Blog posts on process thinking

Rss logo

Posts selected fromManagement Blog - Engineering Blog - Investing Blog and other blogs

  • Common Cause Variation

    Every system has variation. Common cause variation is the variation due to the current system. Dr. Deming increased his estimate of variation due to the system (common cause variation) to 97% (earlier in his life he cited figures around 80%). Special cause variation is that due to some special (not part of the system) cause.

    ...

    To take action against a special cause, that isolated special cause can be examined. Unfortunately that approach (the one we tend to use almost all the time) is the wrong approach for systemic problems (which Deming estimated at 97% of the problems).

    That doesn’t mean it is not possible to improve results by treating all problems as some special event. Examining each failure in isolation is just is not as effective. Instead examine the system that produced those results is the best method.

    continue reading: Common Cause Variation

  • How to Improve

    Good management systems are about seeking systemic adoption of the most effective solutions.

    Here is a simple example. Years ago, my boss was frustrated because an award was sent to the Director’s office to be signed and the awardee’s name was spelled wrong (the third time an awardee’s name had been spelled wrong in a short period). After the first attempts my boss suggested these be checked and double checked… Which they already were but…

    I was assisting with efforts to adopt TQM and the time and when she told me the problem and I asked if the names were in the automated spell checker? They were not. I suggested we add them and use the system (automatic spell checking) designed to check for incorrect spelling to do the job. Shift from first looking to blame the worker to first seeing if there is way to improve the system is a simple but very helpful change to make.

    This example is simple but it points to a nearly universal truth: if an improvement amounts to telling people to do their job better (pay attention more, don’t be careless, some useless slogan…) that is not likely to be as effective as improving the process.

    continue reading: How to Improve

  • Customer Un-focus (due to misunderstanding data)

    Data, such as participation rates can be used as in-process measures to help you locate areas to look at for improvement. Don’t make the mistake of managing to the measure. The measure should help you manage. Improving the number is not the goal. Improving the situation that the number is a proxy for is the goal.

    continue reading: Customer Un-focus (due to misunderstanding data)

  • Software Developers Should Work Together With Those Who Will Use the Software

    When developing software applications in house, developers should work in cooperation with those who will use it. Working from requirements is not a very effective way to proceed. It is similar to the old idea of suppliers working to specifications. Dr. Deming taught long ago that companies needed to work with suppliers and customers to improve the overall system. Well managed companies have learned this and practice it.

    continue reading: Software Developers Should Work Together With Those Who Will Use the Software

  • Metrics and Software Development

    I find looking at outcome measures (to measure overall effectiveness) and process measures (for viewing specific parts of the system “big picture”) the most useful strategy.

    The reason for process measures is not to improve those results alone....

    process measures are helpful in serving as indicators that something is going wrong (or potentially going better than normal). Process measures will change quickly (good ones can be close to real time) thus facilitate immediate remedies and immediate examination of what lead to the problem to aid in avoiding that condition in the future.

    continue reading: Metrics and Software Development

  • The Triumph of Lean Production

    ... Just think about that Toyota’s Georgetown plant (seen by many as one of the best examples of lean manufacturing) stops the line 2,000 a week. Do you think your organizations systems are as well designed as the Georgetown plant? Does your organization stop to examine what needs to be improved with anything approaching that level...

    continue reading: The Triumph of Lean Production

  • Good Project Management Practices

    This post is in the style of my Good Process Improvement Practices and Practical Ways to Respect People posts.

    Good project management practices include

    • Deliver a working solution quickly; add value as you have time. Don’t aim to deliver a final product by the deadline and risk missing the deadline. Deliver a good solution early, adjust based on feedback and add more as you have time.
    • Prioritize – do fewer things, and do them well.
    • Limit work in process (WIP) – finish tasks, avoid the problems created by splitting attention across numerous tasks.
    • ...

    continue reading: Good Project Management Practices

  • The Best Form of Fire Fighting is None at All

    The best form of problem solving is to avoid problems altogether.

    At the point you have a “fire” in your organizaiton you have to fight it. But it is better to create systems that avoid fires taking hold in the first place.*

    This is a simple idea. Still many organizations would perform better if they took this simple idea to heart. Many organizations suffer from problems, not that they should solve better, but problems they should have avoided altogether.

    continue reading: The Best Form of Fire Fighting is None at All

  • Peter Scholtes on Teams and Viewing the Organization as a System

    Peter includes a description of the creation of the “organization chart” (which Peter calls “train wreck management”) that we are all familiar with today; it was created in the Whistler report on a Western Railroad accident in 1841.

    Almost a direct quote from the Whistler report: “so when something goes wrong we know who was derelict in his duty.” The premise behind the traditional organizational chart is that systems are ok (if we indeed recognize that there are such things as systems) things are ok if everyone would do his or her job. The cause of problems is dereliction of duty.

    ...

    This is an absolutely great presentation: I highly recommend it (as I highly recommend Peter’s book: The Leader’s Handbook).

    Without understanding a systems view of an organization you can’t understand whats at the heart of the quality movement and therefore everything else you do, management interventions, ways of relating to people, will reflect more likely the old philosophy rather than the new one.


    Points like this are very true but difficult to understand until you come to view organizations as systems.

    continue reading: Peter Scholtes on Teams and Viewing the Organization as a System

  • Effective Change Management Strategies and Tactics

    Create systems focused on continual improvement with built in checks for frequent assessment, reflection and adjustment to the changes the organization attempts to make.  This effort should be iterative. 

    Building the capacity of the organization to successfully adopt improvements will directly aid change efforts and also will build confidence that efforts to change are worthwhile and not, as with so many organizations, just busy work.

    continue reading: Effective Change Management Strategies and Tactics

  • Don’t Empower

    I believe I learned this from Peter Scholtes, though maybe I am remembering it wrong or explaining it wrong (so give him the credit and if I mess it up it is my fault). I believe there is a problem with using the term empowered. Using the term implies that it one person empowers another person. This is not the correct view. Instead we each play a role within a system. Yes there are constraints on your actions based on the role you are playing. Does a security guard empower the CEO to enter the building?

    continue reading: Don’t Empower

  • Cease Mass Inspection for Quality

    Deming’s point 3 is "Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.

    Deming believed in improving the process, and doing so using process measures (which often may involve sampling) to guide improvement efforts. He did not believe in using inspection to select out the bad products, which is what inspection largely was before Deming...

    continue reading: Cease Mass Inspection for Quality

  • Data is Important and You Must Confirm What the Data Actually Says

    Without an appreciation for the gemba, where the data was collected, it is easy to be mislead by the data.

    The most common waste of effort in examining data is reacting to the expected variation of a system as if it is something special. We have discussed this in many previous posts, for example, We Need to Understand Variation to Manage Effectively. After that, I think there is a good chance of failure to appreciate what the data is, and is not, telling us based on mistaken assumptions about what the operational definitions were...

    continue reading: Data is Important and You Must Confirm What the Data Actually Says

  • Lean and Theory of Constraints

    I tend to believe the theory of constraints view is helpful but can be misleading since often the interdependencies within the system mean that it is not true that “optimizing non-bottlenecks will introduce waste” (that may be true but is not necessarily true – that is how I see it anyway)...

    continue reading: Lean and Theory of Constraints

  • A Good Management System is Robust and Continually Improving

    A good management system doesn’t rely on heroic efforts to save the day. The organization is designed to succeed. It is robust. It will succeed with all the variation thrown at it by the outside world. A good management system takes advantage of the contributions people offer, but it will not perform poorly when others are relied on.

    continue reading: A Good Management System is Robust and Continually Improving