The Trust Factor: Eliminating Waste with a Reliable System

The Trust Factor: Eliminating Waste with a Reliable System

• 1.
  March 2006 31 Alittlereliancegoesalongwayin meetingleangoals bykaren martin The trustfactor T rust and organizational waste may appear to be unlikely bedfellows at first glance,but they arecloselylinked.Theleanenterprisebusiness model has taught us that process waste is a symptom of an underlying root cause.To eliminate waste perma- nently,wemustfocusimprovementeffortsoneliminat- ingthereasonfornon-value-addedactivity.If weexam- ineprocessesclosely,wefindthattrust—orthelackofit —isoneof themostcommonrootcausesof waste. Industrial engineers,process design specialists,and lean practitioners are in unique positions to solve this commonorganizationalwoe.If wewearapsychologist’s hat as we simplify, streamline, and standardize pro- cesses,we discover wonderful opportunities to create agile,flexible,responsiveorganizationsbybuildingtrust into workflow.Efficient and effective processes require highdegreesoftrustbetweenleadersandtheworkforce, amongdepartmentsandteams,andamongindividuals.
• 2.
  32 Industrial Engineer frontline Butbeforewejumptosolutions,let’sexplorehowalackof trust results in waste inthefirstplace. Theeighttypesofwastecommonlyfoundinbothmanufactur- ing and non-manufacturingprocessesareasfollows: • Overproduction • Unnecessary processing • Waiting • Errors or defects • Inventory • Motion (of people) • Transportation (of product) • Underutilization of people These wastes rarely exist in isolation.Like pesky ants,where youfindone,you’lllikelyfindanother.Forexample,unnecessary processing,motion,andtransportationoftenco-existwithinven- tory waste and that often results in underutilization of people. Incorrectly applied solutions for preventing errors and defects can create unnecessaryprocessing.Andsoitgoes. While mistrust can result in any of the eight wastes, it’s a particularly common root cause of unnecessary processing and inventory—wastesthatareoftencausesandeffectsof theother six wastes.Therefore,let’s focus on these two process offenders todevelopanosefordetectingtrustissuesandeyesfordesigning and implementingtrust-buildingremedies. Futility in action Unnecessaryprocessingcanbedefinedasanyactivitythatcus- tomers do not care about (or value,in lean-speak) and would not be willing to pay for if they knew the incremental cost of that activity. Common examples of unnecessary processing includereview,inspections,audits,approvalsorauthorizations to proceed,and reconciliation. While checks and balances are important, processes often includetime-sappingtouchesandhandoffsbecausewedon’ttrust that the work is being done right the first time.When we peel the onion further,we may find that indeed the work isn’t being donerightthefirsttimeorworse,thatitwasn’tbeingdoneright when the extra steps were built into the process.In either case, adding reviews and inspections isn’t the solution for assuring high-qualityoutput.Inthesecondcase,it’sparticularlyoffensive sincethetriggerforrequiringadditionalapprovalsmaynolonger exist.Requiringnon-value-addedstepsisasuperficial,knee-jerk solution that slows the process and does not resolve the funda- mental problem. The root cause for unnecessary processing is often a lack of trustineitherthepeopleperformingthetaskorthematerialand equipment being used in the process.We don’t have confidence that the output will be of predictably high quality.We lack faith intheprocess.Theinterestingthingabouttrustisthatitisbuilt ordestroyedthroughexperience.Itmaytakeonlyasinglepainful experiencetodestroyanentirebaseof trust. We must build trust into the process by creating reliable pro- cesses that produce consistent results. We need to strip away reviews,inspections,and approvals and implement permanent fixestotheprocessproblemsuchas: • Mistake-proofing (quality at the source or poka yoke) • Creating simple,visual standard work instructions • Providing effective worker training • Assuring that workers performing a particular task have the proper knowledge and authority to make decisions • Monitoring performance and taking immediate corrective action when necessary (revising visual work instructions, providing additional training,etc.) But before we get into how to implement remedies, let’s the trust factor defining trust trust v. 1. To have or place reliance; depend. 2. To be con- fident.
• 3.
