A Return to First Principles (Part 9), Analyzing the Process Current State

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

In the last post, we discussed looking at a process through the lens of desired outcomes. Every step in a process, every action has (or should have) one or more results that indicate the step was successful. For this reason, I have developed what I call the Purpose Map (with apologies to Pastor Rick Warren, though note it’s not a “Purpose-Driven Map”). I apologize to those who have requested the Purpose Map guide to development; it will be released within a week (if you did not yet request it, now’s your chance).

The reason for the Purpose Map is this: I can create a very nice process map, that lays out the current state of the activity. Remembering that every process can be defined by one current-state best way it is done, I can document that “way” and go back and teach everyone the “way.” Ideally, the result will be everyone performing the activity the same (best way we know how).

But as long as I have the procedure broken apart in pieces on my workbench (actually, it is broken into lots of statements on Post-It notes on a wall), would it make sense to look closely at it and determine if there is a better way? Even if I have no measurable defect issues, there may be other wastes that I can remove from the performance of the activity and continuously improve.

This is where analyzing the actions in relation to their intended outcomes becomes so valuable. Because every action (the elements that make up my process) will fall into one of the following categories:

1. Accomplishes nothing in relation to a desired outcome (there is no connection between the action and the process output at the end of the step or process)

2. Is aimed at achieving a specific desired outcome, and achieves its objective (the vast majority of the time)

3. Is aimed at achieving a specific desired outcome, but fails to achieve its objective the majority of the time (or at least an inadequate number of times)

4. No one is sure if the activity is connected to a desired outcome or not

If I analyze the task, actions or activities that fall into each category feed specific process improvement activities:

1. If the action accomplishes nothing in relation to a desired outcome, move it out of the process (every resource applied to the action is, by definition, waste)

2. If the action is aimed at a desired outcome and meets it sufficiently, then don’t touch it–make sure it is properly documented and that performance of the action is enforced

3. If the action is aimed at a desired outcome and does not meet it sufficiently, then go to work on that step. Work on all inadequate actions in the order they occur in a process. It may be that if I fix the flaws of step 6, the flaws in step 7 may iron themselves out

4. If I am not sure about the intent or efficacy of an action, I need to study the process more deeply…until I can move the action into one of the three categories above.

WARNING: process analysis is hard work. If you spend a day working on describing (mapping) a process, and you are not completely worn out, you have not worked hard enough to define and describe the process.

A very smart person (who chose to remain anonymous) once said, “A problem well defined is already half solved.” This is critical to the success of any improvement effort. The more thoroughly you define and drill into the details of a process, the greater your chances of making major improvements happen.

Posted in Continuous improvement, Culture change, Process, Process Analysis, Purpose Maps, Training, Training Program Development | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 8), Unwrapping the Process

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

Based on the process model we discussed in Part 7 of this series, we can now start to understand how process analysis works.

I determine the beginning and end points of the process I wish to analyze. Let’s say, for instance, I isolate a process (activity) that consists of seven steps. I know that at the end of step 7, some finite number of conditions (desired outcomes) must be met. I also know that somewhere, between steps 1-7, I must perform steps that either achieve a desired outcome, move toward achieving a desired outcome, or both.

Thus my process analysis becomes a comparison between the details of a particular process step and the desired outcomes–what the product should look like–after completion of the step. Another way to ask the question: is the current best way we know how to perform the step adequate to achieve all desired outcomes at the end of the step?

Analysis is a step-by-step process, because if I am unable to obtain the desired outcomes at step 1, I know that I am providing defective inputs to step 2, and my chances of success are now diminshed (I have never seen a step that could compensate for a failure in a prior step).

This process of task analysis lends itself to graphical representation, which in turn lends itself to a team analysis or problem-solving activity. The graphical device is a process map that I refer to as a Purpose Map. The Purpose Map is foundational to process understanding, whether to improve a process, identify waste or analyze an accident or incident involving a process.

Since the Purpose Map is better studied visually, I invite all readers to request a free copy of my Guide to Purpose Mapping. To save money, you may also wish at this time to bundle this Guide to the free Writing Operating Procedures course I make available to anyone who asks. Contact me at mrprocedure@gmail.com.

Thanks, and we will continue our discussion of the First Principles of Instructional Communication in our next post!

