Giulia shows up punctually to our microcycle with the recorded video.
We encounter a technical hiccup as the video sharing doesn’t start immediately: Muda of defect.
While we work to unlock the situation, Giulia begins with a verbal description of the recorded process (not of the video, mind you!) along with the procession of why’s: why do we do this, why don’t we do that, etc.
Giulia doesn’t know it yet, but she is performing muda of process—a very dangerous muda in this case for these reasons: She is narrating her mental representation of the process and, by doing so, unconsciously reinforcing it in her brain.
The more this representation is reinforced, the more effort (literally physical effort and energy consumption) Giulia will need to overcome it. Her narration influences the interlocutor, who may settle for this level of process description, considering it sufficient and not bothering to seek factual evidence to broaden the perspective: why waste further energy? We are different types of interlocutors and don’t run this risk. But what will others in the company do?
Another interesting aspect: why make a video if a narration is sufficient? One of the two: either the narration is muda, or the video is!
Finally, we manage to have the videos available for viewing; ten minutes have passed. We definitely need to review the process of video collection for subsequent sharing.
Since we have several videos and not just one, we turn to Giulia: Ugo: “What do you think we should watch now?”
Giulia: “Filming the whole process was long and boring. For me to do it and for you to watch it. I tried to film pieces that were significant.” Oh dear, a bad sign. Giulia’s intent is appreciable and understandable, but unfortunately, the keyword here is “significant.”
Significant according to what criteria? Obviously, whatever the criteria, it can only be a product of the current neural software, which has already proven to be unaware of the concept and the real substance of muda.
No matter: everything produced by the cycles is good and useful for progressing and building new neural software more effective and efficient than the current ones.
This is where we can and must start, not from anything else, to build a solid and lasting foundation enabling subjects to generate true continuous improvement.
The first video lasts 43 seconds and shows a computer monitor displaying an application interface and a person’s hand on a mouse. That’s it.
The video starts in the middle of the action; all activities equivalent to “I took paper and pen” from the muda experiment (see our article Muda – What They Are Part 1 and 2) are not filmed.
As the video plays, Giulia continues to narrate the process: she doesn’t describe what is in the video. Every action we see as it is, for example, “Operator moves mouse from one point to another,” in Giulia’s narration is “converted” into its purpose “the operator is looking for the data to associate with the serial number,” a purpose obviously not visible in the video.
Our interaction, with or without the video at this stage, occurs within the same context/environment characteristic: we are not on the gemba. I get the impression that the videos for Giulia were meant to be aids for our (mine and Ugo’s) benefit, to make her narration more understandable to us, perhaps also a kind of “this is how things are, and here’s the proof…”
The criterion behind the term “significant” begins to take shape… It would also explain the reluctance at the previous microcycle to produce the videos themselves: who wouldn’t consider it a waste of time to perform an activity for the use and consumption of almost unknown individuals to expose a process that is believed to be perfectly known and holds no surprises?
Even the time Giulia required to make the videos would take on a different meaning: making videos with this intent is far more expensive and complex than making them with the intent of improving in recognizing the muda that we have right under our noses…
I ask a question with a naïve and light tone, but it’s neither naïve nor light: Stefano: “Why did you start filming from here? I mean, at this precise point, with the software mask open, the operator in that position, and the hand on the mouse?”
Giulia: “I’ve been thinking about it for a while and… I was trying to find a way to work on it. Because there is a lot of work behind it: getting the papers, moving to the other workstation, stapling the papers…”
Stefano: “Ah, great, then we can see all this part you are talking about, which seems like a nice heap of muda?”
Giulia: “No, I didn’t film it…” General laughter. I propose moving to the next video, and without any surprise on my part, the video, as far as its form is concerned, is a perfect copy of the previous one: it also lasts a few seconds, and it also starts in the middle of the action with an operator (the same as before) holding a pen, writing on a paper. A recurring pattern begins to emerge; I proceed with naïve questions.
Stefano: “Giulia, what was your perspective in making these videos?”
Giulia: “I tried to capture the moment when he goes to get the data, fill in the paper to show you that… Oh, by the way, here it happened that the operator needed the pen, had to look for it, found it, but it didn’t work!”
Stefano: “Ah, great! Can we see this part?”
Giulia: “eh no, I was giving him my pen, taking it from my pocket, no, I couldn’t film it.”
Another general laughter.
