Category: value & non-value

Posted on

All it takes is a key and two heads

We need a bit of luck, well, it’s necessary every now and then, right? Our brilliant engineer, a tall, beautiful black woman, is about to present the results of the first token of 20 microLABs to the Management Team, 5 slides, let’s look at them together… first slide, two numbers, 24% and 105%.

24% is the measure of process improvement estimated before we started working together (data table in a separate file, to be distributed after the presentation).

105% is the measure of process improvement achieved during the 20 microLABs… data table in a separate file. Are we happy? Yes, indeed, very much… during the microLABs we’ve seen all sorts of things, it worked this time too.

The other slides summarize additional data: improvement in profitability, process lead time, a well-done presentation, rich and meaningful.

Even our brilliant engineer has absorbed, over the years, the entire Kaizen-lean repertoire, because with us it’s yes (105%) and before it was no (24%)?

It’s a medium-sized company by European standards, organizational complexity, markets, processes, certainly not easy, the intertwining and interdependencies are known: what really made the difference?

In the end, all this complexity and difficulty boils down to little: improvement (continuous, spot, whatever you want… wherever you want, at work, at home, in sports, in relationships…) can be achieved by increasing the value generated and reducing, eliminating, non-value. And this is the key. Simple, right?

Easy? Oh no, definitely not easy. You need to precisely identify the “Customer,” and it’s not so obvious everywhere: it’s easier at work, the Customer is the one out there (and only out there, don’t be fooled by internal customers, the issue is crucial, the Customer must always be outside, in the environment, not within the system in which one finds themselves) who pays for what they receive.

Value and non-value must be rigorously identified by observing and analyzing the processes from the Customer’s point of view: for example, transportation is non-value, transformation is value. Seven fundamental types of non-value, they are the old muda of Kaizen memory, they are more than sufficient, no need for more, and even for everyday work, it’s not taken for granted that we constantly keep them in mind, we all know the trap of the seventh dwarf.

And then two heads.

It takes two to succeed, exceptions are very rare, from one in a thousand to one in ten thousand, more or less that’s the order of magnitude.

We’ve called them supporter and protagonist, we are the protagonists, the supporter is the one who helps us, from start to finish: correctly identifying value and non-value, identifying and realizing what increases value and eliminates non-value, and then, once the new “productive” condition is reached, starting over and improving again, increasing value, eliminating non-value…

So, does the supporter need to be an expert? A wise person? Well, yes and no: at work, which is the area we’re interested in now, it’s not rocket science, you don’t need NASA scientists for this.

Certainly, they need to know the seven dwarfs (and we need to know them too), but that’s quick… and they need to be able to look, with us, at every step, from the Customer’s point of view, and correctly identify as soon as possible, with us, the value and non-value of each step.

Then they need to help us (not replace us, just help) in the observation and analysis phase, identifying the action that can increase value or eliminate non-value, then testing and trying, verifying and evaluating the result obtained, and transforming it into the new standard if the verification is positive.

And, if it’s not, starting over… eh? Oh yes, old stuff this too, PDCA, nothing else is needed, it is not rocket science, I had said.

In short, all old, known stuff: yet, facts and numbers say this doesn’t work, it’s not enough to generate, continuously, productivity and profitability improvements. True. Why?

Why, even using the correct key, does it not succeed? Apart from the usual Toyota, Komatsu, and Honda…

Not that the literature is vast, but it’s quite substantial, many have tried to answer, to propose new recipes, for forty plus years, everyone has hit, more or less quickly, their nose against the wall.

In one of the best contributions I know (Toyota Kata, Rother M. et al., 2010) interesting indications are found, pieces of attempts at answers, in the others, many, we find lots of how-to’s, the answers to why, not really. Isn’t it interesting?

Despite everyone knowing that no problem can be effectively solved without knowing the problem well, having understood it deeply, we keep finding solution proposals always (apparently, they are actually revamps, restyling, rephrasing, relabelling) new, and no new answer to: why?

Here, again, there is something new in what we propose: it doesn’t work because they (not us) continue to consider the problem in a non-systemic way.

And even when they try (yes, someone has tried, even recently, I have in mind a capable engineer, met when I served Schneider Electric, not a few years ago), it takes little to see that there is very little systemic in what they propose… better than nothing, but very little.

There is a call to look, consider, analyze the “system,” but usually nothing new on how.

Among the primary reasons for this insurmountable difficulty is an important gap, it may seem pure theory, or even metaphysics, but the fact is that at the base there is a poor, inconsistent, and contradictory model of the human mind.

And based on this model, mostly used without even thinking about it, as it is the most “common” and to which no one or almost no one objects and opposes, teaching-learning practices are devised and adopted that prove to be, irremediably, ineffective.

So do we come to explain to you which one is right, or at least better than before and tell you how to do it? Certainly not.

Saying, telling, helps little, often even harms.

It’s not a mystery, there is no mystery, a first draft of a systemic model of the human mind I published in 2016, it’s accessible to anyone, ISBN 9788892317758, since then I’ve made many advances, but the model has received few variations, it’s quite robust, it has held up well over the years.

Saying here what the “novelty” consists of takes little: like everyone else, even our brilliant engineer, to go from 24% to 105%, has modified some of her neural software (yes, we are biological machines, yes, we operate using neural software, yes, part of it is modifiable): could she have done it alone before? In theory, yes, statistics are always the same, from 1 in a thousand to 1 in ten thousand… incidentally, I am not among those.

To modify our most “critical” software, something only we can do and no one else, in the vast majority of cases we need the help of another, of a supporter, as we’ve called it to simplify and make ourselves understood, as much as possible.

Describing exactly what a good supporter does and doesn’t do is not impossible, it’s very long, here there’s no room: but even if there were, it would serve little, it would perhaps give a more detailed image, but necessarily incomplete and, substantially, hardly operational.

It’s exactly like the core of our method, identifying value and non-value, you learn by doing, you do by learning, without direct contact with the process, as frequently and continuously as possible, the risk of empty talk increases exponentially.

While we like and need the simple clarity of: before=24%, after=105%

No need to tell you how to do it so you learn, you need to do it.

And after you’ve done it, after you’ve gathered evidence of your success, then you’ll know how to do it.

The supporter, in the complex context of organized work, is also something else, does something else, besides enabling learning-change-improvement: we at Valinova are temporary supporters, usable to start continuous improvement that never stops, to enable your “supporters” and then exit the scene, as soon as possible… for today, that’s enough, I think.

 

 

Irresistible, just arrived, fresh: our brilliant engineer has presented her work, and she sends us a brief txt, [17:33, 22/07/2024] Done: colleagues very and sincerely interested, the DJ said we need to find a way to get young people working with this methodology… it went well.

