Flow, Cadence, Slack, and Stress: Lean Muppets Post 7

Posted on May 10, 2012 by Jim Benson
Scooter Reduces Cycle Time to Rowlf’s Breaking Point

Here we find Rowlf singing Coleman and Fields’ “It’s Not Where You Start, It’s Where You Finish.” He sings at a comfortable rate and all is well. Scooter then tells him he needs to do it again, but this time a little faster. So Rowlf turns on the juice, hits more of a ragtime vibe, and blasts through the song, completing with a bit of stress, but still can add a flourish or two on the piano. Scooter then pokes his head in and tells him to do it again in 20 seconds. Rowlf then shifts into high gear, his ears flapping, his head bouncing, and words coming out fast enough to rival hardcore 80s punk. At the end of the third, he’s done his work in such a short amount of time, he must close the piano all together and simply concentrate on breathing.

In our work, we have lean concepts of flow, cadence, and slack. In our book, Personal Kanban, we describe them like this:

  • Flow: The natural progress of work
  • Cadence: The predictable and regular elements of work
  • Slack: The gaps between work that make flow possible and define cadence

Flow is a little deeper than this, because the concept of “flow” differs slightly for psychologists or lean practitioners. Both concepts, however, are important for knowledge workers and managers.

For psychologists, “flow” is a state of mind where we feel in the zone. This is where everything is moving at the right pace, we have clarity and comfort with our actions, and we have a sense of peace with the process under which we are working.

In lean, “flow” is more the rate at which work progresses. You have a value stream and work flows along it. Flow is hindered by bottlenecks, constraints, policies, or other ne’er-do-wells.

Cadence helps us set flow. It’s like the beat. It’s the rhythm of our work. The right cadence can move tasks from start to completion at just the right rate to maximize completion and quality.

Slack is sort of the space between beats. You can’t have a drum solo without silence.

All three of these work together to create a natural system of work not unlike music. So we see it in Rowlf.

The first round of the song he is fine, even the request for a faster variation is welcome. He can complete his task and is ready for more.

The second round of the song, he makes little jokes like, “how’m I doing?!” He’s going faster than he’s comfortable with, his pace is not sustainable, but he can still complete the work. (This unsustainable fast pace is where many companies try to keep their knowledge workers).

The third round is where some misguided managers like to live every day. Rowlf is asked to do the song at the very limits of his capability: in 30 seconds. Scooter, the project manager, isn’t even listening to the song, he’s just counting the seconds to on-time completion. Rowlf does bring the project in on-time but, again, he completely collapses after it is done.

Between the first and third rounds, Rowlf endures a great deal of stress. When flow, cadence, and slack are in agreement, product delivery is flawless and nearly effortless. The more they are not in agreement, the more effort is needed and the more stressful the work is.

At his initial pace, Rowlf could probably play all day, every day. At the second pace, maybe he could play for an hour. At the third however, he’d barely make it through one playing.

And as we can see below, even adrenaline junkies like Animal are not immune.

Maybe Buddy Rich is Immune
This is the seventh in a series of Lean Muppet Posts: For a list of Lean Muppet posts and an explanation of why we did this… look here -> Lean Muppets Introduction

Posted in Primers | Leave a comment

Root Cause Analysis: Lean Muppets Series Post 6

Posted on May 8, 2012 by Jim Benson
Bert Takes an Intellectual Short Cut and Winds Up Lost.

Solutions require experiments. Ernie wants to eat cookies in bed, but when crumbs become problematic he needs to find a solution.

Bert was attempting the management role of problem solver. Bert could see the whole problem as well as the (obvious) solution, but was clearly missing the mark on his problem solving approach.

Bert’s first problem was allowing Ernie to engage in fundamental attribution error. Fundamental attribution error is when we personify a problem. By focusing on Ernie eating cookies and the crumbs getting in Ernie’s pajamas, the solution domain became Ernie himself.

The second problem with Bert’s approach was that his application of the Socratic method was inconsistent. The structure is fairly simple: continue to ask “Why?” until assumptions are stripped away. So it’s great when Bert asks, “What are you doing with those cookies in bed, huh?” But then he starts to lead Ernie through Bert’s personal logic trail, and Ernie understands merely what Bert said about this particular application, not the underlying system.

Ernie and Bert as well may have taken on Toyota’s Five Whys. Bert approaches Ernie with a problem he noticed – as well as a potential solution – but Ernie needs to understand the problem’s context and make sure the solution actually addresses the root cause. So when Bert said that Ernie should not eat cookies in bed, then we could have had this progression:

Bert: Ernie, I believe we should have an official policy placing a moratorium on all biscuit-style baked goods in sleeping areas.

