Posted by Harry Hertz, the Baldrige Cheermudgeon
OK, I have been cheering a good bit lately; it is time to remember that I am also a "mudgeon." We are looking critically at key processes in the Baldrige Program for opportunities to "lean" them out. As you might imagine, I am a big proponent of process improvement and process simplification and lean is a
great tool in process improvement, process simplification, and waste reduction. The Process Management Category of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence places great importance on continuous improvement, learning, and innovation. But there are times when lean can be misapplied or inappropriately applied and lead to unintended consequences, that are neither improvements nor beneficial innovation.
This takes me to some recent efforts to save energy, be more green, and reduce waste at our organization. It started with more efficient lighting and employees pre-separating recyclables to avoid rework. There were other processes and more improvements. They were all good. But recently, it has "gone down the toilet," almost literally. We re-engineered the dispensing of soap and paper towels in the restrooms.
In the new towel dispensers, you pull on the paper towel and a metered length of towel is released. In concept, reducing waste (metered length) and reducing opportunity for germ transmission, since you touch only your towel (innovation). However, the metered length is enough towel for only a child with small hands and the towel itself (less expensive material) falls apart when you pull on it with wet hands. The result is you always need two towels (introducing waste) and you frequently have to go fishing in the dispenser for the rest of the towel after it falls apart and doesn't trigger the release of the next towel. And I would conjecture that the inside of the dispenser slot is rarely cleaned (source of germs).
So what went wrong, if lean is good? One, the new dispenser and towels did not fully address customer requirements and two, the paper was judged on price and not matched to what should have been well-identified specifications. There probably were other failures as well. So what is my take-away lesson: lean haphazardly applied, in absence of a focus on all customer requirements and the work system in which a process operates can easily lead to process non-improvements. The Baldrige Criteria glossary defines customer engagement, work system and work process and the critical relationships among the three.
Do you have examples of failures in the use of quality tools because they were used inappropriately, ignoring the system in which an improvement must operate? Now, you'll have to excuse me while I seek an old-fashioned towel. And don't get me started on the automatic faucets that don't turn on when you need them!
OK, I have been cheering a good bit lately; it is time to remember that I am also a "mudgeon." We are looking critically at key processes in the Baldrige Program for opportunities to "lean" them out. As you might imagine, I am a big proponent of process improvement and process simplification and lean is a
great tool in process improvement, process simplification, and waste reduction. The Process Management Category of the Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence places great importance on continuous improvement, learning, and innovation. But there are times when lean can be misapplied or inappropriately applied and lead to unintended consequences, that are neither improvements nor beneficial innovation.This takes me to some recent efforts to save energy, be more green, and reduce waste at our organization. It started with more efficient lighting and employees pre-separating recyclables to avoid rework. There were other processes and more improvements. They were all good. But recently, it has "gone down the toilet," almost literally. We re-engineered the dispensing of soap and paper towels in the restrooms.
In the new towel dispensers, you pull on the paper towel and a metered length of towel is released. In concept, reducing waste (metered length) and reducing opportunity for germ transmission, since you touch only your towel (innovation). However, the metered length is enough towel for only a child with small hands and the towel itself (less expensive material) falls apart when you pull on it with wet hands. The result is you always need two towels (introducing waste) and you frequently have to go fishing in the dispenser for the rest of the towel after it falls apart and doesn't trigger the release of the next towel. And I would conjecture that the inside of the dispenser slot is rarely cleaned (source of germs).
So what went wrong, if lean is good? One, the new dispenser and towels did not fully address customer requirements and two, the paper was judged on price and not matched to what should have been well-identified specifications. There probably were other failures as well. So what is my take-away lesson: lean haphazardly applied, in absence of a focus on all customer requirements and the work system in which a process operates can easily lead to process non-improvements. The Baldrige Criteria glossary defines customer engagement, work system and work process and the critical relationships among the three.
Do you have examples of failures in the use of quality tools because they were used inappropriately, ignoring the system in which an improvement must operate? Now, you'll have to excuse me while I seek an old-fashioned towel. And don't get me started on the automatic faucets that don't turn on when you need them!
No comments:
Post a Comment