones who spent more time arguing than trying - the leadership's respect for people was the differentiating factor.

Respect for people doesn't mean molly-coddling them. Respect for people means believing that they are capable, competent people with the capacity for growth and the desire to do good work, and then accepting nothing less than the best from them. It means valuing the knowledge and experience they have gained through working in the trenches, close to the value stream.

I can teach the skills that maximize value and eliminate waste in product development, and I can help the leadership support, model, coach and reinforce the practices of lean product development.

But if an organization views people as simply expense, then nothing I can do will help them become leaner.

Lean product development requires a certain level of trust between product development leadership and the engineers, technicians and testers who actually get products out the door. Lean leadership also requires healthy respect for the knowledge created in the lowest levels of the company - the experienced line worker who knows how to keep a machine running, the customer service agent who knows how to calm an angry customer and the technician who can spot manufacturing problems within ten seconds of looking at the CAD models.

If that trust is broken, if that respect for knowledge is missing or if the leadership believes that experienced resources can be as readily replaced as light bulbs, then people will not share what they know, and they will not try to change things for the better. It's hard work, and they have no reason to do it if they believe that their efforts are not valued.

One time, I heard second-hand that a company's CEO had stated that there was no reason why an engineer should make more than $80,000 per year. . .for a company that made complex, high-precision devices for a dynamic market.

If company leadership is incapable of recognizing that their product developers are the ones to whom they have entrusted their company's future and then treating the developers accordingly, then they have problems I can't help them with.

But if a company's leadership has an appreciation for the value of the knowledge that their experienced workforce has built and a determination to help the workers use that knowledge to grow themselves while they grow the company, then lean can achieve dramatic, lasting results.

Lean Thinking in a Cloud of Dust

A comment from Goran Gustaffson, a professor at Chalmers University in Gothenburg, Sweden who was scheduled to attend LPPDE this week:

An interesting observation is that the decision to stop air traffic in Europe is very un-lean in that it rests on assumptions rather than on facts. The only reason for grounding all these planes seems to be early computer simulations that showed alarming results of what volcanic ash could to do an airplane.

However, real tests now during the weekend with numerous planes from British Airways, Air France, Dutch KLM and German Lufthansa which have been flown through the ash clouds at different altitudes have not confirmed any of this. On the contrary; they didn't show any problems or damage at all to the planes.

My guess is that the computer simulations were carried out with data for the ash which is relevant for harder and more abrasive particles than are produced by this Icelandic volcano. Safety always comes first of course, and the decision to stop air traffic was probably a wise one in the beginning when we didn't have any data.

However, given the enormous economic losses that we have already suffered and which are easily estimated it is remarkable that the air traffic safety authorities didn't commence test flights and physical examination of the ash right away in order to verify their simulations. It is very worrying in itself, I think, if they trust computer simulations to the extent that they don't feel they need to justify them by physical tests, facts and observations. So a lesson from this chaos is perhaps that it can be VERY expensive not to be lean ...

Well, our history with airliners flying through volcanic ash has been a series of harrowing near-misses: planes that lost thousands of feet in altitude before regaining their engines. I think the authorities based their first reactions on the best combination of practical experience and data that they had. If I had gathered that data in my first LOOK, ASK and MODEL steps, I wouldn't volunteer to be on the first test flight during DISCUSS and ACT!

But LAMDA is a cycle, and waiting for the ash to disperse on its own is probably not a good idea - history also shows that this volcano could erupt for a year or more. I agree with Professor Gustaffson that they could have begun to develop physical models and conduct test flights much sooner. They needed to confirm their assumptions that the ash from this specific volcano was harmful to the engines. From the media reports, it seems like the airlines have undertaken test flights on their own in exasperation - it would be better done as a coordinated effort with standard protocols for the test flights to make it easier to correlate the data across airlines.

I can see a series of LAMDA cycles to gradually increase the risk as the authorities gather more evidence: fly test planes that they then dismantle to check for damage, then commence with air freight traffic if that goes well, and then add passenger traffic if there have been no incidents after a reasonable trial period. As a passenger, I would want to see those kinds of precautions in place before I was willing to risk my loved ones or myself. Safety is a key driver of customer value for the airlines.

Still, that's easy for me to say from my ocean-view suite on Hilton Head Island. If I had been stranded in a faraway place, running out of money and patience, I may be willing to take on more risk to get home.

LPPDE and the Volcano: The Power of the Last Responsible Moment

Event planning is a lot like product development in the sense that no matter how good the plan may be, the unexpected always happens.

Still no one could have guessed that the 2010 Lean Product & Process Development Exchange on Hilton Head Island would feel the effects of a volcanic eruption over 3,400 miles away!

Until Friday, I had felt great pleasure in knowing that over 20% of our attendees would come from outside the United States - 19 of them from Europe. That's when we learned that the volcanic eruption in Iceland had closed all European air space for the foreseeable future, leaving our European friends unable to get here for the conference.

This is one of those times when I appreciate the power of delaying decisions until the last responsible moment - and pushing that moment as late as possible.

Before I alerted my event planner, she had already taken steps to limit the impact on the conference. She negotiated with the hotel to eliminate cancellation fees, reduced catering counts and adjusted room set-ups. Friday was the last day we could lower our counts without penalty - three business days before the start of the event.

Some hotels ask for five business days, and some venues will not allow groups to lower numbers as long as thirty days out. When we negotiated our contract with the hotel, our event planner pushed hard to get these dates delayed to get as close to the day of the event as possible, conceding on other things to gain this flexibility. I'm grateful for that flexibility now - it frees up cash to explore alternatives for delivering as much value as we can to our colleagues who aren't here.

For example, that decision freed up money that we may invest in some equipment and a service to provide live audio and/or video streams.

Our last responsible moment to converge on that decision is about fifty hours away, when we finalize the A/V set up for the general sessions on Tuesday night. We have a set of alternatives and a convergence plan that gets us to a go-no go decision in time to execute it. If we've got a good solution in the set, I'm confident that we'll find it. Without the ability to adjust our other plans so quickly and easily, the event staff would not have had the resources to even consider this option now.

Not every product development program has to deal with a volcanic eruption, but we can all benefit from a little investment up front to preserve flexibility we'll need later to do the right thing for our customers.

Best.Customer.Complaint.Letter.Ever.

How would you like to get this letter in your in box on Monday morning?

REF: Mumbai to Heathrow 7th December 2008

Here's a sample:

It appears to be in an evidence bag from the scene of a crime. A CRIME AGAINST BLOODY COOKING. Either that or some sort of back-street underground cookie, purchased off a gun-toting maniac high on his own supply of yeast. You certainly wouldn’t want to be caught carrying one of these through customs. Imagine biting into a piece of brass Richard. That would be softer on the teeth than the specimen above.

Seems like someone didn't pay enough attention to the customer value stream for a passenger on an intercontinental flight. . .