Ernie: Why is that, Bert? (Why One)

Bert: Because people aren’t getting enough sleep.

Ernie: Why is that, Bert? (Why Two)

Bert: Because people are getting itchy.

Ernie: Why is that, Bert?  (Why Three)

Bert: Because there are crumbs in their pajamas.

Ernie: Why is that, Bert? (Why Four)

Bert: Ernie! Can’t you see the logic here?

Ernie: Just humor me Bert. Taiichi Ohno said, “Ask why five times in every endeavor.” I’m just being lean.

Bert: (sighs) Okay, because there was crumbs in the sheets.

Ernie: Ahh! This makes sense, Bert! Why are there crumbs in the sheets? (Why Five)

Bert: BECAUSE YOU’RE EATING COOKIES IN BED!!!! THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN TELLING YOU!!!!!

Ernie: Yes, this makes sense Bert. But it’s not just me. I see there’s a system here that when one eats cookies in bed, one gets crumbs first in the sheets, then into their pajamas, and then they itch and can’t get to sleep.

Bert: Good, now that that’s all understood, can we stop eating cookies in bed?

Ernie: Are you kidding? Eating cookies in bed is my only perk working here! Perhaps we can all wear wetsuits to bed instead, that should keep the crumbs out.

Bert: (sighs again)

When we approach any problem, understanding how to frame it and investigate root causes is vital for finding a real solution…or a silly one.

This is sixth in a series of Lean Muppet Posts: For a list of Lean Muppet posts and an explanation of why we did this, look here -> Lean Muppets Introduction

 

Posted in Primers | Leave a comment

You’re In My System: Lean Muppets Post 5

Posted on May 4, 2012 by Jim Benson
Gonk and Geefle Build a Collaborative System

This one might seem a little blatant, but Geefle and Gonk are doing more than simply dividing labor – they are systems thinking in action.

Initially, the system is every Snooian for himself.  The trees provide fruit and feeding  should be a solo endeavor.

Unfortunately for Geefle and Gonk though, Darwin apparently skipped Snoo. But they’ve somehow managed to develop shared but spacey verbal language without ever having actually eaten. (This could easily be one of the least defensible Muppet sketches for the Continuity Director.)

So they set up a multi-part system that requires Geefle (the tall French/Welsh character with frozen elbows) to harvest the fruit, and then for Gonk (the short, enabling and emotive Italian character) to feed the fruit to both of them. Luckily for them, nectarines are excellent sources of calcium, potassium, magnesium, and vitamin C – and they have a bit more protein than the average fruit.

One can see a clear value stream emerging: fruit grows on the tree and enters the backlog. When Geefle and Gonk are hungry, Geefle picks the fruit, then bounces it off of Gonk’s head. Gonk responds with a “gonk,” and then feeds the fruit to Geefle and if he’s hungry, takes some for himself.

A petri net for the Snooian System would look like this:

A Petri Net for Alien Muppets

There is concurrency in the alien muppet work flow

This chart shows that only when fruit exists and Geefle and Gonk are both hungry does the feeding system activate. We can then dispatch Geefle to pick the fruit, when he has the fruit he can throw it to Gonk, who then can feed himself and Geefle.

But the system has a bit more complexity that the normal Personal Kanban; it’s not quite linear. Three conditions must be met before the work can begin to flow. If there are no nectarines, work cannot commence because there is no fruit to pick. If Gonk is not hungry, then he’ll be off playing Snoo-ker and not be anywhere near the tree. If Geefle isn’t hungry, he’s also unlikely to be available. (Remember, these guys just invented cooperation – they’re not even close to being ready for altruism.)

And it might turn into a Personal Kanban like this.

 

As Geefle and Gonk celebrate the success of this system, they appreciate that each others performance is contingent on the system. So in the current hunter/gatherer state of Snoo, nectarines come when they want. However, the video implies that there is only one nectarine tree on the entire planet. If we ignore the obvious issues of one specimen from each race and you know…reproduction, this means that Geefle and Gonk are going to need to become skilled at husbanding an orchard, which requires an expansion of their value stream.

Which means expansion of their system.

Likewise, this means that Geefle cannot be blamed for lack of harvesting if the nectarine tree is bare. Until the value stream expands in some way to control the supply of nectarines, interruptions in service are in no way Geefle-centric.

