I had a conversation today with a close friend about learning, growth, and A3s. We were discussing how to help a team through the problem solving process and using an A3. From this conversation we inevitably got off a tangent and began down a path trying to understand the philosophy behind problem solving as a whole. When you look at the different organizations or implementations of a continuous improvement culture, you see a few basic philosophies.
There are some that create a structure to problem solving such as Lean Six Sigma or Six Sigma. There are certified belts who are designated problem solver leads who will lead problem solving using the DMAIC method. They will sometimes use shortened versions of DMAIC, but generally require lots of statistical data analysis in order to prove improvements occur. These organizations typically have a top down hierarchical structure, and often have some struggle with "sustaining" improvements and expect people to just follow control plans that may or may not have actually been ingrained in the daily management system (if one really exists at all). I think back to what Mark Graban calls L.A.M.E. (Lean As Misguidedly Executed).
Another philosophy is that of the A3 thinking problem solving method. Every person learns some basic problem solving structure and document their problem solving process on a piece of paper as a type of story. This helps people to receive help on what they are finding throughout the process as well as create a complete story that can be shared with others. Since everyone is involved, everyone gets some level of training. There are no real designated "lead problem solvers" but there are roles of coaches typically filled by more experienced problem solvers such as team leads, group leads, supervisors, or managers. I think of the Toyota Production System, Toyota Kata, and other similar implementations of Lean.
Finally there's what can be called "fix the struggle you face now" way of things. This is similar to the A3 thinking part where everyone is trained and involved with problem solving, but instead of worrying so much about "which problem should I solve?" they are more concerned with the current struggles that are being faced now. The idea here is that the best way to start improving is to just start. Everyone learns how to see and eliminate waste, and are given the opportunity to just improve things. There is some direction to it, such as "cut in half" that helps to guide the efforts, but you typically won't find a lot of waiting to make an improvement. As people evolve in this system, the problem solving skills grow, including being able to find root causes and solving deeper issues. Generally though, it stays true to the "fix it now" philosophy. One of the most known ways this is seen is the 2 Second Lean approach, but I've seen other organizations do something similar to this.
There are pros and cons to each of these methods, but what links them together? There is the obvious improvement part of course, but underlying to that is the learning and growth of people. I have been more and more convinced that the typical Lean Six Sigma hierarchical way does less of this overall and tries more to keep control of people. As we get into the other two methods, there's a real focus on the "everyone, everyday, engaged" with problem solving and personal growth. I've been tending to think that this way is much more productive and engaging for people, and often affects culture on a much deeper level. So how can we describe this common link of learning and growth in problem solving? In our conversation we talked a lot about PDCA (or PDSA) as the basis of much of the problem solving methods. This too can hold true to the development and learning that is occurring. Let's use the idea of something that grows - a plant.
P - Plant the Seeds
To grow something we must have a seed and plant it. The seed is an idea, a skill, or a way of thinking. This can be any of the methods we described above, but all will include some thing we will try to do to learn. The seed often starts with learning to see things as processes, waste, and give a general understanding of value for the Customer. As we gain understanding, we try things out which requires the next part.
D - Dampen the Soil
In order to give the seed the right conditions, we need to give the seed a little water. Think of this as the environment around the seed allowing it to grow. A seed naturally wants to grow, as do people. In places that do this right, we usually see some level of mutual respect, mutual responsibility, and mutual support for each other's learning and development. The more we work together in the environment, the more likely the seed will grow and strengthen.
C - Check for Growth
As with a plant, we don't want to just leave it alone at this point, we must continuously check how it is growing. If it needs more nutrients, we provide it what it needs. If the environment around it has shifted, we work on correcting the environment. There is time to spend to check with people on their growth so we can best support them.
A - Adjust your Care
Based on what we see in the growth, we may need to do something to help it. Sometimes we try to fix the environment, or provide it more nutrients, but sometimes we need to help prop it up while it strengthens. People are similar in their development. At the start of their development things might go fast. Very quickly people are trying things and getting excited, but we might find that we shot up too quickly. It's okay if that happens, but we want to be there to support the person while they strengthen their core abilities. We must adjust together in how we help each other's development.
My underlying beliefs are founded strongly in Respect for Every Individual. I also believe that improvements are an outcome of learning. Learning happens when we actually go do something or try something out. As an entire organization, we must then adopt a common philosophy of people development in support of their growth to learn and solve problems. At its core, Lean is about people. The more we get away from that core, the less we look like a Lean organization and just become quite L.A.M.E.
Comments