Reducing your time might seem like lean, but you can easily anger your customers

Lean is about increasing value to your customer. Often times, this requires you to eliminate waste in the process. However, if you don't understand your customer needs, you might sub-optimize the process in an attempt to make your work easier. However, if you are not careful, you can actually ADD waste to your customers, thus decreasing the value you provide. That is the complete opposite impact you intended, even though you had the right intentions.

Here are some good examples of sub-optimization that you can share in training classes or conversations. I'm sure you have some good examples of your own. Please share them in the comments section below. 

Example #1 - Scrap Report
The Finance department provides a weekly and monthly scrap report to the production managers. The data is in a single spreadsheet file, with filters on the top of key columns (work center and manager). Each manager goes in and searches the report to filter by their name, look at the scrap items, and review them. Some of them create their own pivot table to be able to sort and filter all the data. Each month is separated into unique tabs (pretty common in finance reports), which makes it difficult to look at data over the whole year. The finance person did not want to spend an extra 10 minutes each time creating the pivot table report and combining the new data with the existing data for the entire year in one spreadsheet. However, when we look at the full impact of time for the entire company, each production manager is required to create their own pivot table (5 minutes each), or they spend extra time filtering the data (not as efficient as a pivot table), or they completely ignore the report, since they find it hard to analyze. So the finance person saves themselves ten minutes each week, but this time adds at least an hour to the entire organization, and not everyone is taking action on the data, which is an even bigger waste.

Example #2 - Procedure Updates
Each month, an email is generated from the document control group with a list of procedures that were revised recently. At least 1000 people are sent this list. They were asked to provide a quick summary of the change made in each document, so we could decide if it was something we needed to investigate or read in more detail, or if we could ignore it. He said it would add about an hour's worth of his time to do that, so he refused. However, if we assume that 10% of the distribution is actually interested in these changes, that means at least 100 people are clicking each of the procedures and scanning through to find the revision change summary. If we assume that takes 5 minutes to complete, then 500 minutes (8 hours) have been wasted in the company. So the document control group saved themselves one hour of work, but added 8 hours of work to the company, and many people did not get the updates they needed, which is a huge waste. If they did provide a summary, they might actually increase the number of people on the distribution who learn about the revisions, and therefore proceed to click the links to read the updates.

Example #3 - IT help desk ticket
I needed to have a website updated, so I contacted the information technology (IT) person responsible for the task. I have this task performed a couple times per year, so it is infrequent. The individual said they could take care of it, but I need to submit a ticket for them to work on it. I agreed, and called the help desk line to submit the ticket. After 30 minutes of discussion with the help desk support person, I finally got the ticket submitted. I was very frustrated. The company wasted 30 minutes of my time, and 30 minutes of the help desk's time to get the ticket entered correctly. This was due to the complex nature of the work being done. The person who was going to be doing the work could have probably entered the ticket themselves in about 5 minutes, since they knew exactly what was needed to be done. So they saved themselves five minutes of work, but added one hour of waste to two other individuals.

As you can see, the key message is to understand what things you do that are valuable (value added) to your customer, and what things are not valuable (non-value added). Only eliminate the non-value added, or you could make your customer's upset and frustrated.

Problem solving is critical for any business

Does your company have a problem solving process, like PDCA or 8-D?

If so, do people use it? How do you know?

Simple, ask for documentation. If an employee or improvement team is really working on a problem, and they aren't writing down or documenting what you're doing, then how well are they following the process? If the process is "in their head" then it's either a really simple problem, or they're probably missing some steps.

Example A3 Report

Here are some simple questions you can ask people in your company, to see if they are following the process and structure, if they can't provide documentation to prove it. 

What is the problem you are trying to solve?


Many teams cannot clearly articulate the problem, so they will struggle solving the problem if it is not well defined. This step can take a long time to complete, depending on the complexity of the problem. Teams often skip through this step quickly, so they can get to root cause right away and have some answers from management. Encourage them to take their time and make sure the problem statement is clear before moving on.

What step of the problem solving process are you in?


This will help you understand whether your employees are following the process or not, and help you understand how far along they are with this problem/issue. If they struggle answering the question, they may not be very knowledgeable about the process, or jumping around steps and working out of order. 

What data did you use to determine the root cause?


This will help you understand how well the root cause was investigated. If little to no data was used, then the solution will have much less chance of being successful, so the odds that they are actually addressing the right cause is slim to none. I find that teams that give up on collecting data and skip ahead to solutions are also less likely to adhere to the problem solving process.

Is your solution addressing the long term?


Many solutions address the immediate need, or contain the problem in the short term only, but they do not complete the entire 8-step process to prevent the problem from recurring. This happens often because after containment is in place, management stops asking about the issue, so the teams get pulled into the next "fire" instead of completing the problem solving process on the issue. This will be evident when you ask about different problems they've worked on, but they can't explain what actions were taken to prevent the problem from coming back. If the problem hasn't recurred, but no improvements were made, then don't be surprised when it does come back as next month's "fire".

There are many other questions you can ask, but these will give you a pretty good indication.

Finally, don't just ask the quality organization about problem solving around product failures. These departments may have contractual reasons to follow the process, as it probably gets submitted to the customer. Instead, talk to your HR department, your shipping department, Invoicing department, and even your Lean/Six Sigma organization (yes, we don't even follow our own recommendations all the time for our own issues). Problem solving is a company-wide process that everyone should be using on their top problems.