Anda di halaman 1dari 12

FAT Results from Lean Implementation:

by Arun Shukla

A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

ean manufacturing is an accepted vehicle for organizational transformation. It brings a bias for disciplined action, claries the intuitive knowledge gained from experience, and puts an organization on the path to accelerated business results. Yet industry reports and research indicate that while most organizations have a reasonable understanding of the technical pieces of the lean puzzle, they struggle to realize its promise.

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

In the quest to attain ow with zero waste, organizations are falling short on the people management aspect of lean implementation. As lean gurus swamp the shop-oors, the people who are actually responsible for sustaining lean programs are relegated to the background and are not well managed. Their importance in the lean journey to success is ignored and misunderstood. This often leads to variable and unpredictable process improvements and business results that cant be maintained. Getting FAT results from lean implementationit sounds Atkins-approved. The truth is, like any successful diet, results can be improved by focusing on the person involved in the program. At Kepner-Tregoe, we frequently help clients integrate the people side of the equation and improve results. In lean initiatives, focusing on the people pieces helps organizations solve the lean puzzle. The results can be FAT - Financially triangulated results that come at an Accelerated pace, and are Translatable consistently across other parts of the organization. To achieve FAT results, we must rst understand the lean landscape, lean management practices, and the performance system that drives project team behavior.

Understanding the Lean Landscape

Observe the lean landscape, not as a lean theory expert, but through the eyes of the people who experience lean rst hand as it gets implemented across their organization. The view can be frustrating and confusing. It is not uncommon to nd that the strategic business objectives of an organization are at odds with when and where lean is implemented. For example, a consumer products plant of a large pharmaceutical company decided to transform itself into a Lean Enterprise with 37 distinct projects that focused on improving manufacturing ows and ll rates and reducing cycle times. While the projects were implemented, the company was being strategically benchmarked against labor costs in offshore countries. In this case, a lean job well done was at cross purposes with the strategic objective to lower labor costs. Results from lean projects coincided with the closure of the production facility. For people affected by the plant closure, going lean did not help. It only created disbelief in lean principles. Call it Kaizan events, 5Ss, Poka Yoke, or something else; organizations have a tendency to apply multiple tools simultaneously. This leads to more projects, often beyond the capacity of the people who must execute them. A manufacturing client had 213 improvement projects identied across its portfolio of three plants in North America. They quickly learned that this would be unmanageable and would produce undesirable outcomes. In this situation, the lean program was blamed for the unrealistic overload of initiatives and was cited as a diversion from core business activity. The point is frequently made that while individual lean projects are delivered successfully, their performance metrics never add-up. The great strides that have been made in productivity arent reected on a 1:1 basis on the bottom line. This inability to triangulate results in a multiple-projects environment undermines the credibility of lean at an enterprise level. For the people working in lean projects, their worst fear, on a personal basis, is that jobs are no more secure than prior to the lean journey. Whats in it for them if they embrace lean? How and why should they ever get on the lean bandwagon? More importantly, why should they remain on the lean train?

The Lean Journey

The lean journey chart shows how lean implementation progresses in an organization. The timeline of a lean implementation is plotted across the horizontal axis. The vertical axis

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

Process / Business Performance

is a measure of process or business performance. The population curve of projects follows an S curve with cumulative stages of lean success. Operations improvement projects in a variety of industries in different geographies support this pattern.

The Lean Journey

(Where is your organization today?)
Proactive Management of People Resources

Reactive Management of People Resources

At the bottom left of the spectrum is the negative zone, when + Lean teams witness a downturn (+ive) Reactive Management of in business performance as a Process Elements Base Line Performance result of a lean implementation Serious Program project. It sounds odd, but it is Review Required (-ive) often true; business performance takes a step backwards as the Time Line processes around the targeted area within the organization adapt to change. This negative trend is transient in nature. Within a short periodat maximum, within a quarterthe performance should take an upturn towards the desired goal. If not, the program needs serious review. The majority of projects are populated around the rst zone of performance improvement. These projects are in the low hanging fruit category. Processes in this zone tend to be managed in a reactive mode. However, as process execution matures to proactive management, process/business performance improves dramatically. The next quantum leap is made as organizations rise above process management and acknowledge the importance of people in the project.1 Ultimately, lean nirvana is found when the human performance system is proactively managed at an individual and an organizational level. The gains here are asymptotic. Assessing an organizations maturity on the lean curve and mapping operations improvement initiatives on this chart can provide valuable insights. Continuing progress along the lean maturity curve requires understanding of the dynamics of people vs. processes, reactive vs. proactive process management, and their interrelationships in lean projects.