This is fifth in a series of Lean Muppet posts. For a list of Lean Muppet posts and an explanation of why we did this, look here -> Lean Muppets Introduction.

Posted in Primers | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Language of Metrics: Lean Muppets Series Post 4

Posted on May 2, 2012 by Jim Benson
It’s like a really heavy iPhone.

Silly aliens!

In business, we mistake inanimate objects for our customers, our employees, our teams, and everyone else. Our inanimate objects are metrics. Just like the telephone, they are things we make to convey information, but we make a key mistake: we believe that metrics are in some way arbiters of reality.

But just as we are what we eat, we become what we measure.

The aliens here are vice presidents coming down to talk to the workers.

They descend in their ship and approach the area in which their intelligence tells us the workers reside.

In lean parlance, they are going to the gemba.

Now, here’s the really funny bit: the telephone really isn’t the metric. The worker is the worker.

Metrics Make Bad Judgements

Well, it seemed like a good idea in committee.....

These are workers who have been supplying management with meaningless statistics that measure output on a dual axised BRRRRRRRING scale. The longer and louder the BRRRRRRRING the better.

The managers approach the worker who, after getting three consecutive raises for BRRRRINGing like there’s no tomorrow, is on the fast track to becoming an alien.  That worker, after a time, does everything to satisfy the metric – to the point that it becomes the only way he can conceive of doing his job.

Initially, the managers approach the worker and try to discuss things in English, then hunt around for other languages, only to learn that BRRRRING is all anyone can say.

And the scary part is the end, where they are happily BRRRINGing along with the employee, because now it’s the only thing the company can say.

In his 14 Points, Deming said “Eliminate management by numbers and numerical goals. Instead substitute with leadership.”  The more we rely on metrics to tell us what happened, the more we distance ourselves from the actual work being done. We lose sight of changes in context and cannot deftly react when necessary. Further, we build games and systems that reward paying attention to the metric and not the success of the company.

People will care about what the system cares about. If your company has reams of reports generated daily or weekly, you are not “managing by the number” you are building a culture of BRRRRRRING.

This is fourth in a series of Lean Muppet posts. For a list of Lean Muppet posts and an explanation of why we did this, look here. -> Lean Muppets Introduction

Posted in Expert, Primers | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Sunk Cost, Loss Aversion, and Cannibalism: Lean Muppet Series Post 3

Posted on April 30, 2012 by Jim Benson
After losing an “I” and his tie, this New York baker is ready for Cookie to leave.

I cannot count the number of times I, as a consultant, have been called in to diagnose an obvious problem.

Cookie Monster…now he has an obvious problem.

While we would all like to see many of our current television hosts eaten by monsters, it’s clear to even little kids that Cookie Monster would be better served by eating pie than Guy Smiley.

Pie is the optimal solution. But at least as far as we see, Cookie Monster has chosen Smileycide as the solution to his problem, and is committed to it.

We often identify a solution, create a plan, then commit to a number of actions to achieve that plan. With each action we take, alternatives psychologically become more unpallatable.

You can see in the future, Cookie Monster catching up and actually eating Guy Smiley and then saying, “Hmmmm, me no like eat Guy Smiley after all.” But each time Cookie Monster chases Guy, he finds that he’s invested more of his time and energy into Project EatGuy and is less likely to stop.

Psychologists and economists call this the “sunk cost fallacy,” and even though every MBA student in the world learns about it, we still see it happen.

In lean manufacturing this is a specific type of waste called “muda,” work that we do that adds no value.  In this case, chasing something considered inedible is not going to result in a delicious snack.

But I’d like to focus on a different lesson – one more fudamental that, if we strive to solve it, we’ll eliminate muda anyway.

Lean teaches us to avoid inventory. Inventory is the stuff we create, are in the process of creating, or are the parts for the things we anticipate creating.

I remember in 1979 my father was involved in creating a business incubator in our hometown called Triangle East. It was in the abandoned Geer Mobile Home plant. All my father’s projects were family projects and so at one point I found myself going through the old plant cleaning up. The was inventory everywhere – desks, chairs, doors, bolts, and so forth. Tons of inventory that we either recycled (such that we could in 1979), threw away, or served as fascination for a 14 year old boy. All of it constituted waste because it would never be used to biuld a mobile home.

In knowledge work we build up conceptual tons of inventory. Reports, files, software code, policies, processes, procedures, half explored ideas, concurrent tasks… all these things decrease our ability to complete work or to ship products.