Posted in Continuous improvement, Culture change, Instructional Communication, Procedures, Process | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 7), Process Focus

Posted on September 24, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

To analyze a process, I need to understand what a process is and what comprises a process.

In one sense, a process is any set of activities that collectively lead to an outcome. ISO-9001 discusses what it calls a “process approach” to quality improvement. Organizationally, a product is the result of a number of interrelated (connected or dependent) processes.

To understand what to look for in a process, you must understand the fundamental truths about any process. There are three characteristics that are true of every process:

1. There is a defined beginning and end to the process.

2. There is one current-state best way to perform the process.

3. The process can be defined by one or more desired outcomes to be obtained from the process.

So if I am looking at a process, I must identify the beginning point (i.e., Step 1). At the beginning, there will be some number of inputs (things that go into the process or are used to carry out the process). Some of the inputs may be outputs of a prior process. I must also identify the ending point. That seems obvious, but one may easily be tripped up by a lengthy process: is step 8 of this process really step 1 of the next process? If I guess wrong, will I go directly to jail and not pass Go to get my $200?

The good news is that it does not really matter! The reason for that: the characteristics that are true of any process (defined beginning and end, current best-way, and desired outcome) are also true for any step within the process.

Am I saying I can draw my process lines pretty much anywhere? The answer is Yes. In fact, each step can be considered its own process. Because whether the process is one step or 10, I can identify the desired outcome at the last step (whatever I define the last step to be), which means I can analyze how the process achieves the desired outcome. And how does a process (any process) achieve the desired outcome at its end? By achieving the desired outcome of each step within the process.

In the next post, we will discuss this further.

Posted in Continuous improvement, Procedures, Process, Training | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 6), Combating Waste

Posted on September 21, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

Now, having revealed the COMET TAILS categories of waste, our job as trainers, as process developers and/or analysts is to structure and teach the way to perform the process in the most efficient, least wasteful manner possible.

Best possible performance = least possible waste

As I look at my department or my organization, my intent is to ensure that overall performance is the best it can be. All processes will fall into one of two categories:

1. The waste in the process is adequately controlled for now

2. The waste in the process is inadequately controlled for now

If a process is sufficiently controlled, then I can describe the process as performed, teach people to perform the process as described, and maintain adequate control on the process. I can then set the process on the “back burner” while looking at other priorities, or I can look to improve process performance (this would truly be defined as continuous improvement)

If a process is not sufficiently controlled, I need to evaluate the process to determine what the nature of the waste (failure modes) is, determine why the process is failing to achieve adequate results, and then study the process to see where changes need to be made. I likely don’t have to dynamite and rebuild the whole process, but can isolate a few factors that are creating the majority of the heartache.

This “heartache” may take the form of waste, and we can identify the categories of waste being created (remembering that waste categories never occur in isolation).

A second possibility may be that the process lacks what is called capability. In any process, there is a natural variation in the outputs that is a function of the inputs. Algebraically speaking:

y = (f) x

where x is an input factor (which varies) and y is the output result influenced by the variation. Capability is the degree to which the outputs of a process meet the requirements of a critical output value (or key characteristic). A process that frequently fails to achieve the desired results (e.g., a measured value within a set of limits) is said to lack capability. Waste may occur in parallel with the lack of capability, and of course waste in the form of Scrap will be a likely outcome.

Lack of capability (i.e., too much variation) is attacked differently than waste. The reason for this is that the variation may be due to factors that are “below the surface.” In other words, turning a dial won’t eliminate the variation (and in fact dial-turning will increase output variation in a process). The discipline known as Six Sigma is an effective approach to analyzing process variation. It relies somewhat heavily on statistical analysis, but also relies on a more thorough understanding of a process (e.g., chemical reactions, physical properties, equipment settings).

Waste is usually more apparent. It is particularly noticeable by the process operators (because they are the ones out looking for materials, waiting for materials or paperwork, and throwing the scrap into the dumpster). The discipline known as Lean Enterprise (also called Lean Manufacturing, or simply Lean) is used to target process waste.

In some circles (and in various certificate programs), the two are combined into a single discipline called Lean Six Sigma. Presumably, the certificate prepares an individual to perform both Six Sigma and Lean analysis, and recognizes that they are separate disciplines (though both share some characteristics).