Well, a little celebration is in order, even if small and short, it’s necessary, it’s hygiene and prophylaxis of good human behavior, otherwise, high costs are paid.

I wonder why the boss thought of advocating for the involvement of young people, obviously I don’t have the answer, I saw him briefly once, his schedule is said to be permanently headache-inducing, according to our magnificent engineer… but I have a strong hypothesis.

Young people have greater neuroplasticity than older ones, and so…

So, nothing. Age shows a weak correlation with the success of our work, the chances of success are the same for all age groups, this is the result of years of work and hundreds of people “served,” the decisive factors are really others. Which ones?

Well, come on, another time, now let’s celebrate.

Posted on

Productivity, Profitability, Cost, and Value

Maria welcomes us with a strained smile; she just came out of a budget meeting attended by the Big Boss, who was on his usual pastoral visit—smiling and stern as always. Plenty of compliments and congratulations on the fantastic 2023/24 year, the best since 2008, with substantial bonuses for everyone. “Well done! Well done! But a crisis is coming, so we need to cut costs.”

Maria recounts, “Same old story. And what does ‘cutting’ mean? Like we did with the (omitted) plants? We cut so much that when orders returned and the plants needed to be reactivated, more heads rolled because there weren’t enough people to run the plants. It was a disaster.”

Maria shakes her head sadly and a bit worriedly, just as she’s about to present the work done and the production improvement plan for her department: +100% (yes, it’s getting repetitive, another +100%) and +30% margin.

The Big Boss says: “Cut at least 10%… of what? Isn’t it obvious? The two main items are costs and revenues; surely, you don’t want to cut revenues, so it means cutting costs.” Another shake of the head.

In that part of the factory, there are six managers at Maria’s level. They left the meeting with a revised budget and the task of cutting 10%.

We review the presentation, double-check the data, and the numbers are solid and very good. The 30% margin is achieved, if you want to read it this way, through “cuts” as a side effect of removing NON-Value: so what are we worried about? The requested 10% “savings” is much less than the 30% we are delivering.

And this is the key point. We don’t achieve more margin and more productivity by focusing on cost-cutting—a variant of waste-hunting. We achieve both by holding firm to generating more Value and removing NON-Value every day—not pushed by the Big Boss to cut 10% of costs, but supported daily by scientific research and discovery on how to increase Value and remove NON-Value from processes.

We don’t get fooled by so-called optimizations, of which cost-cutting is a disguised variant: focusing on optimization means setting a limit incompatible with the Valinova method. And it’s not bragging; it’s a specific and valuable trait of the neural code we use to look at the real production process through which we generate both tangible and intangible goods and services.

Optimizing confuses ideas and the thinking that follows, forcing us to aim in a direction different from the one we can and want to pursue with much greater profit and success: increasing Value, removing NON-Value at every step.

The cost issue unnecessarily complicates our vision. Costs are everywhere, linked to Value or NON-Value—it’s obvious: so what do we do? Hunt down the “bad” costs? And how do we identify them? Not that there aren’t manuals on the subject; there’s everything about everything, a deafening babel, an unbearable noise.

Identify and remove NON-Value, increase Value: do this every day, and costs will cut themselves every day. We finish reviewing the presentation materials, and finally, Maria bursts into laughter, her eyes shining with satisfaction. Seeing our questioning faces, she explains: “At one point, the Big Boss leaves, and we continue. The Little Boss (CEO ITALY), who is Maria’s boss’s boss, turns to me and says worriedly: ‘And what about your production? In 60 days, it’s possible that orders will double, and you’ll have to do twice as much as you do now!’ And I respond at full speed, ‘Do you have the orders in hand? No? Well, I’m ready. I’ve already done what needed to be done to double it…. Ah, what satisfaction!’

Then she looks at us and says: ‘When we started, I already thought it was a great result to achieve a 40% productivity increase in 6 months, and I didn’t believe it when you told me at least 100%. I said to myself: braggarts, they don’t know enough about what’s done here. I don’t believe it.’

Well, now I’m the one complimenting you…. We don’t let her finish: nahh, we all did well, but you more so, honor to merit. Let’s see how the presentation goes; we already know it will go very well, and then maybe we’ll share a celebratory bubbly… remotely, okay, they’re good anyway. Well done, Maria!

Costs are everywhere, linked to Value or NON-Value—it’s obvious: so what do we do? Hunt down the “bad” costs? And how do we identify them? Not that there aren’t manuals on the subject; there’s everything about everything, a deafening babel, an unbearable noise.

Identify and remove NON-Value, increase Value: do this every day, and costs will cut themselves every day.

#productivity #profitability #value #costcutting

Posted on

PRODUCTIVITY, PROFITABILITY, AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

“Improvement from any source is always welcome,” said a Continuous Improvement Manager to me not long ago. And how can one disagree with her?

“When someone mentions ‘continuous improvement,’ it makes me furious. All nonsense, trivialities, and minutiae, as Totò used to say: I am for disruptive improvement, the kind that really changes things, pushing innovation.” … Supply Chain Global Director, an astrophysicist. And who wouldn’t want to get their hands on a true game changer that turns the tides in our favor?

“I can’t stand seeing that handwritten form given to the Third-Party Inspector anymore: let’s improve this to start with!” said an Operations Director at the start of the first microLAB. Clearly, wasted time, precision at risk, transcription errors, critical traceability… he wasn’t wrong, don’t you think?

I believe the questions that Continuous Improvement needs to answer are at least threefold:

  • How do we recognize improvement?
  • Where do we extract it from?
  • How do we make it continuous?

From what I see, everyone answers these questions in their own way with their own KPIs, procedures for extracting improvement ideas, and their own interpretation of what “continuous” means: in many ways, everyone makes their own calculations to suit themselves, more or less.

As far as I know, the rule of the competitive arena has always been: it doesn’t matter how you succeed; what matters is that you can demonstrate you know how to maintain a competitive edge. Basically, however you manage to come out alive and triumphant from the arena, do as you please.

It’s not exactly that we can do whatever we want—we are subject to local and global constraints—but to this day, each entity, whether individual or large enterprise, can pretty much do as they please in terms of Continuous Improvement.

  • Everyone can choose the criteria and KPIs they want—there are dozens.
  • Everyone can adopt the extraction methods they prefer, from suggestion boxes to R&D departments.
  • Everyone can interpret “continuous” however they want: from a constant openness to improvement, a desire for improvement, a commitment and reward for improvement, to workshops dedicated to improvement—there are many ways.