  March 2006 33 takea look at the similar way in which mistrust causes inven- tory waste. The bane of just-in-time Excessive inventory often results from lack of trust in our sup- pliers,ourcustomers,andourselves.Ifwedon’ttrustoursuppli- ers’abilitiestodelivermaterialwhenweneedit,ourcustomers’ ordering patterns, or our own internal scheduling, inventory control,and purchasing processes,we will likely create just-in- caseinventory,acostlyandineffectivesolutiontoanunderlying root cause. Since it’s easier to improve processes within our control,let’s lookattheall-too-commonresultofunreliableinternalprocesses —the development of rogueinventory. If we explore basic human behavior,we find that most work- ers are well intentioned.They want to contribute,to serve.But they want to do so easily.They want to complete a task well and move on to the next one.If processes aren’t well designed,what beginsasadesirableworkethiccanresultinawaste-filledcorol- lary:Generally,workerswilldowhateverittakestogettheirjobs done.When they havelowtrustinhavingtheright,easily acces- sibletoolstheyneedtodotheirjobswell,theyoftencreatesecret stashes of equipment,materials,andofficesupplies. Eliminating rogue inventory requires rebuilding trust in the process by designing error-free methods for workers to get what they need,when they need it,in close proximity to where it’s needed.Improvement efforts of this sort can be particularly challenging.Once trust is lost,it takes time to rebuild it.Some workerswilldoanythingtoholdontotheirsecretstashes.Butif they are directly involved in the improvement process,they will begindevelopingtrustintheprocess,andovertime,rogueinven- tory will disappear.From the work force’s perspective,the proof is in the pudding:They won’t trust your improved process until they experience it workingwellconsistently. Building on a strong foundation Building trust into a process requires that we talk openly and candidly about trust issues as we move through the four basic steps for implementing rapid improvement: 1. Thorough current-state analysis that uses relevant mapping (valuestreamorprocess-levelmapping)androotcauseanaly- sis tools (i.e., Ishikawa diagrams, checklists, Pareto charts, and the five whys) and is conducted by a cross-functional teamcomprisingpeoplewhoactuallydothework,upstream supplierstotheprocess,downstreamcustomers,andatleast one pair of outside eyes. 2. Futurestatedesignthatassuresconsistent,high-qualityout- putateachstepintheprocess.Toassurecontinuity,thefuture state should be designed by the same cross-functional team that conducted the current state analysis. 3. Implementationof thefuturestateusingrelevantleantools, especially kaizen events,whenever appropriate. 4. Development and execution of a sustainability plan includ- ing well-defined accountability,frequent measurement,and aclearlycommunicatedstrategyforissuingrewardsandcon- sequences. Duringcurrent-stateanalysis,leadersandimprovementteams should be encouraged to abide by a cards-on-the-table rule: Discussions about interdepartmental,interpersonal,and orga- nizationwidemistrustmustbecandidandblame-free.Thesedis- cussionsrequireustogobeyondphysicalprocessdetailsandinto therootcausepsychology.Heighteningorganizationalawareness about the degree to which mistrust causes process sluggishness and frustrates workers sets the stage for effective trust-building improvementsaswedesignthefuturestate. Anotherpsychologicalrequirementforsuccessfulimplementa- tionof rapidchangecentersontheword“why.”Throughoutthe changeprocess,theentireworkforce,fromleadershiptofrontline workers,must understand the organizational impact of process waste.Often in process improvement efforts,workers are never showntheimpactoftheirworkmethodsnorhowchangingthose methodswillbenefittheircustomersandthemselves.Psychology teachesthatwhenpeopleunderstandtheimpactof theircurrent behavior and why they need to perform differently,they are far more likely to alter their behavior.To be effective ambassadors of change,we cannot forget this basic tenet of human behavior. Providing “why” information up front mitigates much of the resistance to change that might otherwise be present. And structuring improvement events so that the workers discover the why’s is far more effective than a facilitator or manager dic- tating change. Using less to get to yes: An example For sustainable improvement, trust-building solutions need to be tailored to the type of waste present. To illustrate the improvement process,let’s take a look at the issues that often arise when seeking to create flow in a process riddled with review or approval steps,a common type of unnecessary pro- cessing waste. First,it’s important that the process improvement team and,
• 4.
  34 Industrial Engineer frontline ideally,theentireorganizationacknowledgeupfrontthatreviews andapprovals(andtheircousins,inspectionsandaudits)arepure muda — wasteful,non-value-added (NVA) activities as viewed through the customer’seyes.WhiletheymaybenecessaryNVA activities(forexample,reporting,approvals,anddocumentation requiredformonitoringorganizationalperformanceormeeting regulatory requirements),they are nevertheless NVA.Focusing onthecustomer’sperspectivehelpsapproversandreviewerslet go of their role as approvers and creates an innovative environ- ment for minimizing necessary NVA and eliminating unneces- saryNVA. Beforeeliminatingrevieworapprovalsteps,interviewreview- ersandapproverstoassesstheirinformationneeds.Reviewand approvalstepsareoftenbuiltintoaprocesstonotifyleadership about specific actions or the status of a request.Therefore,we must design ways to meet the leader’s information needs with- out adding handoffs that slow the process.The current-state interview can range from a quick conversation to inviting the exercising faith Source: Wilderdom.com the trust factor People want others to trust them, but engendering trust requires prac- tice … and sometimes embarrassing group activities. Everyone has heard about the trust fall, which involves one person falling back into the arms of a group of people. Here are a few other activities to try. • Minefield: Objects are scattered in an indoor or outdoor place. In pairs, one person verbally guides his or her blindfolded partner through the minefield. • Hug a tree: In a forested area, pairs take turns being blindfolded, led to a tree, and then led away. After removing the blindfold, the tree hugger tries to locate his or her tree. • Boundary breaking: Group or team members sit in a circle and take turns answering questions to dis- cover things about each other and break down boundaries within the group. Examples include What quality do you look for in a really good friend?, If you could choose one talent to possess, what would it be?, and What is the greatest prob- lem in the country?