So how can I analyze the process if I am not a practitioner of Lean (or) Six Sigma, or if I really don’t know how to categorize the process failures I am having? That will be the focus of our next post.

Posted in Continuous improvement, Cost and value, Process, Training | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 5), What Is Waste? (continued)

Posted on September 19, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

We have described half of the waste categories in my COMET TAILS model. (I will work on an alternative model, though I should point out that Boeing’s model uses the acronym CLOSED MITT, so I’m not so sure mine is that bad.) Now we will look at the second half, the TAILS.

T:  Transport

Moving material, equipment, tools, people, etc. from location to location in a facility never adds value. It is always a waste (of time, energy, labor). The greater distance something is moved, the greater the waste. Minimizing transport is a function of workplace organization, which the trainer should also be looking to improve (not merely write about the current state of organization).

A:  Available Space

As space in a facility fills with “stuff” (over-produced goods, scrapped materials, old equipment, files, etc.) the space available for productive work is reduced. Maintaining control over space can make the difference between having a location to expand or having to find a new location.

I:  Idle Material

When materials stop in mid-process, they tie up not only space but capital. From an accounting point of view, each process (value-adding) step adds value, and increases the inventory value (not a good thing). Idle material is a subset of over-production (described in Part 4). No material should be committed to the process unless we know that it will move through the process stations to completion, and to a customer.

L:  Labor

Labor is a function of time and worker. In the vast majority of cases, when we hire an employee to produce goods, we are paying for that person’s time. They spend an hour “on the clock,” they get paid a certain amount (their wage) regardless of what they did or did not accomplish during that hour. To the extent that their time was not used on product manufacture, a waste has occurred. Waste reduction depends on maximizing the time spent adding value.

S: Scrap

Any time material into the process does not come out as intended, scrap results. When scrap occurs, material is lost, time and labor are wasted (time, material and labor must be applied again to achieve the intended production). The scrap material must be handled specially (ISO-9001 mandates a procedure for segregation of non-conforming product). The only thing worse than producing scrap is having it find its way to a customer.

Those are the categories of waste. Three things to consider regarding waste:

1.  While the discussion focuses on production, these wastes apply similarly to other areas, including “office” functions. Every function has (or should have) an identifiable intended outcome including time for completion. Any of the issues above can impede completion of any function.

2. There is another waste category, that often (rightfully so) finds its way into waste models. That is Safety. Failures to maintain safe working conditions can quickly cause a number of wastes to occur as a result of an injury. Most manufacturing organizations consider safety to be a prime consideration, if not “the most important thing we do.” Failures in safety often result from the same types of behaviors and lack of control that creates waste. Safety issues will suggest the potential for other waste issues, and vice versa.

3. When a waste occurs, it never occurs in isolation. This was hinted at in the discussion of Scrap above. For example, a waste of material means lost time, wasted labor, consumed energy, depletion of available space, etc. If too much of a product was made (over-production), material, time, labor, energy are all consumed, as is space when the over-produced material is stored–of course it has to be transported to the space as well.

Posted in Continuous improvement, Process, Safety, Training | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 4) What Is Waste?

Posted on September 17, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

Let’s recap. My role as trainer is to enable my organization to make money or save money. Every time a resource is used, the organization has incurred a cost, and if I do not recoup that cost plus a margin, my organization will not remain viable. Any time a resource is expended and that cost is not recouped, waste has occurred. My role as trainer is to minimize the occurrences of waste. In that manner, I enable profit and justify my exorbitant salary.*

If I am going to be successful, I need to understand waste, be able to identify it, and align my training strategy (and products) toward the specific removal of the waste (or opportunity to create it).

Persons involved in Continuous Improvement have devised a number of waste models, organized categorization of waste types. I have encountered several of them, all of them very useful. In order to not step on anyone’s copyright, I have created my own model, one I call COMET TAILS. Maybe it needs some work, but at the same time, you can turn your workers loose to identify “comet tails” in your work place and processes.

Each of the letters in COMET TAILS represents a category of waste. These categories are not necessarily listed in order of importance or prominence. But let’s look at the first half–the COMET–here.