For several decades, we have been dealing with the formidable complexity of the global arena and, in principle, accept that there are no simple answers to complex problems anywhere—canned solutions and black swans, innovation managers, and R&D—all serve a purpose and contribute.

But we cannot ignore a widely documented fact: in the daily brawl among those fighting in the arena, everyone does everything, but very few (you can count them on the fingers of one hand) are unwavering about what Continuous Improvement means, reducing the questions to two, each with one and only one answer.

  • What is Improvement? It is an increase in productivity and profitability.
  • How is it generated? Continuous means: every day, extracting it from the reconfiguration of organizational processes, eliminating non-value, and increasing value.

So, hooray for the engineer, yes, improvements from any source are welcome; hooray for the astrophysicist and his black swans; hooray for R&D and Innovation Managers—everyone contributes their part. And while we wait for game changers, innovations, improvement ideas, and black swans, let’s get to work today, right now: remove non-value, increase value.

Who really does it? Everyone knows, right? Toyota, Komatsu, Honda… and for a while now, those who have adopted the Valinova method.

Key Elements:

  1. Embracing Improvement from All Sources: Highlighting the importance of welcoming improvement from any source, no matter how small.
  2. Disruptive Innovation vs. Continuous Improvement: Balancing the desire for game-changing innovation with the necessity of continuous, incremental improvements.
  3. Practical Problem-Solving: Demonstrating the need to tackle everyday inefficiencies, like the handwritten form example.
  4. Three Key Questions: Identifying how to recognize improvement, where to extract it from, and how to make it continuous.
  5. Universal Criteria and Methods: Emphasizing the flexibility and variety of criteria, KPIs, and methods that can be adopted for continuous improvement.
  6. Daily Commitment: Reinforcing the idea that continuous improvement requires daily effort to remove non-value and increase value.
  7. Successful Examples: Mentioning successful companies like Toyota, Komatsu, Honda, and those adopting the Valinova method as models of continuous improvement.
Posted on

500,000 Euros Found… Now What

Found 500,000 Euros… Now What?

It’s a beautiful noon, the rain has stopped, and there’s even a bit of sunshine. It’s Friday, and Jubal seems unsure whether to laugh or worry. He shares an Excel screenshot, summary tables of piece numbers per shift, current times, target times, different machine usage. “I started on this last night, I couldn’t resist. These are simplified tables, the numbers are extracted from five other sheets… no, I haven’t done all the homework yet, the video of the first span’s processing phase is missing, I haven’t collected the numbers on-site yet, not yet, I got these from the CNC… yes, I’ll make the video, but now, guys, this is… well, doing it this way cuts the times and doubles the output… that means half a million euros a year, in net margin, without spending a cent more. I’ll build the new equipment with the savings from not using the current one, which will be used elsewhere…”

Well, folks, it’s the first time after a dozen microcycles that a kohai has “discovered” such a substantial windfall so early. At first, I’m not even sure I understand it correctly… but why doesn’t he know whether to laugh or worry?

My brain needs time to piece it together, and I certainly didn’t expect this from the previous microcycle… the agreements were “well-verified reality (gemba, video) versus the standard cost of ONE standard cost…”

Probably, if I were in Jubal’s shoes, I would have done the same, senpai or not, I want an approximate idea of where I’ll end up… yes, I think I wouldn’t have resisted either, even though I know perfectly well, from repeated experience, that Excel tells you what you want to hear if you interrogate it long enough and with determination… and in Jubal’s place, I would really want to hear “yes, bravo, eureka! You did it!”

Jubal seems simultaneously happy and worried… Stefano proceeds cautiously, not moving (and I understand why, if the source is Excel, the risk is that we’re listening to the Oracle of Delphi, “ibis redibis non perieris in bello,” a matter of commas, just like Excel) from keeping his attention focused on the data source… how did we verify the existence of the gap between standard costs and actual costs? By thinking about it or by going to see, at the gemba?

Stefano has seen much more than I have, he gets alarmed (and that’s exactly what should be done) when we lose real, direct, physical contact with the gemba… as systemic thinkers, we know that virtual environments (what’s in our mind) must be kept as close as possible, physically, to real environments, thinking-doing and doing-thinking, to avoid getting lost in the infinite combinatory possibilities our wonderful minds can generate… of these, few, very few, are good, and only the gemba helps us not to get lost.

And no, it’s not enough to be physically at the gemba, we’ve all been there, we’re perfectly capable of being present, physically, in a place, and simultaneously not being there at all, of following, as it’s commonly said, the thread of our thoughts… the video is ruthless, it doesn’t follow us, start, record, and it sees only what can be seen while we can go, virtually, anywhere.

A kind of safety device, in short…

But what the hell is worrying our Jubal? He should be as happy as a clam, but he doesn’t look it, what’s buzzing in his head?

We only have fifteen minutes, it took us a while, but we’ve become quite good, we rarely overrun, and if we do, it’s not by much. We converge on the next step, in view of the next microcycle, good for the encouraging projections, we’ll see. The step remains: well-verified reality (gemba, video) versus the standard cost of ONE standard cost…

Jubal seems curiously reassured, we’ll see what has been bothering him and find a good solution. For now, let’s take this step. Bye, have a good weekend, see you Monday…

He gave us a reason a while ago; this is one of the production lines dedicated to a flagship product… it’s not doing badly, and, simply put, you don’t change a winning team, right?

It seems that Jubal thinks it won’t be that easy to “convince” the big boss to approve the improvement plan, even though half a million euros in net margin should really excite him, it’s a great result… yes, okay, we need to do our homework well, prepare data and evidence, actual costs vs standard costs, new production cycle setup, savings, new marginality…

Jubal informed his boss at the time that he was working on an improvement idea with our support, but his boss hasn’t been involved in all the steps we’ve taken, he gladly gave his approval. How can we make him understand what Jubal can achieve? We’ll have to address it…

It’s also possible that we ourselves, microkaizen, become part of the problem, not the solution: in that company, they’ve done everything, six-sigma, WCM, Lean, and now here we come with a completely different method, just what they needed… it’s certainly possible that we encounter “resistance” from the other factions, how will we handle it?

It’s not a matter of envy, commonly put (let’s set aside systemic thinking for a moment), it’s that it’s not easy to accept that things were done in a way that didn’t generate that margin, there’s a risk that someone fears losing face, losing credibility… take my bag, before it wasn’t mine, now it is, later it won’t be mine anymore, but don’t take away my name, my honor: this doesn’t make you rich, and it makes me very poor.