Proactive Management of Process Elements

Lean Management of Process Performance The People and Process Connection

Lean projects typically address one or more concerns in these categories: customer service, exibility, cost, cycle time, and quality. These all can be nicely tied back to the customer-product protability equation. While the ultimate concern may be to improve business protability, we actually accomplish this by improv-

What is Lean Management?

Managing the organization as an adaptive system of processes for continuous improvement. All employees must understand the interrelationship between the following elements:




Key Business Processes

Business Process Improvement



People & Process Performance

Process Performance Results

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

ing the performance of the processes that constitute an organizations activity. Since people work within an organizations processes, we need to improve the performance of both processes and people to gain any substantial and sustainable advantage. Lean management is an adaptive system of continuous improvement of multiple, interconnected processes. Each employee should understand the interrelationships between the key elements of lean management. The lean process begins with setting goals that are directed by the company strategy. Gap analysis identies the most critical business processes for meeting these goals. The organization then conducts business process improvement and integrates people and process performance. Finally, a post-project review is performed and the cycle is repeated. We believe that FAT results are generated in a lean program when the conducting business process improvement and integrating people and process performance elements of lean Expected Process Performance management cycle are administered in proacGoal tive mode.
Acceptable Range of Variance

Base Line

Past Future

Consider this simple diagram of expected process performance. For any process there is an acceptable range of variance. Clearly the objective of implementing lean is that the lower end is not acceptable anymore and the future should evolve between the baseline and the goal line.

Understanding Reactive Management of Process Performance

Organizations demonstrate reactive behavior when process improvement is a reaction to historical performance data. On the reactive management chart, actual performance can be charted to show if it falls above or below the baseline or should. Any departure from the baseline, whether it is above or below, can be designated as a deviation. If performance is above the baseline, further opportunities are explored by identifying the root cause for the superior performance so that it can be replicated to sustain the improvement. If performance is below the baseline or there is a trend for downward performance, the gap or deviation in the process metric is analyzed for root cause so that it can be removed to improve performance. Root cause analysis is pursued through a three-question lens: Is there a deviation? Is the cause unknown? Do we want to know the cause?

Reactive Management of Process Performance

Continuous Improvement
al +A

Opportunities Identified Negative Trend(s) Detected Analyze for Cause



Evaluate Alternatives Take Action



If the answers to all three questions are afrmative, the organization should conduct a root cause analysis. This analysis leads to identication of causes and development of multiple alternatives. Action is taken on the best-balanced choice with risks assessed. Why do we term this as reactive? It is reactive because the process improvement analysis is based on historical data. Some precipitating





FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

changes in the past have led to a performance deviation, and attempts to remove it or replicate it are being made as a reaction to this altered state. This is the low-hanging fruit of performance improvement. An organization following this route can quickly ramp up its performance by making the should or upper level the best demonstrated practice. The critical success factors for reactive process management include: Understanding process performance goals Monitoring the baseline Being specic! Managing from overly broad or inaccurate data will create costly cost/time overruns

Typical gains of 15-20% productivity, reductions in work-in-process inventories, and reduction in oor space and travel times are examples of the low-hanging fruit that wellexecuted lean events can reach in the early phases of an organizations lean journey.

Understanding Proactive Management of Process Performance

Proactive management of processes generally begins in phase II of a lean program. This can be found in organizations where lean is not an ad hoc, one-off initiativelean principles have been embraced and structured programs are in place. At this point, the improvements from the phase I or reactive phase have helped create a new, improved baseline. A new should is identied for continuous improvement in the next phase of the lean journey. In this stage, improvement teams work beyond the previous best demonstrated practice and move into uncharted territory. In the reactive state, the team looked at cause and effect. In proactive mode, attention shifts to the likely cause and likely effect. Lean teams in this phase Proactive Management of Process Performance spend time shaping the future. Continuous Improvement Next Phase Kepner-Tregoe denes the rational processes for these activities as Potential Problem Analysis and PotenPost Lean Phase I tial Opportunity Analysis.2 -A
ua In Potential Problem Analysis, l the team addresses the likely cause Baseline before Lean Phase I of a process performance decline Past Now by taking preventive actions. If the likely cause does occur, despite preventive efforts, the team is prepared for damage control with planned contingency actions. The team sets triggers for these actions that act as warning lights or the signal to launch contingency measures that reduce the impact of the likely effect.
+A ctu