But the more conceptual inventory we create, the more sunk costs we perceive. The more sunk costs there are, the less likely we are to improve. Psychologists call this tendency “loss aversion.”

We can illustrate this idea with this ridiculous equation:

Y = Cookie Monster’s hunger
G = the perceived value of eating Guy Smiley
Cx = the number of times Cookie Monster chases Guy around the counter

Cx * Y = G

Note that while the actual value of eating Guy Smiley will be zero, the perceived value of eating him increases with every iteration.

What’s worse is that if Cookie’s goal is partially achieved, he is unlikely to learn from it, but will actually become more entrenched. So, say he catches Guy Smiley and eats an arm (who knew the Muppets could be so dark?), he will work harder because loss aversion is telling him “you missed the tasty part.”

Our stakes may be higher in the non-felt world, but the scenarios are no less ridiculous. Pets.com is the classic example where free shipping of discounted cat litter attracted tens of millions in VC money and much more at IPO. Anyone not caught up in dot com fever could see that building a business model around shipping bags of clay (maybe the only thing worse would be bags of lead) was not likely to produce profits.

Another quick point here is that while Cookie Monster was never the brightest bulb in the Muppet marquee, he was and remains a nice guy. By nature he does not cannibalize other muppets. He had simply bought into an idea and found himself in a sunk cost spiral.

Always look for the pie.

This is third in a series of Lean Muppet Posts: For a list of Lean Muppet posts and an explanation of why we did this… look here -> Lean Muppets Introduction

Posted in Primers | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Failure Demand and Unthoughtful Production: Lean Muppet Series Post 2

Posted on April 26, 2012 by Jim Benson
The Ernie Production Unit and the Bert Client Clash Over Delivered Value

Ernie and Bert have issues. Because Ernie and Bert are archetypes. They represent the Yin and Yang of the Human condition.

It is reasonable to expect that anyone reading this is human.

In this video, Ernie is a standard production unit. At times he is painting (development), other times he is reassuring Bert that the product will be done on time and to spec (product manager or sales), at one point he presents the finished product for use (installation or delivery).

Bert goes through some stages in his position as the customer: thanking Ernie for his services, then becoming antsy when the schedule might overrun, then frustrated when the product is defective.

As Bert goes through these stages, he places pressure on the production unit. When the delivery of the defective unit is made however, the customer’s understandably righteous indignation  ”ERNIE! THAT DOESN’T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE ME!!!!”  is met with surprise by production “It doesn’t, Bert?”

simon marcus

Simon Marcus is not Bert

Development built a product for their idea of Bert, and not the actual Bert. “I must say that it looks exactly like you Bert, I did a fantastic job,” Ernie says on delivery.

(Apparently, they thought Bert was my good friend Simon Marcus…who looks a lot like the picture on the right).

Not showing the product to the client while it was in production coupled with the high cost of change leads to the only conclusion – production must physically change the client to conform to the product. In this case, turning Bert the Muppet into Simon the COO.

This radical alteration of Bert is funny and it even makes adults laugh, but we do it all the time in business. We give people what they don’t want and then we spend money in support or training or advertising to counteract our shoddy or unthoughtful work. This is what John Seddon calls “failure demand” – the spending of resources we engage in to make up for the failures we build in to our own products.

When we build shoddy or unthoughtful products, they cost us – in money, time, and consumer good will.

Posted in Primers | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Variation Can Help: Lean Muppet Post 1

Posted on April 24, 2012 by Jim Benson

Okay, so there’s nothing about this video that isn’t cute. And that’s fine. But what does it have to do with Lean?

One of the most important lessons that Lean can teach us is how to appreciate variation and make the most of it.

When Jim Henson and this little girl went on set, it was to create a product – an item of value. The task, as originally written, was to create a short video where Kermit and the little girl sang the English alphabet. A simple progression of 26 letters. So simple that variation was inconceivable and no other product was possible.

But little girls do not have SixSigma Black Belts or PMI certification (thank heavens!).

So the cameras roll and the little girl suddenly becomes a point source in variation, undermining the original scope of work and putting the project in danger. She keeps injecting “Cookie Monster” in the alphabet, as if he were a letter in the English Alphabet.

Cookie Monster is not a letter in the English Alphabet.

The little girl thinks this is very funny. Kermit does not, because Kermit is a project manager locked into one irreversible type of value.

Jim Henson, operating Kermit, knows that he can use rewards and penalties to get the product he wants. He knows that the little girl is really excited to be there with Kermit and that taking Kermit away will get her to settle down and sing the alphabet. So Kermit storms off.

