I have been noticing a significant linguistic difference between those who still embrace the “implement the tools” paradigm, and a much smaller (but growing) group are are adopting the PDCA thinking structure as a framework for everything else.
It comes down to how a problem is stated.
We were looking at an operation with a lot of variation from one team member to another, both in terms of performance, and actually, what precisely was being done.
When asked what the obstacle was, the immediate reply was “Lack of standard work.”
While this may have been true, it is not a statement of the problem. Rather, it is defining the problem as “lack of a specific solution.”
This may seem to be an semantic discussion, but consider what the responsible supervisor hears, and interprets, from these two statements:
“There isn’t any standard work.”
“There is a lot of variation from one operator to another.”
In the first case, we are telling the supervisor what she isn’t doing, hasn’t done, needs to do. It isn’t even teaching.
In the second case, we are pointing out something that we can both agree on. I haven’t even said it is a problem, and honestly, in some cases it might not be (yet). It is a simple observation.
If, then, we agree that this variation is leading to some undesirable effect, then we can talk about countermeasures. That might include trying to capture a baseline, teach it to a few of the team members, and see if that helps. We can name it later.
Which of those approaches is more likely to enlist the support of the supervisor, which is more likely to put her on the defensive?
Lean thinking is not a checklist of which tools are in place. It is a step-by-step convergence on smoother flow, dealing with observed obstacles and problems.
This isn’t to say that the coach doesn’t have intimate knowledge and experience with flow, with standard work, and everything else. But the approach must be respectful of the people who are struggling with the real world issues every day. Saying “You need to implement standard work” isn’t helpful no matter how much logical justification is wrapped around it.
Teaching someone to observe the impact of variation on the process might seem slower, but it will get them there much faster because it engages their curiosity.