It shouldn’t be this way, of course, systemic improvement needs a no-blame context, where nothing that has been done (or not done, that’s also doing) is used to discredit. The constant focus on the gemba, on continuous improvement, is safe within the framework of recognizing that everyone can only do their best, can only do their best: and we all start from this to improve and keep improving.

And then, for us, there’s the bigger risk, the risk that this work is mistaken for what it is not and should not be: we do not do cost cutting, cost reducing, cost saving, process optimization, it’s not enough, those are just shadows, side effects.

With all due respect, it’s junk, shiny fool’s gold that seduces and distracts from the focus that must be kept constant on the search, on the gemba, for value and non-value, basing every improvement initiative solely on that, and on building, every day, senpai-kohai relationships among those who work together.

Jubal has also taken the first steps in this regard, sharing some parts of the work he’s doing with us with his collaborators, he hasn’t told us much about how and what he did, but the little he told us, he told us while laughing contentedly…

The half-million-euro windfall risks overshadowing what has greater value not just for Jubal and his boss, but for the whole company: yes, it’s the method, this is what needs to be protected, spread, and supported, this is what has the greatest value, this is what allows the organizational machine, the organizational system, to improve, every day, productivity and marginality.

Not that Jubal has influenced us, but we too are simultaneously happy—good grief, it’s quite a windfall—and worried about how it will end… maybe it would have been better not to find 500,000 euros…

Posted on

+23%,+100%… how is your Supporter?

24 March 2024

It’s essential to do the tasks well, preparing data and evidence, comparing actual costs versus standard costs, new production cycle configuration, savings, new profitability…

Jubal informed his boss in advance that he was working on an improvement idea, with our support, but his boss was not involved in every step we took, and he readily gave his approval. How can we ensure Jubal’s boss fully understands what Jubal can achieve? This needs to be addressed…

It’s also possible that we, Valinova, might become part of the problem rather than the solution. That company has done everything: Six Sigma, WCM, Lean, and now we arrive with a completely different method. It’s highly likely we will encounter resistance from other departments. How will we handle it?

It’s not about envy, simply put (let’s set systemic thinking aside for a moment), but it’s hard to accept that what has been done so far hasn’t generated the desired profitability. There is a risk that someone might fear losing face or credibility. Taking away my bag doesn’t make you rich and leaves me impoverished.

It shouldn’t be this way, of course. Systemic improvement requires a no-blame context, where nothing done (or not done, which is also an action) is used to discredit anyone. Constant attention to the real process and continuous improvement is safe within the framework of acknowledging that everyone has done their best and can only do their best. We all start from here to improve and keep improving.

Furthermore, for us, the biggest risk is that this work is mistaken for something it is not and should not be. We are not about cost-cutting, cost-reducing, or process optimization. Those are just shadows, side effects.

With all due respect, that’s just glittering junk that seduces and distracts from the focus that must remain on the search, the real process, for value and non-value, and basing all our improvement initiatives on that. Building, every day, supporter-protagonist relationships among those working together.

Jubal has also taken the first steps in this, sharing with his collaborators some pieces of the work he is doing with us. He hasn’t told us much about how and what he did, but what little he did share, he did so with a satisfied smile…

The half-million-euros breakthrough risks overshadowing what is of greater value, not only for Jubal and his boss but for the whole company. Yes, it’s the method that needs to be protected, spread, and supported. This has the greatest value, allowing the organizational system to improve productivity and profitability every day.

30 May 2024

Here we are, next week we go live. It has been more than two months since the rapid improvement. The piece you just read is from 24 March, and since then, many things have happened. Jubal has done everything possible, completing the testing phase of the new method, now called the Valinova method. He has been brilliant, using a production phase to generate a 23% productivity increase in three weeks at zero cost and zero investment.

Now Jubal has valid proof, generated and confirmed where they work, to present to his boss, ensuring everyone of the method’s validity. This identified the half-million euros in profitability that can be generated, alongside a 100% productivity increase from 20 pieces a month to 40 pieces a month, at zero or nearly zero cost, except for a possible supplier modification to one of their special compounds, which won’t cost anything, but we are sure the supplier will try to make it difficult and squeeze a few more percent on the old price.

We should be soaring on this process innovation (yes, it is innovation, some things are changed from before; we can and should consider it innovation generated from type 2 continuous improvement, see the next post), but instead, damn it, it’s one step after another. We could have concluded everything in three weeks and started earning margins two months ago, besides selling more (the items are in high demand). Instead, after more than two months, we are still stuck with in-house feasibility tests. We can’t get the new material before the project is approved, and the project can’t be approved without positive feasibility tests, which need to be done with what we have…

The latest news from yesterday is that even these final tests will face a five-day delay due to internal supply chain delivery delays…

Will we be ready to go live next week? We’ll make it just in time, AGWWPGBMA… eh? Oh yes, ancient maritime transport contract clauses: All Going Well, Weather Permitting, God Blessing and Mary Approving, that’s how it was sold to me.

Going live? We’re not in a theatre; this is a factory. What does it mean that next week we go live? It means that Jubal presents the project to his boss to get the necessary permissions to proceed with the half-million-euro breakthrough and 100% productivity increase… that’s what “going live” means.

Knowing that Jubal’s boss, even though he is a big shot there, has a boss from whom he needs to get further permissions…

Maybe no one noticed, but towards the end of the first piece of the post, there are two cross-outs, gemba and senpai-kohai, the latter replaced by supporter-protagonist.

Still in theatre or cinema? Certainly not, it’s not about names or nomenclature, but substance. We Westerners cannot replicate the senpai-kohai dyad; it’s in the DNA of Japanese culture. We didn’t grow up with roots in that DNA.

I recall, and thank him again, a passionate discussion with Luca Celora, a systemic friend and rare professional. He worked in Japan for many years, recognising and honouring its diversity. The closest we have is the “vecio-bocia” (if curious, check ChatGPT, it has interesting and accurate descriptions), known among the Alpini corps, unknown elsewhere, now on the verge of extinction due to modern times.

It’s not that the Western equivalent of senpai-kohai doesn’t exist. It does; my son found a top-notch senpai. I have seen a few here and there, spontaneous germination. For the Japanese, it is a social constant, and Toyota intentionally links everyone to a senpai, a systematic and stable systemic property.

Jubal’s boss is not Jubal’s senpai. Jubal’s boss’s boss is not Jubal’s boss’s senpai, and he is unlikely ever to become one, even if he were interested. Our diversity requires a different way to approach this crucial organisational junction. The best approximation we have found is the ssupporter-protagonist, where the supporter helps the protagonist to do well and succeed. Easier? The supporter is always of a higher rank, and the protagonist is always closer to the real processes. No, not easy. But possible, doable.