But rather than saying “Kermit, come back, I will sing the alphabet!” this little girl finds the true value – the honest value – and says with a sincerity that anyone can admire:

“I love you!”

And, even in the video, you can actually feel the impact this had on Jim Henson. Another day at the office turned into a beautiful gift.

All because of variation.

The real beauty here is that even though this product was fundamentally broken –  fundamentally it did not achieve its initial goal – Jim and the people at Children’s Television Workshop thought this lesson was worth sharing. They saw that through variation in their youngest of knowledge workers, there was innovation and inspiration.

There was value in variation.

Posted in Primers | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Lean Muppet Series: Introduction

Posted on April 20, 2012 by Jim Benson

Jim Henson and Frank Oz

I am 46 years old (at the time if this writing, it would be kind of nice to just keep on being a healthy active 46 year old, though).

Being 46 year old and American, I was raised by three parents: Don and Jennifer Benson…and Jim Henson.

Like most kids when I was growing up, I lived with Muppets. On Sesame Street, on the Muppet Show, in the Muppet Movie, even on Saturday Night Live a few times. Muppets like Kermit, Ernie, Bert, and later Yoda are as much a part of my generation’s psyche as anything can be.

But as we’ve aged, we seem to have lost sight of Jim Henson’s vision, his message, and his passion. In this Lean Muppets series, I hope to re-introduce a lot of us to Jim’s message and show how we might either learn from or be actually living out some classic Muppet skits every day.

This series is for everyone who works in an office, has an idea, follows Lean / SixSigma / 5s / Lean Startup / Personal Kanban / Kanban for software development / Lean medicine / Lean government…you see how adults complicate things?

This series is for everyone who feels dissatisfied, but would rather not.

This series is for people wondering why their business is broken, and who are tired of non-Muppets telling them why.

In a recent (April 2012) interview with iSixSigma magazine, I was asked what I thought Lean was all about. I talked about Deming’s Theory of Profound Knowledge. (I will post a link when it is published).

When I thought about this a few days later while enjoying a bout of jetlag in a Swedish Hotel, I realized that Deming’s vision was Jim Henson’s vision…and it’s a vision I too share.

To engage my hubris muscle, I will now say what I believe that distilled shared vision is:

If we care, we create.

If we create, we improve.

If we improve, we live.

That is my vision. That is Lean. That is Muppets.

How to implement the vision? Here come the guides (updated as they come out over the next month):

  1. Variation Can Help: Lean Muppets Post 1
  2. Failure Demand and Unthoughtful Production: Lean Muppets Post 2
  3. Sunk Cost, Loss Aversion, and Cannibalism: Lean Muppets Post 3
  4. The Language of Metrics: Lean Muppets Post 4
  5. You Are in My System: Lean Muppets Post 5
  6. Lean Muppets Post 6 (Coming Tuesday 8 May)
  7. Lean Muppets Post 7 (Coming Thursday 10 May)
  8. Lean Muppets Post 8 (Coming Monday 14 May)
  9. Lean Muppets Post 9 (Coming Wednesday 16 May)
  10. Lean Muppets Post 10 (Coming Friday 18 May)

Disclaimer: Jim Henson and the Muppets are a global treasure that we all share in the legacy of. We learned to count, spell, cooperate, and respect each other through Jim’s work. Modus Cooperandi and Personal Kanban have no legal relationship with the Muppets, but we sure were influenced by their wisdom.

Posted in Primers | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Depth in Progress: of Wine Snobs, Audiophiles, and Agilistas

Posted on March 29, 2012 by Jim Benson

“Wine is to enjoy, not to judge.”
~ Hwi Woong Jeong (웅가) Wine Enthusiast

hwiThe gentleman next to me took out his laptop and began typing, he had a large pile of wine labels and a notebook filled with wine notes. He began systematically copying them into his laptop. I figured he was a wine critic.

Other work he went on to do involved software development and airplanes so my curiosity overtook me and we began to talk. It turned out that he was a software developer that worked with airplanes. But … he was also a noted wine critic enthusiast. He had been to the Pacific Northwest of the US on a wine excursion as a guest of the major wineries. He had been all over Washington and Oregon tasting.

When I was in my 20s, I decided I wanted to be a wine snob. So I went and took courses on wines, read books, and started a collection. I became rather good at it. So good, in fact, that I found I wasn’t actually enjoying wine any more. I was always critiquing it. I could always find something not quite right.

I told him this and he smiled and said, “wine is to enjoy, not to judge.”

We will always suffer from snobbery – to this day, I cannot listen to music from laptop speakers. And I know more than my share of agile adherents who actively hate every team they come into contact with because of their flaws.

We tend to fall in love with our ideas and nothing kills romance like familiarity. Richard Dawkins once said, “There is an anaesthetic of familiarity, a sedative of ordinariness which dulls the senses and hides the wonder of existence.”

We do this all the time with our work. We get excited about a task or an idea and we go deep. Too deep. Beneath the layer of effort that separates excitement from boredom. From energizing to draining. From inspiration to drudgery.

We might call this “depth in progress”. Just like we can have too much work in progress, we can also have too much depth. It’s simply doing too much of something. We go beyond what would be an acceptable level of completion and strive for “perfection.”

“The fact of storytelling hints at a fundamental human unease, hints at human imperfection. Where there is perfection there is no story to tell.” ~Ben Okri

At some point on the path to perfection, we pass the point of diminishing returns. After that point, our efforts do not return profit, only waste. In our pursuit of perfection, we identify all the things that cannot be perfect and then strive to perfect them. Yet, the imperfect is always with us. It is where growth resides.

Yet the need for growth, and the imperfection, will always be there. We end up in a doom loop of reductio-ab-absurdum – we manage our products as if the end product were a fine diamond that would last centuries. Well, it took the planet millions of years to make that diamond, and we don’t have that kind of time.

Therefore we need to approach our work by asking, “What is the least amount I can do to make this task successful?” In doing this, we want to move our ticket to DONE and have it stay there. No re-work, no additional tasks created because it was incomplete.

Can that task be improved in the future? Absolutely. But for now, it is complete. We launch it, watch it work, and come back to improve upon it later if necessary.

We want to know what the minimal completed task looks like and then do that. Anything beyond is too much work. Our previous goal of “perfect” is still valid, but now it has an upper boundary. Overly polishing the task does no one any good. Because of this, perfection is no longer gilding the lily – we now recognize the lily is perfect. We want to enjoy our wine, not judge it.

“To gild refined gold, to paint the lily … is wasteful and ridiculous excess.” ~ Shakespeare

Posted in Primers | Leave a comment

One Day’s Idea is Another Day’s Waste

Posted on March 28, 2012 by Jim Benson

3369218571_76098b8085_nOn my travels through startups and the corporate world I see small to gross acts of negligence. They usually come in the wrapper of something like, “because that’s our process.” Metrics are gathered for the sake of reports no one acts on. Information is collected to feed otherwise ignored databases. People fill out forms to protect the company from a long-forgotten infraction.

Policies and processes we adopt over time are corporate inventory. We have to maintain them, administer them, and be annoyed by them. All these actions are waste.

The tricky thing here is that all policies can be defended by “what if” arguments. “We can’t get rid of that policy … what if someone does something bad?”

Well, what if someone does something bad? How likely is that to occur?

We know for certain that the waste is making the group less effective when subjected to the policy. What is the likelihood of your What If?

A gross example of this is airport delay post 9-11. The 9-11 hijackings had nothing to do with airport screening points. They were a systemic breakdown (and a highly improbable one) of the global intelligence network. Yet, the 631,939,829 people who flew in 2010 all were delayed at least one hour by needing to get to the airport early, stand in line, and subject themselves to security policies. At about 40,000 as an average income, this quickly pencils out to about 12.5 billion dollars worth of delay every year. That delay can be easily compounded by the lost time of collaboration that people have endure by leaving the office early.

The What Ifs here are obvious. But so are the costs. Are there better ways of dealing with terrorist threats than incurring billions of dollars in passenger delay?

Other examples are regular reports that show the progress of various business metrics. One company we visited generated a weekly report of dozens of pages and nearly 100 metrics every week. Not only did report generation take more than a combined 40 hours to produce (an obvious cost), it delayed the very projects it was trying to measure. In the end, the overwhelming number of charts, graphs, and numbers created a culture of managing by the numbers while totally ignoring what was really happening. Managers would comb through the document until they found the metric or two that went in the wrong direction, then they’d come to find out why.

More often than not, the why was a normal fluctuation in the number. The conversation was waste, the “analysis” was waste, and the generation was waste. But those receiving the report had become so fixated on it that they couldn’t see beyond it. “What if we didn’t have this report? We’d never know what was going on!”

Examine your policies regularly. Make sure that you don’t have policies to create waste.

 

Photo by Anders V

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments