"Superficial Lean" or "Like Lean"??

In my travels, I see a lot of what you might call “superficial
Lean,” where an organization has tried to implement a Lean tool. I
won’t go as far as to call it “L.A.M.E.”
(Lean as Misguidedly Executed) because the acronym seems a bit
harsh and mean when people meant well.

The stuff from earlier this week, the
“Office 5S” from Kyocera — I’ll apply that term because it was
a really involved effort that is probably really irritating a lot
of people.

Superficial Lean doesn’t really hurt anyone… but it seems like
it doesn’t really help either.

Superficial Lean might be a token attempt at 5S implementation
– standardizing workbenches where people do the same work,
standardizing supplies, and putting tape down. Probably not as
misguided as Kyocera’s stuff seemed. But superficial 5S effort
might be that one time effort (Sort, Set in Order, Shine,
Standardize) that forgets the “Sustain” portion.

What are signs that an organization is not Sustaining?

• Items are chronically not returned to their marked locations at
  the end of work — and supervisors aren’t correcting the situation,
  apparently.
  Jon Miller pointed out that 5S is about “exposing” problems. If
  problems are being exposed, then shame on the managers for not
  reacting.
• Tape outlines don’t correspond with where employees really need
  things. When items have been shifted (running over tape lines) and
  they’re permanently in a “new place” (a “kaizen” improvement?) but
  the place hasn’t been marked — you’re not sustaining. Maybe that
  printer needed to be a few inches over to the left. Would a better
  “Sustain” environment move the tape? Probably.
• Beat up, ugly looking tape (particularly on floors). When the
  5S tape is really beaten up and ugly, it seems that “Shine” is no
  longer being followed either. Sometimes, the tape needs to be
  refreshed but it’s not. You need special high-durability vinyl tape
  for floors (marking trash can locations), not paper tape.

You can spot it pretty easily when 5S was just a one-time exercise,
not an ongoing system that’s being managed daily. You can do the
right things and NOT follow up… Kyocera may have done the wrong
things, but they DO follow up. Neither case is ideal.

Since L.A.M.E. is too mean for some cases, how about the acronym
“L.A.S.I.” = Lean as Superficially Implemented?? Shoot, that would
be pronounced “lazy” — that might be too mean also, but it might
be accurate in a way. Think about kanban systems where cards have
been made, but the system isn’t managed properly…. items stock
out and the cards aren’t adjusted because average usage
increased…. cards are lost and not reprinted (with an effort made
to avoid losing more cards). Is this L.A.S.I.? It’s probably more a
matter of not setting the right management priorities and not
allocating time appropriately.

Now, on the other side of “Superficial Lean” is what I call “Like
Lean.” I’m more impressed when I stumble across actions, practices,
or mindsets that remind me of Lean principles even if the people
involved aren’t “doing Lean.” I enjoy “Like Lean” better than
“Superficial Lean.”

I visited an architecture firm and they showed me some software
called BIM, which means Building
Information Modeling. It’s like 3D CAD/CAM , but for buildings.
It also makes me think of Inspector
Clouseau and his “bomb” (funny movie clip
here), but that’s a rambling aside.

BIM drawings require more time up front, but the potential for time
savings down the line — waste reduction — are impressive:

• Single model is used throughout the process, eliminating the
  need for others to create new drawings to meet their purposes.
• Reducing extra drawings reduce risk of errors generated
• Time is saved (fewer handoffs and handoffs bring delays)
• The building is more likely to be built right the first time
  (less rework)
• The building could be built earlier

Reducing defects…. reducing Cycle Time…. now THAT sounds Lean
to me. It’s a technology solution, yes, and many “Lean purists”
supposedly don’t like technology. But, the process sounds like it
is incredibly streamlined. What might be L.A.M.E. (or BIM.A.M.E,
sorry) is if they put all the extra time into BIM and then STILL
made additional drawings as was done in the old process and method.
This isn’t uncommon — making an improvement in one part of the
Value Stream that isn’t taken advantage of by those upstream or
downstream.

More from the Wikipedia page that confirms some of this:

BIM can greatly decrease
errors made by design team members and the construction team
(Contractors and Subcontractors) by allowing the use of conflict
detection where the computer actually informs team members about
parts of the building in conflict or clashing, and through detailed
computer visualization of each part in relation to the total
building. As computers and software become
more capable of handling more building information, this will
become even more pronounced than it is in current design and
construction projects. This error
reduction is a great part of cost savings realized by all members
of a project. Reduction in
time required to complete construction directly contributes
to the cost savings numbers as well. It’s important to realize that
this decrease can only be accomplished if the models are
sufficiently developed in the Design Development phase.

BIM is a process which goes far
beyond switching to a new software. It requires changes to the
definition of traditional architectural phases and more data
sharing than most architects and engineers are used to.

Anyway, I liked what I heard. That makes a much better impression
than tape on a desk. Remember — what problem is being solved by
the tape? What problem is being exposed by the tape?? If the answer
to either is “not sure”, then it’s time to rethink your 5S
activities.