This is one of the two conditions for systemic, daily continuous improvement, not based on initiatives, intuitions, or strokes of genius (which are also needed and fine but are not “continuous” or daily). Instead, it is based on a daily grasp of the real processes, constantly focused on identifying and recognising non-value and value, eliminating non-value, and increasing value.

If Jubal had his supporter where it should have been, and his supporter, in turn, had its supporter where it should have been, it would have taken us three weeks. As it was, it wasn’t. Well, it’s just another process non-value. Let’s get to work and remove it… oh no, of course not, Jubal’s boss is a good man; we don’t want to remove him. Nonsense. Our bet is that we will soon have him as Jubal’s Supporter. That’s why we are working so hard on the “internal presentation.” It’s a process change, a stable process improvement, which we want to achieve. And we will achieve it.

And you, how is your Supporter?

Posted on

Tacking

Neither Stefano nor I have anything to do with sailing or nautical activities. Stefano is passionate about motorcycles, music, and cinema, with no relation to water. I have been a professional athlete for years, in the third category of FIBIS, recognized and integrated within CONI, speciality 5-pin international billiard, among other interests like films and music—again, no water involved. But the similarities are seriously considered, and my image of these first few months of 2024 is precisely that of a hard tack.

Sticking with the metaphor, for almost two years we tried to keep the wind at our backs, leveraging the current generated by kaizen, six-sigma, WCM, and Lean in all its forms, seeking accommodations, integrations, innovation in continuity: field confrontations with “subject matter experts” and laypersons left us no alternative, as we weren’t getting anywhere.

Doubts were there from the beginning; Stefano often grumbled, few like the Japanese approaches, the kaizen terminology sounds stale, it’s irritating, we should be able to do things without having to name them, it confuses people, they think they recognize something they’ve seen before, and end up not understanding what we’re actually doing…

From the standpoint of method specificity, the tekné, he is my Maestro. We began addressing it ten years ago, when I was involved in corporate task forces for change and organizational development, setting them up and supporting them until the change/development was achieved. I taught at university and worked as an executive coach; he had already mastered nearly all of it—kaizen, green belt, lean, the whole repertoire.

Our common finding, on partly similar and partly different fronts, was: damn, people don’t learn, one in ten if we’re lucky, and we are not often lucky.

The problem isn’t the techniques or tools, the obstacle isn’t there: where is it, and how do we remove it?

We figured it out two years ago, Human Behavior Systemics (and Learning, since learning is a behavior, a very special one, but it remains a behavior) provided essential keys to completely reconfigure the method (here I am the Maestro). Stefano, very skilled, conducted the necessary experiments on his sites, with positive outcomes; I conducted other experiments in completely different areas, bringing significant confirmations.

We started with MK Consulting, microKaizen Consulting, trying to keep the good parts of everything (tailwind), but we only managed to achieve satisfactory results where and when we had the courage to let go of practically everything that had marked the steps of those before us: we understood the reasons, and, not happy about the tack we had to take (it’s a damn hard job for us), we began it, and now we are sailing close-hauled.

I confirm, neither Stefano nor I have anything to do with nautical activities, but you don’t have to be an expert sailor to know what it means to sail close-hauled… well, I admit it, I did take some sailing lessons, I wanted to experience moving without the noise of engines, chains, and gears, but it’s not necessary, for our purposes, neither for you reading this, nor for us.

Stefano and I are not particularly fond of Italy; we consider ourselves citizens of the world and would like to be seen as such. The national-popular horizons do not excite us at all; we constantly deal with global issues that cannot be resolved on a local scale. But whether we like it or not, given that, willingly or unwillingly, Stefano and I were born and raised in Italy and are Italian citizens, we have to accept it.

There are two keystones of the method, elements known across all latitudes and longitudes: value and connection.

We’ll get back to this, talk about it again. The terms are simple, even trivial, but the meanings and nuances we employ, applied in the practice of the worksite (we also give up gemba, sigh, I liked it), pushed energetically and repelled even more energetically towards taking every single moment as a place of production and expression of value and dis-value, non-value (sadly, no more muda, mu-ri, they were so handy…) are not at all.

The true importance of the hero and sidekick relationship is anything but trivial: each person is, knowingly or unknowingly, someone’s sidekick, and at the same time, everyone is potentially a hero, who benefits from having a reliable sidekick to perform effectively.

Yes, here Stefano, an unrelenting cinephile, would say, just as it is impossible to imagine the success and the great performances of Laurel without Hardy, Totò without De Filippo, or other famous pairs like Mulder without Scully, Sherlock Holmes without Watson.. out of the metaphor, sidekick and heroes are everywhere.

These partnerships, whether in comedy, drama, or action, illustrate the indispensable dynamic between a leading figure and their supportive counterpart, each enhancing the other’s strengths: please note that the first heroes are those who directly deal with the real processes, and their sidekicker are their supervisors…

And so we must let go the senpai-kohai twosome (sigh, I really loved it), we have a different story…

It’s just a metaphor here, to try to help understand: there, on the worksite, it’s flesh and blood, tough stuff, strong stuff, every minute, every hour, every day: not trivial or obvious at all, but a conquest of every minute, every hour, every day.

The name is not the thing, they say, but names are only the tip of a complex network that indicates interactions and meanings in the mazes of our mind: we don’t want names, interpretations that substitute for what we see with our own eyes… the attempt, difficult, and not even that new, the invitation to go, to return, to the things themselves, has been around for at least two centuries, failing at that time, now appropriately fueled, today, by a better understanding of how we function as living systems, well, it’s successful.

To prolong here, now, the attempt to explain what it is, what the new method consists of, is a waste of time, words would take over things: thinking by doing, doing by thinking, are the best descriptive approximation, insufficient and inadequate. Why? Here we are just thinking, that’s not enough, it’s necessary to do-while, think-while.

For this reason, we have not been able to find better alternatives, the microLAB, the microLABs, are the only gateway, there it is doing-thinking, and thinking-doing.

For this reason, the turning point: ValiNova takes the baton and proceeds, sailing close-hauled.

Sailing close-hauled presents not just a challenge, but an opportunity to harness the winds of change effectively. It demands skill and precision, yet it is within these very conditions that we find the potential to excel and advance. With ValiNova, you’re equipped to navigate these challenges successfully, turning potential headwinds into a course towards achievement.

Your microLAB awaits you, patient, it’s not in a hurry, and it does not linger: the sooner you start, the sooner you arrive.

Posted on

Productivity, Profitability, and Innovation: Between Old and New

There’s a wonderful buzz around the recent innovation—confirmation of just under 300 million euros invested in the startup circuit of all kinds: cellar-based, garage-based, and those hosted in hubs like Talent Garden and Kilometro Rosso. New ideas, inventions of all kinds, devices, products, chemical formulas, services.

I have been touched several times by this startup wave over the years. One almost overwhelmed me; it didn’t go quite well—I almost lost everything. Well, not all donuts come out with a hole, a metaphor that has almost lost its meaning today, if not for donuts that aren’t really donuts but have a hole and sweetness around it.

To the overexcited atmosphere and the chaotic whirlwind that characterized those experiences for me, I admit, I prefer the constant hammering: see, review, measure, test, retest, correct, measure, stabilize, and then start again. See, review, discovering other possible steps, more non-value to remove, more value to add every day.

Boring? Oh no, not at all. For me, it remains moderately exciting, more than enough to make my days reasonably satisfying.

A subjective matter then? I would say no, the crux is systemic, and that’s why I’m trying to address it here. Many have written about how to innovate, and the term itself lends itself to multiple uses and interpretations. For me, for us, the field is limited to what new and different (new because different from before) is introduced into work processes, carefully distinguishing whether and when and how much it is about tools (machines, materials, equipment), spaces, or execution protocols of actions.

Certainly, one can find different ways to describe how each recognizes and identifies innovation, although I think that roughly, even if the names change, the areas are always the same: no doubt about the strong correlation between innovation, productivity, and profitability? I hope there are doubts for everyone, and that the attention and ability to distinguish between innovations truly capable of removing non-value and/or increasing value (for the customer) and those that seem so but are not always remain high.

Finding examples of innovations truly capable of generating added value in terms of productivity and profitability and distinguishing them from others is relatively simple. Following this thread would take me far from what I would like to try to shed more light on today, which is the part “between old and new”: how do I arrive at innovation?

  1. Key Elements:
  2. Innovation Investments: Highlighting the significant investments in startups and the development of new ideas and inventions.
  3. Process-Oriented Approach: Emphasizing the preference for constant improvement processes: see, review, measure, test, retest, correct, measure, stabilize, and repeat.
  4. Systemic Innovation: The importance of systemic innovation in work processes, tools, spaces, and execution protocols.
  5. Correlation with Productivity: Strong correlation between innovation, productivity, and profitability.
  6. Critical Evaluation: The need for careful evaluation to distinguish between true innovations that add value and those that only appear to do so.
  7. Balancing Old and New: Addressing how to transition from old methods to new innovations effectively.
Posted on

Value That Comes, Value That Goes

She arrives two minutes early; we have time to exchange greetings and catch up on how things are going. The general tone is benevolent and friendly. We’re all a bit tired—it is the end of the day, after all—but the liveliness seems unaffected.

Right on time, as the work begins, Maria says, “I’ve watched the video at least three times; no use, to me it’s all non-value, it’s all muda…” Her tone is a mix of dejected, angry, disappointed, and embarrassed. “Let’s see together.”

She activates screen sharing. I’m in Milan, Stefano is in Bologna, and Maria is in Treviso. For me, it’s literally science fiction I read about as a kid. We are on the seventh micro-cycle. Maria starts explaining what isn’t seen in the video—what was happening before, why the operator in the video is starting that operation, then stops, laughs, and says, “No, we don’t need this now, I fell for it again…” It’s frustrating, but everything I see is muda, there’s nothing of value here.

The video shows an operator, one of Maria’s colleagues, from behind, performing a series of operations on some touchscreens located on a console that looks like a command bridge. In fact, it is; we are in a large elevated cabin with large windows through which we see machines, materials, cranes—a symphony of pipes in all directions.

Stefano smiles, and so do I. We know how strong the temptation is to explain what we are observing and doing. Then he calmly asks, “Come on, what do you see?”

And Maria, “The operator is setting the reference parameters needed for machine F1, which you see on the left. First, he sets the translation values on the left panel and then on the right panel…”

Stefano interrupts, “Maria, you are not seeing what you are describing, come on, more basic, too much mind (we know ‘The Last Samurai’ is one of her favorite movies)…” Maria resumes, “The operator moves to the left touchscreen, moves his arm and hand—muda of movement—presses some buttons—muda of transport—and then stops doing nothing.”

Stefano intervenes: “Impossible, nothing is impossible. The operator can never do nothing. He either does something of value or non-value…” And Maria, without getting upset (from what I see, I would have been upset, in fact, I always get upset when corrected, though I hide it well, and probably Maria too), resumes and transforms: “He’s standing still, not moving… waiting for information from the machine—muda of waiting—and then moves to the other monitor… and again bursts out, ‘You see it too, it’s all muda, damn it, there’s nothing of value here.'”

And Stefano: “I have a question. It seems you didn’t expect this, why didn’t you expect that everything you observed could be muda?”

Maria laughs, “Yeah, my neural software… and you haven’t seen anything yet. Look at that machine down there, the sign says F2, it’s in operation, heating a piece that will then be worked on another station, meaning the crane will take it with tongs—muda of movement and transport—place it on the other station where the other machine will perform the planned work, and it has to go slowly in the transfer, so in the meantime the piece cools down, thus it must be heated to a higher temperature than needed for the work to account for the loss during transport.”

“Maria, why do you move the piece to be worked on?”

“I have to move it; where it is now, it is brought to temperature. The machine that works it is five meters away, I have to move it, otherwise how can it be worked on?”

“Good, why do you have to move it?”

Yes, sometimes we risk becoming tedious and irritating. We don’t have many other ways to help Maria shift her focus from obeying the obvious to seeking new connections…

We insist: “How could you avoid moving the piece…”

“I have to move it because the heating operation is performed in a place far from the work location, the two machines are not lined up and close… Of course, it’s a difficult change, changing the way things are conceived and thought out. Transporting the piece from the heater to the work station was thought of as ‘I have to, it’s necessary, it’s obvious.’ Now we see how to get closer to what didn’t even cross our minds—performing the work without moving the piece that has reached the right temperature, eliminating transport (15 minutes), eliminating overheating (energy to measure but certainly a lot).”

Maria’s face darkens a bit, maybe feeling the weight of the task, probably starting to sense the consequences, both good and bad.

“Yes, Maria, you’re right, it’s a very difficult change.”

Our basic neural software, quite old, but which has saved our skin for millions of years, pushes us. What they literally make us desire is to get more and better for ourselves without changing anything about how we think and behave, and we are happy when we succeed: and this in itself is neither stupid nor illogical, it is ‘just’ the result of a particularly successful adaptation that has protected our survival.