Potential Opportunity Analysis helps teams explore the future for better-than-planned process performance. In such cases, the teams need to decide about promoting the likely causethey want more of it so process performance exceeds expectations. They take actions and set triggers to capitalize on the potential effect. When things do go better, they are prepared to take full advantage of the opportunity. Unfortunately very few teams are proactive enough to exploit things that go better than planned. A lack of data and precedence can be a barrier to proactive management. But data and precedence exist if you seek information on the cause or effects of the same or similar processes. The chart of managing ow time opportunity provides an example of the proactive management of a process. A lean team charged with improving ow time may focus on

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

multiple likely approaches that reduce the work content on the critical path or remove elements from it. Each approach can be analyzed for potential opportunity by identifying likely causes, taking promoting actions, and planning actions that will capitalize on process ow time improvements.

People Management in Lean Projects

Lean brings change in the way people relate to processes within the organization. Change can hurt people both with its magnitude and speed, and it can be stressful. This is especially true if the improved productivity resulting from lean implementation creates a perception that fewer hands will be required at the workplace. Expanded responsibilities, team ownership of a process, and the emphasis on disciplined exibility that characterize lean programs often lead to resistance. Monetary rewards can only go so far to overcome this resistance. The lean journey can be seamless and less painful when the management of peoples performance systems are an integral part of the lean program. To fully grasp the reactive and proactive people management aspect of lean projects, it helps to know the elements that can affect people performance and the drivers that can help manage behavior. In its most simplistic fashion, human performance ts nicely into the process track of low end, high end, and a should or baseline level of performance. If there is a performance gap, the true cause should be as identiable as the gap in any other type of performance. Unfortunately this is easier said than done. The challenge in people performance management is that, while the actual can be obvious, the should is often not clear, not

Managing FLOW-TIME Opportunity

Process Flow Time
Segment I

Segment II

Segment I: 1-4-8-9; Segment II: 1-2-5-7-9; Segment III: 1-3-6-9 Theoretical Maximum Time

Segment III

Segment III Critical Path Actual Process Time Segment III IS Potential Opportunity (IS Should); $ Value; Impact Points

Reduce work content on activities on Segment III (either all or some of 1,3,6,9) Eliminate non-value add activities Speed-up activities (faster equipment, labor incentives) Reduce waste/repetition of work An optimal product-mix which leads to above actions Move Segment III activities to Segments I or II Measure float and move 3/6 or part of to segment I or/and segment II without making them critical Outsource 3 and/or 6


Identify Potential Opportunities State the action % reduction in FLOW TIME What actions are required to reduce FLOW TIME? Which of these are critical? List potential opportunities Reducing FLOW TIME will impact which Strategic Profit Driver(s)? What is its value to Business Profitability? Identify Likely Causes Consider causes for the potential opportunity What could cause FLOW TIME to reduce? Take Promoting Action Take actions to encourage reduction in FLOW TIME Plan Capitalizing Action and Set Triggers Prepare actions to enhance reduction in FLOW TIME Set triggers for capitalizing actions

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

commonly understood, or not communicated. At KepnerTregoe we recommend using a rational approach to increase the likelihood of getting the should behavioralso known as performancein lean projects. We call this approach the Performance System.

Managing Human Performance

High End Should

How the Performance System Drives Project Behavior

Low End The Performance System model provides a practical, usePast ful framework that claries human performance. Using this model, managers can construct and analyze each component as it relates to an employee, team, or work group, and then improve and align it to support performance expectations. Tracing its roots back to the early years of behavioral science research by B.F. Skinner, weve validated this model in numerous project and work environments. The ve components of the performance system model are:

Performer: the individual or group expected to behave/perform Situation: the immediate setting or environment in which a Performer works, such as the project environment Response: the behavior (also known as performance) of the Performer Consequences: events that follow the response and increase or decrease the probability the Response (behavior/performance) will occur again, given the same Situation Feedback: the information that Performers receive about progress toward their goals; it helps guide their Response (behavior/performance)

The ve elements of the performance system are interlinked and should not be considered or administered on a stand-alone basis. Lean projects that impact an entire organization require a performance system hierarchy that is mapped to the organizational hierarchy. This claries the organizational dynamics and integrates both people goals and organization goals. The Performer is usually an individual but can have a broader denition as a team or larger organizational unit. This broader denition is most useful in lean implementation.
How appropriate is the Feedback and how well is it used to influence performance?


