Social Sharing block
The various improvement approaches are, in essence, all pretty much the same. Any competent practitioner would neither want to be called a “guru” nor have any problems dealing with another competent practitioner of another improvement philosophy.
|
ADVERTISEMENT |
In my opinion, any approach should also involve the use of data in some way, shape, or form. I once had a lean sensei (local “guru”?) vehemently make the point that lean does not involve data at all. I'll let you decide. Would you rather be effective or right?
Unfortunately, data conjure up the dreaded word “statistics”... and a huge misconception. The influence of W. Edwards Deming has created the mistaken belief that mass training in statistics will cure all quality ills. We all know the monster that has created.
Not ‘statistics’ but ‘variation’
I believe that one of Deming’s most profound statements was: “If I had to reduce my message to management to just a few words, I’d say it all has to do with reducing variation.” Reduced variation ultimately yields a more predictable process. But let me first expand your conception of “variation.”
…
Comments
Lean and Data
Wow, if I ever heard somebody say that, my reaction would be to think, "That person got really bad Lean training." The person you're writing about either isn't any sort of sensei or guru, yet alone "competent," unless there's some context missing or some misunderstanding.
Toyota has long placed an emphasis on "facts" (things that are observable) and data and measures... a problem is a measurable gap in performance (not just a feeling or an opinion)... and we use data to see if we've closed the gap.
Now that I think about it, are you thinking of the old Taaichi Ohno quote about data and facts?
The person you're thinking of might have misunderstood Ohno. He says pretty clearly that data is important, not irrelevant. What Ohno was warning against was relying ONLY on data (such as reports and spreadsheets) instead of confirming things with your own eyes and your own questions.
Mark
Nice comments, Mark...
...and I agree with you. Maybe through the critical thinking of good design, clear objectives, and solid operational definitions, "facts" can now be converted to meaningful data...provided the "human variation" of the collection process doesn't contaminate things!
As to your opening comment, there was neither missing context, nor misunderstanding, and she is not unique in my experience. I addressed a Lean conference where my BASIC message about variation, data collection, and merely plotting data over time was met with blank stares and defensiveness.
I'm afraid we're seeing another manifestation of the "human variation" inherent in Deming funnel rule #4 (make each one like the last one) on the wonderful original theory as developed by Ohno and others. In fact, as suggested by Mark Hamel, many Lean processes have become muda because of misunderstandings of its basic theory and the ineffective ways in which it is implemented.
My guess is that you, me, and Mark Hamel could sit down, have a meaningful dialogue, and become good buddies -- and I would welcome the opportunity if it presented itself!
Davis
I'm still confused
Davis-
It would be good to chat. I'm not taking issue what you're saying.
I'm still just dumbfounded about how a "lean guru" could say Lean isn't about data... how would they ever evaluate if anything is better? Based on feelings? I don't understand where that person was coming from. Did you have more dialogue with them that you can use to elaborate on their comment?
Mark
Variation is too benign a word
I call it "deviation" because it deviates from the customer's desired target value.
Nobody likes "deviant" behavior, but we all seem to tolerate variation as an acceptable norm.
In healthcare, I often hear clinicians argue that there's too much variation among patients to follow a medical cookbook.
But as the IHI has found, checklists save lives and lots of them.
In Don Berwick's new book, Promising Care, he argues that there is too much variation in standards of care. One hospital is good at preventing surgical complications and another is good at preventing ventilator-assisted pneumonia.
But according to many estimates, hospitals still kill 400,000 people a year unnecessarily making it the third leading cause of death in the U.S.
If there's any place that we need to eliminate deviation it is in healthcare.
Maybe if we stop calling it "variation" and start calling "deviation" it would get more traction.
How to decide what's best?
To make it more confusing, some in healthcare promote an approach called "positive deviance" -- good in principle, but a TERRIBLE name. Who wants to be a "positive deviant"?
It's worse branding than the term "Lean."
http://www.positivedeviance.org/resources/publications-healthcare.html
One challenge in healthare is deciding WHAT is the best treatment. Dr. Brent James from Intermountain Healthcare has said that there's really only best evidence about WHAT treatment protocol to follow for about 30% of medicine.
If we agree that "evidence-based best practices" are a good thing, it's hard to decide "best" without evidence.
And then there is the challenge of variation in patients... do we want the doctors to slavishly and thoughtlessly follow a protocol that works "on average" or "for most patients"??
There are cases, thankfully, where more standardization (without being completely identical) is helping improve clinical decision making (what do we do?) AND medical processes (how do we do it?).
I don't want overly rigid "cookbook medicine" if it's bad for me as a patient. But that's not excuse to not make things more standardized where it's helpful and beneficial.
Reducing variation goes against human nature...
A couple of thoughts struck me while reading your article. First is a quote by Eli Goldratt that said, "Without Data, I'm just another opinion"...
The next thing that came to mind is that it is funny that as quality improvement professionals we talk about identifying the sources of variability and the reduction and elimination of unwanted variation and so on... But we don't live what we preach duing working hours.
Because who of us has the same thing for lunch every day? Who wants to watch the same movie every night and so on. As a culture we thrive on variation. If there was no variation then sporting events would not be as popular, we would not try new restaurants, we would not seek out and try new recipes. Think about it. In almost everything else in our lives we not only desire variaion, we thrive on it. And if no one wanted variation then many of the worlds leading industries would be out of business...
It's almost an oximoranic life we lead, how do you provide consistent and repeatable variety??? Chew on this... In order to provide a living for us and our families so we are able to enjoy the varities and spice of life, we must work to identify the sources of unwanted variation and eliminate it....
Its a mad, mad world...
thenson the quality geek. I even straighten the rugs in the hallway of our offices when they are not centered and parallel to the wall... the saga of the unwanted rug placement variation...
Enjoy this crazy profession.
Not all...
Not all variation is bad!
Variation in what we eat every day as individuals... if that's what we want to do... probably doesn't affect a customer.
A hospital cafeteria's customers WANT different food each day (specials), but also sometimes want standard items that are always available. It's the customer need that drives this. Lean and Six Sigma would both tell us to listen to the voice of the customer.
Variation is only bad if it hurts quality or safety, increases cost, hurts financial performance, etc.
Straightening the rugs is just borderline OCD :-)
Another quote from Henry Neave
Thank you for commenting. Your note reminded me of another quote from Henry Neave:
"Note the difference between 'variation' and 'variety'. Variety is the 'spice of life'; variation is not. Variety in available products and services can of course enrich life. In contrast, variation is nasty: it makes life difficult, unpredictable, untrustworthy. It is 'bad quality'. 'Good quality' implies reliability, trustworthiness, no nasty surprises: i.e. little variation."
This is taken from his outstanding article "Understanding Variation," which can be downloaded free at:
http://www.routledge.com/articles/understanding_variation1/
Davis
let's cross our fingers ...
... and only hope that all this guruing doesn't turn into gu-ruining.
Toyota and measurement
At the 2014 Lean Transformation Summit, there’s a presentation about Toyota (the TSSC) helping the Food Bank for NYC.
They all made it clear that data was important… looking at measures was a key way of figuring out if you have improved.
But, of course, it wasn’t all about measures… it was also about provide the right service in the most dignified way.
The guy who said Toyota/Lean isn't about data is completely wrong and uninformed.
Add new comment