Stefano: “It seems to me that you filmed pieces trying to reconstruct the process as you have it in mind, not as it is. Correct me if I’m wrong.”
Giulia: “No, I would have liked to make a 30-minute film, but it would have taken too much time.”
Stefano: “And why choose the pieces you chose and not others?”
It seems quite evident to me that Giulia has enacted a process opposite to what is needed to effectively improve processes: instead of filming what is as it is and then, from the videos, surgically and quantitatively identifying the existing muda, she started from her current idea of muda and filmed those.
Giulia wants to narrate the process at all costs; she wants to explain the why’s to us. She wants us to know that this test certificate, in her view, is muda that bothers her a lot: at the same time, without that sheet used by the client’s inspector to give his approval, the piece cannot leave the factory—Serious Non-Conformity—and thus is not billable.
Stefano: “I admit it’s a bit of a stretch, but given the current ‘external’ constraints (current regulations, the external inspector’s requirements), could we consider the certificate a component of the piece?”
Giulia: “Yes, it makes sense.”
Stefano: “Then, the ink deposited on the report, do we classify it as muda or value?”
Giulia: “It’s a good question. Instinctively I’d say muda, but actually, I’m producing value. I started considering all this stuff as absolute muda. Imagine what I didn’t film!”
Laughter
Stefano: “See? You filmed what bothered you for who knows how long, which we agreed today to be value, and you didn’t film what you couldn’t film at that moment, the muda we perform today to achieve that value represented by the certificate. You couldn’t film them because your energy, your focus, your kanshin was directed towards a different enemy: the certificate. We agree that in a perfect world, the certificate wouldn’t exist, but this presupposes a change of ‘rules’ that doesn’t depend on us. Can we say something similar about the software: surely going back and forth through the video masks is muda, but is it an immediately ‘attackable’ muda? Does its elimination depend solely on actions under your direct responsibility?”
Giulia: “Indeed…”
Ugo: “The tendency of our primary neural software is to focus on what seems immediately remediable, eliminating the annoyance, the threat, and not observing and studying the problem in its entirety. Being on the gemba forces us not to skip steps; narrating how things are allows us to skip everything we want, resulting in losing grip on the real picture.
Even the ‘preference,’ I assure you, of everyone to identify muda that doesn’t depend on us presupposes that I perceive this activity (kaizen) as a threat, something attacking me, not something I can use to make my world more beautiful.
This ‘disposition’ is also an effect of our current primary and secondary neural software, which will continue to ‘work’ this way until we modify them. And this is our task. Does it convince you?”
Giulia: “Unfortunately, I find myself in it: I clearly filmed the things that annoy me, that burn me to see, and that I want to get rid of. But it’s also true that I’m probably attacking the tip of the iceberg: the little I see, not the mountain underneath, whose extent I don’t know and on which I might be able to act autonomously right away.”
Stefano: “Great Giulia, then I propose to direct your energy, your kanshin towards another objective: from ‘Eliminate the certificate’ (what we’d like) to ‘find the way with less muda to produce the certificate’ (what we can). What do you think?”
Giulia: “Agreed!” We agree on the next cycle’s next step: a 3-minute random video this time without cuts; we’ll meet next week. We still have to overcome the pass of more frequent meetings.
Objective of the step: film ALL the muda, not just the ones we already know and bother us.
Moral of the cycle: if you don’t know what muda are, you’ll make “wrong” videos. But to learn what muda are, you need to make “wrong” videos! However, it is essential that you have someone who knows what muda are and uses these “wrong” videos optimally.
Takeaway from the microcycle: identifying and recognizing VALUE, recognizing muda (NON-VALUE)—what, how many, where, when—is a continuous process aimed at eliminating or reducing NON-VALUE, thereby increasing the value generated by any productive process.
Key Elements :
- Continuous Improvement Cycle: Emphasizing the importance of continuous improvement and the iterative process of identifying and eliminating muda (non-value).
- Practical Learning: Highlighting the practical approach of learning from mistakes to recognize and reduce non-value activities.
- Video Analysis: The use of video analysis to understand and improve processes, demonstrating a commitment to detailed scrutiny and refinement.
- Collaborative Problem-Solving: The role of collaboration and shared insights in enhancing process efficiency.
- Adapting to Constraints: Strategies to work within existing constraints and regulations while striving for process improvement.
Focus on Value: A clear focus on distinguishing between value-adding and non-value-adding activities to optimize productivity and efficiency