How clear are the performance expectations and how well are they understood? How clear is the signal to perform? How well does the work environment support expected performance?

How well do the Consequences encourage

expected performance? The Situation refers to the immediate environment or setting in which + the Performer worksthe lean project team, the department, or business unit Response Performer What is the observed How capable is the of which the Performer performance? Performer to meet the performance How does it compare is a member. Three key expectations? with expectations? elements describe the Situationperformance expectations, signals to perform, and the work environment. Each element of the Situation impacts an individuals or lean project teams behavior.

Consequences are events or conditions that follow a Performers Response and increase or decrease the probability that the Response will occur again, given the same Situation.

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

Performance System Hierarchy


Plant Manager



Director Quality Assurance

Director Finance

Director Research & Development

Director Operations



Director Information Systems

Director Personnel


Manufacturing Manager


Manufacturing Engineering Manager

What is the primary RESPONSE being observed?


Testing Supervisor

Technical Supervisor

Production Supervisor

Production Supervisor



Answer: Process Performance

Production Operator

Testing Technician

Maintenance Technician

Production Operator


Hence the Importance of Performance System in Delivering Benchmark Lean Results

Consequences can be encouraging or discouraging to increase or decrease the probability of future Responses. Feedback is a critical component of the lean project performance system. It provides Performers with performance-based information about progress toward the organizational goal of lean enterprise. Comparison of actual performance to the plan guides the Performer in maintaining or modifying Responses/behavior.

Understanding Reactive Management of People Performance

Reactive management of each element of the performance system focuses on past performance of lean project team members. The objective is to keep people performance above the unacceptable low end and move it upward from the baseline or should performance to the high end or goal. To manage the Performer, the following questions are asked: Did the Performer have the necessary skills and knowledge to perform? Did the Performer know why the desired performance was important? Was the Performer physically and mentally able to perform?

In many lean projects, the lean guru assumes that the people can be provided with the necessary technical skills through training workshops. This not only goes against the lean philosophy of lean as a way of life and learning as part of the journey, it compounds the damage because Performers fail to understand why their desired performance is important and how their Response can have an impact across the value stream. Managing the Situation element begins by establishing if the Performer had the appropriate operating environment. This is accomplished by asking: Did the Performer know the desired output? Did process performance standards exist? Did Performer consider the standards attainable?

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

Lean projects that fail to move beyond phase I have their roots in Performers, both individuals and project teams, not understanding their unique Situation, that is, the combination of products, customers, supply chain partners, and processes that support those transactions. The Response from the Performer is validated by asking: Which process performance was observed? Did the performance met expectations? What were the desired, the undesired, and the alternative Responses?

In our observations many lean projects demonstrate a high degree of ambiguity around performance measures and lack of common understanding on desired, undesired and alternative responses. The Consequences for the both the Performer and the organization can be conrmed by considering: How well do the Consequences support the desired performance? Were the Consequences meaningful to the Performer? To the organization? Were the Consequences immediate enough to encourage the desired performance? Developing effective Feedback mechanisms should be one of the rst steps in inuencing performance, since improvement will only be sustained if the Performer is able to detect progress. Feedback mechanisms are established in the ground-rules activity of project management and are a reection of how the project manager goes about communicating progress to project contributors and sponsors. Managing the Feedback loop completes the full circle of people performance management. The questions asked about Feedback must include: Did Performers receive information about their performance? Was it relevant and accurate? Was it timely and specic? Was it easy to understand? It is expected that not all questions will have afrmative answers, but ensuring that concerns are discussed with the Performers and corrective measures designed in place gives lean projects a much higher probability of improving future results and sustaining the gains.

Understanding Proactive Management of People Performance

Proactive process management coupled with proactive people management can produce benchmark project results. All ve elements, the Performer, Situation, Response, Consequences and Feedback are in the play in a proactively managed human performance system aimed at inuencing the behavioral changes in the Performer. The distinction between proactive and reactive people management lies between observing past behaviors and changing future behavior. This is achieved by designing the performance system from the onset, during the planning phase of a lean project. This is accomplished by: Determining Responses to be changed or improved by grouping reported deciencies

FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

Identifying Performers whose Responses must be changed or improved Modifying the performance system variables (Situation, Consequences, and Feedback) Communicating and implementing changes

The questions in proactive management of people performance are forethoughts, not afterthoughts. To empower the Performer to deliver the desired Response, the following questions help design the performance system: What necessary skills and knowledge will be required by the Performer to deliver the desired Response? How would the importance of desired performance be made visible to the Performer? What physical and mental attitude is needed by the Performer? Proactively managing the Situation element requires asking: What is the desired output? What performance standards need to be designed? How can the standards be made attainable to the Performer?

To ensure that the Response can be measured correctly, the following questions need to be answered in the design phase: Which process performance will be observed? What are the desired performance levels? How will the desired, undesired and alternative Responses be made visible?

The Consequences for the both the Performer and the organization are designed by considering: How will the Consequences support the desired performance? Will the Consequences be meaningful to the Performer? To the organization? Will the Consequences be immediate enough to encourage the desired performance?

Designing the Feedback loop completes the proactive performance system design. This requires considering: How will the system ensure that Performers receive information about their performance? What will make the Feedback relevant and accurate? How can Feedback become an element of the project work breakdown structure to ensure its timeliness and specicity? What will conrm that the Performer understood the intended Feedback?

Designing a performance system is not akin to cultural change, but it is a practical approach to inuencing performance in a focused way to get desirable results for projects. Cumulative successes help build a lean culture without directly confronting the existing one.


FAT Results from Lean Implementation: A Rational Process Approach to Lean Success

Most lean programs dont capitalize on the benets of managing processes proactively and forego the steep gains that can be achieved by managing human performance. Like all journeys, the lean journey requires a roadmap. A good lean roadmap must integrate the human performance system and management of business processes for sustainable business performance. Both people and processes should be managed with a structured, rational approach that includes both reactive and proactive management. Engaging people in a way that builds positive reaction to lean implementation within an organization is critical. By creating a performance system that encourages people to succeed, the lean journey moves into a new territory of signicant, sustainable results.

1 2

Keith Pelkey, Business Process Improvement and People Performance, (2002) Charles H. Kepner and Benjamin B. Tregoe, The New Rational Manager, (Princeton, Princeton Research Press, 1997).

About the Author

Arun Shukla, Kepner-Tregoe practice leader, is responsible for the implementation of the companys systems improvement and workplace transformation products and services. He works extensively with clients on customer-product protability maximization and focused projects aimed at reducing business complexity through optimization of structural and performance costs. Mr. Shuklas career includes over 21 years of industry experience in engineering, construction, manufacturing, marketing, and professional services. He is an expert in supply chain management and has core competencies in supply chain opportunity assessment, and solutioning collaborative scenarios for prot and service maximization. With his extensive knowledge of inter-enterprise business systems, Mr.Shukla is able to help clients develop and deliver functional linkages between business strategy and business systems. Prior to joining Kepner-Tregoe, Mr. Shukla worked with SAP AG, as industry director for chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and mill industries with the Strategic Business Unit Manufacturing for the Asia Pacic region. His region comprised of working with 12 countries, including Japan and Australia. Mr. Shukla holds a master of business management, executive masters program from the following business schools: J.W. Kellogg, Northwestern University, Wharton, the University of Pennsylvania; and Sasin from Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok. He is a certied SAP consultant and also holds a bachelor of technology in civil structural engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology.


Kepner-Tregoe Ofce Locations

Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. ( is a Princeton, NJ-based consulting and training company that works with organizations worldwide to meet complex business challenges and achieve measurable results. The renowned Kepner-Tregoe processes for problem solving, decision making, and project management provide logical and consistent approaches to tough business issues.

Ofces Headquarters United States Australia Canada France

(serving Spain)

Afliates Brazil Chile Finland Italy Korea Mexico (serving Costa Rica,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama)

Germany Hong Kong Ireland Japan Malaysia Netherlands Singapore Switzerland

(serving Belgium)

Peru (serving Colombia) Philippines United Arab Emirates

(serving Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan)

Venezuela Serving additional locations in: Africa and Europe (UK) The Americas (USA) Asia (Singapore)

Taiwan Thailand United Kingdom

For more information, visit us at or e-mail us at

Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. P.O. Box 704 Princeton, NJ 08542 609-921-2806 Fax 609-497-0130 e-mail:


Copyright 2005 Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. All Rights Reserved.