C:  Complexity

The more complex a process or operation is, the more prone it is to errors and other waste occurrences. Where complexity can be worked out of a process, it should be. Where a process is intrinsically complex, the trainer needs to manage that complexity. A 40-step process may be broken down into five 8-step operations, for example.

O:  Over-production

In the “good old days,” production units would tend to crank out as many of a part, unit, assembly, etc., as possible. Lots of production meant good productivity calculations. But if there is no customer for the parts, they will only create a space and inventory headache. The material expended to make the parts is no longer available to make something a customer actually wants. Produce only what is actually needed by the customer.**

M:  Material

When the company purchases material, it buys it at some cost. As it is processed, its value increases until its maximum value is achieved in the finished product. Any time material does not make it into the finished product is wasted (regardless of why it did not make it into finished product).

E:  Energy

The application of energy can be of the utility type (electricity, natural gas) or of the human type. Wasted utility energy is an obvious cost, but the waste of human energy has multiple costs. Increased human energy increases injury potential, as well as the chance of mistakes made due to fatigue. Over time, wasted human energy becomes a drag on worker morale, which can lead to increased injury potential as well as turnover.

T:  Time

Time is a non-renewable commodity. All of us are allotted 168 hours in a week. Once used, they can never be regained. Hours cannot be stored for later use. Lost time can impact productivity, can impact schedules and create late work and dissatisfied customers. (Note: worker time is captured in the TAILS portion of the waste model.)

In the next post, we will describe the TAILS wastes.

* To the “training is a necessary evil” crowd, any salary paid a trainer is considered exorbitant.

** A “customer” may not necessarily be the paying type. In terms of a process, any operation, department, etc. that will take your output and do something additional to it is a customer (in this case, an internal customer).

Posted in Continuous improvement, Procedures, Process, Safety, Training | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 3) What Training Should I Do?

Posted on September 14, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

Every single person in any organization should be able to describe in specific terms how their efforts enable the organization to make or save money. For some folks, that is much easier than for others. If I manufacture my company’s product, it’s pretty obvious how I enable profit.

(Note: in non-profit organizations, the maximizing of profit is supplanted by the maximizing of cash flow. Every person in a non-profit organization should be able to describe how their efforts maximize the organization’s resources to pursue their missions.)

As a trainer, it is essential that I target my training efforts toward enabling my trainees to maximize the company’s use of its resources. Every time, without exception, when I apply a resource (material, personnel, time, machinery, etc.) I am incurring a cost. At the end of the process, I must be able to recoup all of those costs when the finished product is delivered, just to avoid losing money. I need to collect more than I spent, in order to make a profit.

Training must focus on controlling those things that will hinder profit. Any time a resource is expended and we do not recoup the cost of the resource, we have suffered a loss. Another way to put it: we have created waste.

There you have it. The training I conduct  must be focused on preventing waste in my organization. So before I can establish a training program, I need to understand what waste is, potential for waste (and for which kind of waste) in any process, and then putting in place counter-measures to avoid the waste.

In the next post, we will look at waste (well, actually, we will read about it). But before we go forward, I need to insert a comment about counter-measures. This is because “putting in place” counter-measures can mean one of two things:

1. Designing, developing and implementing the waste-avoidance counter-measure

2. Describing the counter-measure in the best possible manner to ensure the counter-measure is effectively implemented.

You could argue that the “trainer” is only concerned with the second option. Here’s your opportunity to do more than mere training…if I dare say it, “add more value!” When attempting to describe a counter-measure, you should make every effort to ensure it makes sense, and if a simpler or more effective counter-measure can be devised, discuss it with the “process owners.”

Posted in Cost and value, Process, Training, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 2): Why Do We Train?

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

For most of my career, I have focused on employee training and learning. The writing I have done has primarily been in support of someone learning process or concepts related to successful process performance. Even with my current job–where I do no training–my writing is in support of our organization’s end users being successful with our products.

But why do we train? 

We consider training be a necessary component of our organizations’ operations. Some would call it a “necessary evil.” In these minds, training is seen as something we have to do because some regulation requires it, or to avoid burning down the facility, etc. If this question were posed to organizational leaders and managers (even Training Managers), I would wonder how many of them could quickly provide a meaningful answer.

(Aside to the reader: don’t hesitate to send me your answers to the question!)