• 5.
  March 2006 35 reviewersandapproverstoparticipateinmappingactivitiesso theycanvisualizetheirroleinslowingtheprocess.Whichever methodisused,theapprovingauthority gains trust thatheor she won’t lose vital information and, in fact, may gain better information by removing a review or approval step and creat- ing an offline method for notification. Signing authorities should also be interviewed (preferably during current-state mapping) about their decision-making process as they review and sign. At a minimum, two criteria must be met for a signature to be of value in a process: The reviewer must engage in a mental decision-tree process to determine whether to sign and should at least occasionally deny the request.If neither of those criteria is met,the signa- ture is merely a rubberstamp activity,and the handoff should be removed from the process. In lean enterprises, standard work applies as much to decision making as it does to enter- ingdata,creatingadrawing,completingareport,orbuildinga widget.As such,decision trees should be written down in the form of visual, standard work instructions. With this tool in place,leaderscanbegintobuildtrustthatlower-levelstaff will make decisions that are similar to the leader’s decisions. Anotherconsiderationishowmanysignaturesarerequired. If we accept that review and approval steps are NVA and are requiredbecauseleadersdon’ttrusttheworkforcetomakethe right decisions, then we should at least minimize the num- ber of handoffs while rebuilding trust. Ideally, no more than two signatures are required to take any action. If more are required, the work force may be overspecialized and require crosstrainingtobuild a broader knowledge base.Or it maybe that two of the signing authorities have redundant skill sets and one handoff could be eliminated. But the improvement focus should always be how to build trust into the process to assure high-quality decision making and output so that we reserve process-slowing reviews for the most critical organi- zational checks and balances. Finally,who is in the best position to review or approve? A good rule of thumb is that approvals,if required at all,should be pushed down to the lowest level possible. The signing authority should be the person closest to the work who has the most complete knowledge base to make an effective deci- sion.Often,theleaderwhohassigningauthoritydoesn’thave enoughinformationtomakeadecision,soaversionof rework occurs in providing the signing authority with data that has already been considered.The alternative may also occur:The signing authority signs without adequate information, rub- berstamping the request. Leadersbeginlettinggoof theirroleintheapprovalprocess only when they have high degrees of trust in the work force. Creating a visual decision tree is the first step in building this trust. Another solution is to implement temporary periodic audits to demonstrate to leaders that the decisions are being made accordingly and provide the opportunity to modify the decision tree document when new thinking is discovered. A finalstrategyistoraisesignaturelimitstoreducebutnotelim- inatealeader’sinvolvementintheprocess. Allof thesestrate- gies will build trust,a necessary step in effectively improving a process that includes review or approval steps. The root of all efficiency When seeking to build trust into processes to reduce inven- tory,thesamerulesapplyasdescribedabove.Involvethework force in analyzing the current state and designing a future state.Includeupstreamsuppliersanddownstreamcustomers. Provide clear answers to the “why” question.Create detailed yet simple visual work instructions that clearly describe how to produce error-free output.Train,train,and train the work- ersinvolvedintheprocess.Andaboveall,makesureeveryone in the organization understands the basic principles of lean so they can begin to see how mistrust in the process affects their customers, organizational performance, and their own morale. A high degree of trust is necessary for efficient and effec- tive processes.Building trust and eliminating waste requires cross-functionalteamwork,collaborationregardingsolutions, and overall understanding of the process. To assure sustain- ability, leaders needs to be as engaged in the change process asaretheworkersdesigningimprovements.Holdingfrequent briefings helps leaders build trust in process improvement teams and vice versa.During these briefings,leaders can ask “Have you considered this?” and “How will we handle this?” Teams prove they have been thorough in analyzing possibili- ties and leadership proves its willingness to let go. Through all of these exercises, trust is built and flow is created, and that’s the goal of lean.d Karen Martin is principal consultant of Karen Martin & Associates basedinSanDiegoandspecializesinapplyingleanprinciplesandtools toservice,transactional,andadministrativeprocesses.Sheisamember of IIEandaco-developerof theWhite-CollarLeanandWhite-Collar Kaizen approaches to organizational improvement.