It is the world that must change; others must change; they are wrong, and I use everything I have to change the world, to change others, certainly not to change myself. I work fine as I am, even if it means destroying or killing them.

This is in all of us; we all carry it with us. It is the result of the evolution of life, of our species, and we cannot avoid dealing with it, especially when we try to develop an upgrade of our software… in a sense, they are muda embedded in our software that we can reduce only if we recognize them. They were a good solution millions of years ago; now they are not. They no longer deliver what we need today.

For us, it is completely “natural” to desire to get more and better for ourselves without changing anything about how we think and behave, and to be happy when we succeed: we are not stupid or inadequate. This is part of the human-machine functioning we deal with; we start from there to improve.

Remember, it is in everyone, it is a “muda” for everyone, and the first step to dealing with it is recognizing it. It is neither right nor wrong, it is not a mistake, it is not a fault, it is “just” muda.

Good, Maria will tell us shortly how she could redesign the layout and process. We recommend meticulously transcribing all the muda from the video and start measuring them and begin sketching a new layout… this is the next step, we’ll see you tomorrow at 6.

“Hey, doing this work will take quite a while…”

“It will take as long as it takes, don’t worry about it. Do what you can now; the most important thing is to do a little every day: this is necessary for you to stabilize the upgrade of your neural software. We all, human machines, work like this.

A little bit every day keeps the consultant away (this makes her smile, good). If we don’t, the previous software takes over again.”

 

Key Elements :

  1. Remote Collaboration: Highlighting the advanced capability to work collaboratively from different locations (Milan, Bologna, Treviso).
  2. Identifying Non-Value (Muda): Emphasizing the systematic approach to identifying and eliminating non-value activities.
  3. Continuous Improvement: The commitment to continuous improvement through detailed analysis and redesign of processes.
  4. Flexibility and Adaptability: The importance of adapting traditional practices to enhance efficiency and productivity.
  5. Neural Software Upgrade: The concept of upgrading mental models and approaches to align with current needs and challenges.
  6. Practical Examples: Use of real-world scenarios to illustrate the effectiveness of the Valinova method.
Posted on

Between Saying and Doing: Value and Non-Value

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 :

  1. Continuous Improvement Cycle: Emphasizing the importance of continuous improvement and the iterative process of identifying and eliminating muda (non-value).
  2. Practical Learning: Highlighting the practical approach of learning from mistakes to recognize and reduce non-value activities.
  3. Video Analysis: The use of video analysis to understand and improve processes, demonstrating a commitment to detailed scrutiny and refinement.
  4. Collaborative Problem-Solving: The role of collaboration and shared insights in enhancing process efficiency.
  5. 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

Posted on

Taken for a Ride

At a certain point, Lorenzo jumps up and says, “This takt stuff has never sat well with me…” The Tuscan accent is noticeable but not overwhelming; he has been living in Lombardy for over twenty years.

He was referring to a “training” experience from about ten years ago from which he returned with the impression that, yes, the ideas and concepts were nice, but something didn’t quite add up.

Stefano is generally resistant during microcycles to detach from the gemba to address general topics. I expected he would refocus on a step that had just emerged, a classic in the “upgrade” of neural software… to me, it still seems useful and valuable to deal with aspects not directly related to the piece of gemba we are observing, even though I must acknowledge that progress, the step forward, happens when you don’t detach from the gemba.

Takt had nothing to do with what we were examining, but this time Stefano veered off and took a path different from what I expected: yes, Taiichi Ohno deliberately took the Westerners who came to see how Toyota worked for a ride, trying to “copy” the model…

It was something I had read years ago; a few days ago, I searched for the article but couldn’t find it—darn it—but I found another even better one, in which it is reported that Taiichi Ohno explicitly admitted to cunningly “tricking” Western scholars and specialists who visited, letting them believe what the visitors wanted to believe.

When they saw the kanban sheets and asked, “Ah, so this is how you do continuous improvement,” Taiichi Ohno nodded, and that’s how it ended up with everyone chasing kanban. Even today, if you search online, you’ll find those who offer you the sheet kit as if it were what it never was for Taiichi Ohno—the miraculous tool, the magic wand to wave, the technique to apply.

And so it was with takt and other “techniques and tools” that Westerners tried to apply, resulting in forty years of lean (Womack sadly confirms) without a single Western Toyota being born. McKinsey puts on the table the fact that only 30% of those who invested in kaizen and lean variants WCA SixSigma gained profitability temporarily… while Toyota, Komatsu, and Honda achieve it continuously, not temporarily.

Then he cut it short; there was a very precious piece of gemba to deal with. Lorenzo, a bit worried, reports that in making the video of the process piece we were dealing with, he saw all muda and only muda; he didn’t see the value anywhere.

We applauded, jubilant and loudly celebrating, which surprised him a bit; he perhaps suspected we were making fun of him… the reason for our genuine joy was different, which we tried to explain.

It seems that this muda-induced confusion—seeing only muda and temporarily not being able to identify the value in the process we are observing—is a kind of constant in the process of upgrading neural software… in the sense that, as far as we have been able to observe, it happens to everyone.

Then it passes, we tell Lorenzo, like the annoyance you felt and are feeling doing these experiments, and you return to “see” clearly what is value and what is non-value in the new way. You can identify and measure them, then assess their weight and proceed on a solid basis…

In the post-mortem, very interested in Taiichi Ohno’s trickery, I ask Stefano to tell me more, and he doesn’t need any convincing…

But the almost shocking thing I found in this article is that the observations and comments show that even in front of this “confession,” Westerners have finally not realized that the way to improvement, kaizen, was not and is not what they have followed for half a century.

Yet, Taiichi Ohno apparently declared it; he didn’t want Westerners, even non-direct competitors of Toyota, to appropriate the “industrial secret” that was right under their noses and continued with the pantomime until they reached a sufficiently high competitive margin, almost impossible to recover… and even then, in part, he continued to do so, perhaps knowingly or perhaps not.

Westerners have always resolved everything by resorting to the non-explanation of the cultural differential: Japan is Japan; the rest of the world, even Korea, is another world: as if to say that the competitive margin derives from ethnicity and geolocation—ball in the stands.

And in the article, there was someone who brilliantly declared, but of course! Of course they won! Our fixed costs skyrocketed! A genius, a real genius—how the hell did he not understand that there are no fixed costs and non-fixed costs, there are only costs, and that costs are muda, and the only serious work to do is to reduce, if not eliminate, muda… no, nothing to do, they continue to chase costs, the side effect.

Even in front of “confessions,” they don’t seem to have understood what the “secret ingredient” that Taiichi Ohno kept hidden consists of, despite having correctly identified it: it’s obvious that it’s the kata—they themselves present as the champions of the kata, followers of Rotger. Bravo! Applause… but you know, the article is from 2014, ten years ago, and I have no news of significant improvements in the picture generated by them… what do you deduce from it?

To you, it’s obvious; if there are no observable feedbacks, those are beautiful, elegant, sensible, pleasant… I enjoyed reading them, why not? Well, we agree—the secret ingredient they call kata, very well, they also gave a nice, tight, synthetic definition of it, we agree descriptively.

And beyond the labelling, well, kata recalls katana, the very sharp Japanese sword, sounds good even in the West (and they are Westerners, let’s not forget), and to the definition, it would be necessary to know a little better how to build that habit, how to get a certain number of those who work with us to adopt, accept, and support those “routines” and not others steadily, right? Not occasionally but every day.

Today we saw Lorenzo, Giulia, and Daniele making excellent steps—it will take time and practice before they become calm and effective muda-detectors (hey, I already told you, didn’t I? Of all the colleagues I’ve met in twenty-five years, and there are indeed many, more than a hundred, I’ve found two as precise and sharp as me), and then?

This is a piece of the kata—you and I know it’s a necessary and not sufficient condition.

Yes, Stefano tells the truth—it is one of the necessary and not sufficient conditions. I’ve seen Stefano in action; he is deadly like a sushi chef capable of slicing muda from a handful of seconds of video. I’m not bad, the master remains him… for now. But we are not here/there to see who sees more or who is more precise in naming the intercepted muda; the point is to intercept the muda, measure them, and do something about it.

The other conditions, not many, are no less formidable: it’s true, Rotger (and plausibly the champions who found Taiichi Ohno’s confession artifact) rightly points to kata coaching and partly describes how coaching should take place, what to do and what not to do, and we can confirm they are good advice if you can understand and follow/execute them…

Pay attention—these are pieces like kanban, solutions built ad hoc in response to the question of improving the kohai’s learning process. They must be adapted, configured to be consistent with the muda of the learning process involving the kohai, the senpai, the environment they individually interact with, and as a working system-couple, naturally the gemba (a relevant part of their environment)… and some other things.

We sincerely appreciated Rotger’s excellent work. According to us, even Rotger unintentionally hides the secret ingredient of the winning kaizen formula, just as Taiichi Ohno unwittingly ended up hiding the secret ingredient from Westerners—an ingredient that Taiichi Ohno himself couldn’t identify, which Westerners placed in the empty phrase “cultural differential” (well, they did the best they could with what they had; it’s not their fault).

But then, did Taiichi Ohno take us for a ride or not? It seems a quantum answer: yes and no. His story is one of Eastern cunning, tricks, and misdirections done in such a way that even if caught red-handed, he couldn’t be accused of anything—delightful for me, a fan of good mystery.

He confessed to wanting to deceive us to protect his community, his position, his privileges (well, it’s obvious, you wouldn’t think the “mechanisms” of social coexistence, “collaboration,” and “cooperation” of the Japanese are those of an alien species—they are human too, like it or not). But he couldn’t confess what he didn’t know and couldn’t know: at most, he could have a vague intuition but not consciously master that specific knowledge.

Some of you may be familiar with the name Nonaka. I think I encountered him at the end of the last century (do you prefer millennium? Okay, it makes me feel a bit older but not too much. It’s not so bad after all, at least for now) virtually in his writings from that time. Three good pieces remained from those readings: explicit, silent, and tacit knowledge: the first two are related to awareness—it is in our power to express or withhold; the third is a “form” of knowledge we use for practical purposes but is not accessible to our awareness.

I remember using images of art schools, painters, sculptors, musicians, masters of their art, and the students who could learn the secrets of their art only by living with them, doing with them, watching them do. That part of knowledge could not be presented and made accessible in any other way… then came the mirror neurons, ah, that’s how it works! Learning tacit knowledge means learning by neural cloning—finally explained… no, explained a piece, but there was (and is) still much to do.

What (it’s our best guess) Taiichi Ohno COULD NOT see concerns a specific point that Rotger correctly identified: to say it with a metaphor attributed to Maturana and Varela, it is a feature of the organizational hologram precisely concerning the distinctive mode of interaction in the senpai-kohai relationship.

For the Japanese, that configuration is inscribed (or not, but the verification plane remains) in the configuration of “good” interaction in working together; for Westerners, it does not have the same value or function: for both, it remains unknown how to deal with it knowing what they are dealing with.

The Japanese have neural software tested and refined for centuries (tacit knowledge); Westerners go by “nose,” often by chance; they do not have those codes from the start of their life correlated to those environments, in short, they don’t know how to do it… or rather, according to our meticulous observations, they know how to use/do it in other areas—still tacit knowledge.

For this reason, Taiichi Ohno did not lie—no one can lie by omitting to express something they don’t know they “know” how to do, even if they do it.

And us? Have we really managed to transform that tacit knowledge into consciously, intentionally usable explicit knowledge? Yes, without pretending completeness, but quite a bit, yes—the field tests, the gemba, provide the evidence.

And it doesn’t seem strange at all to us that this knowledge is acquirable, this “skill” is acquirable in the same way the skill of muda-detector is acquirable: doing-thinking and thinking-doing on your gemba; otherwise, you won’t learn anything of value. Why? Property of our neural network, the process of upgrading our neural software.

And yes, at least we have some idea of why it is so: knowing the whys is important because it allows us to intentionally guide the action and achieve the desired result with a frequency enormously greater than the trial and error process or the process of copying the solution.

We don’t want to be mysterious—we are here to share what we have verified works and the necessary knowledge to proceed on your own: you need to work on your gemba.

Key Elements:

  1. Authentic Learning and Improvement: Emphasizing the importance of learning directly from the gemba and through practical application rather than theoretical models.
  2. Western Misinterpretation of Lean Principles: Highlighting the misunderstanding and misapplication of Lean principles by Western companies, emphasizing the need for a genuine understanding of Kaizen.
  3. Role of Tacit Knowledge: The significance of tacit knowledge and the process of making it explicit for continuous improvement.
  4. Senpai-Kohai Relationship: The importance of the mentor-mentee relationship in effectively transmitting and applying Kaizen principles.
  5. Innovative KPI Definition: Introducing the concept of measuring productivity and improvement through the reduction of non-value (muda) and focusing on continuous learning.
  6. Cultural Contexts in Lean Application: Addressing the differences in cultural contexts and the need for adaptability when applying Lean methodologies outside Japan.