Here is the answer: to enable our organizations to improve their ability to make money or to improve their ability to save money.

Crass to be sure, but this is the core of any operation. Even non-profits, which by definition are not in existence to make money, must work to save money in order to apply more of their resources to their missions.

Training must be intentional, to directly impact the bottom line by enabling the making and/or saving of money. Why? Because training invariably costs money. If the money I spend training is greater than the bottom-line benefits derived from the training, I should not bother training.

This understanding is integral to the manner in which an organization designs, develops and implements its training program. That will be the focus of the next post.

Posted in Cost and value, Process, Training | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Return to First Principles (Part 1)

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

I have been churning out blog posts for a year and five months now. Often I have had lengthy breaks in posts followed by bunches of posts one after another. For the last 13 months, I have held a position as a Technical Writer for a company that makes processing equipment for the consumer electronics industry. Consequently, I am often not enthused about writing after a day of writing, and when I have written, my focus has been on the technical writing and procedure side of life.

But my heart is in the overall process of helping people understand their processes and how to communicate their knowledge of a process in a way that enables others to successfully perform the process. This process I have referred to as Instructional Communication.

So I decided to go back to square one, my first blog post (April 22 of last year), and seek to discuss the basics of Instructional Communication.

In that first post, I wrote (in part):

It is my belief that there are fewer things more vital to an organization’s success than having as  many of its workers as possible perform every one of their tasks as perfectly as possible as often as possible. While many people (myself included) promote and drive “continuous improvement,” most organizations would improve their results substantially simply by eliminating the mistakes, and the costs associated with those mistakes.

The first sentence in a nutshell captures Instructional Communication. Improvement involves two steps, as indicated in the second paragraph. The first step is to isolate performance mistakes, identify and remove their causes, in order to remove process waste. The second (what is properly termed “continuous improvement”) involves improving the efficiency of a process once the mistakes have been dealt with.

Organizations engage in a number of activities presumably aimed at removing mistakes. These activities make up the core of Instructional Communication, and include the following:

Employee training

Orientation training

Safety training

Policy development and implementation

Operating procedure development

Work instruction development

Training and procedures in support of Quality Management (ISO, AS9100, etc.)

On-the-job training

Classroom training

On-line training

Topical course development and presentation (leadership, special skills, etc.)

In the upcoming series of posts, I will discuss each of these topics and how to get the most out of your training/workforce development/improvement efforts.

As always, I welcome all comments and especially questions you have. I am always looking for new topics to discuss. When there is a lack of topics, I tend to revert to my lazy ways and find excuses to not get back to the blog.

Posted in Instructional Communication, Policy and Procedure Development, Procedures, Process, Training, Training Program Development | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Addressing Learning Styles (Part 5)

Posted on September 4, 2012 by Tim James "Mr. Procedure"

We have looked at the four learning styles. To summarize them, we have:

1. The Active Learner–let me get my hands on it!

2. The Pensive Learner–let me review a description of it.

3. The Passive Learner–let me see it!

4. The Reflective Learner–tell me how it fits into the grand scheme of things.

Now, having discussed these, it is important to note that people have a mixture of learning styles. No person will be 100% one learning style, but will have elements of each learning style, typically with one dominant and one secondary style influencing their learning.

Learning Styles should not be confused with Personality Styles. There are countless tools people use to evaluate individual personalities, and a wide variety of names for the personality styles. Some refer to controllers and analyzers, some use animals (beaver, golden retriever, etc.). These have nothing to do with learning styles. Any personality style can be matched with any learning style. As a trainer, your focus is on the learning, not the personality.

People can change their learning styles, believe it or not. Non-pensive learners who survived college probably shifted learning style to some degree.*

It is not necessary to ascertain someone’s learning style to effectively train them. With experience, a trainer can usually identify a trainee’s learning style and work with it.

With four learning styles, one may wonder, “do I need to create four different training programs?” The answer to that question is a resounding “no.” (Otherwise, you would have to identify each learner’s style and assign them to the correct program.) One training program will suffice, but it must have elements that address each learner’s needs.

* When it comes to changing learning styles, it is not a cost-effective thing to do. In fact, when companies do attempt to change learning styles, they have found that the costliest is to change a Pensive learner to another style. The reason is that the learner is ex-Pensive.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment