Category Archives: Improvement

Improvement, Quality Tools

Hawthorne Effect – How To’sday

Leave a comment

The Hawthorne effect is but a single piece to a puzzle that I’ve been working on for years. Cognitive bias, a concept called “framing” and a few other pieces sit along the unfinished frame – the completed picture is promising.

Photo courtesy of Wikipedia creative commons license.

I’ll discuss this effect as an introduction, in order to – eventually, show you that completed tableau.

Essentially, when someone says, “Hawthorne effect”, they’re referring to the principle that worker productivity increases in a given process regardless of what is done to that process – at least for a short while.

The effect was first recorded during experiments at a Western Electric factory outside Chicago, a place called “Hawthorne Works”, during the late 1920’s.  There was a study to see if the workers would become more productive in higher or lower levels of light. The workers’ productivity seemed to improve when changes were made and dipped back again when the study ended. It didn’t matter if the line was brighter, or dimmer – productivity increased.

Other similar experiments showed that It seems to work regardless of the stimulus, as long as the workers are aware something is going on.

Naturally, one wouldn’t introduce higher or lower numbers of tarantulas – or toxic gas; but anything perceived as a beneficial exercise should do.

Key word is “perception” – an understanding of the context of the organization; its culture in particular, is needed. For example, there are studies that show productivity decreased at each turn when the participants thought the data would be used to select or support downsizing (nice teamwork!).

The Hawthorne Effect, as a real thing, does have some detractors, however.  Studies that have attempted to reproduce the effect have sometimes not been able to do so. Some scientists have attributed the result to one thing or another – no one, near as I can tell, has completely debunked the theory.

It may be something you’d want to try in your own organization – or monitor more closely since if you’re ISO registered there is already an improvement process in place.

I believe it is one reason a healthy, formal, improvement program is so beneficial. Frequent changes, under the banner of “Improvement”, can provide a reliable cycle of Hawthorne effects, if judiciously managed.

A few things are required for the Hawthorne effect to have any positive impact. One key thing is – a firm understanding of process measurables.  If there isn’t something to measure the process by, relative change isn’t knowable. We’ll cover various metrics in another  post.

Another needed thing is a strong Quality Leadership; an entity that can understand and direct the variables in the process; can operate to effectively communicate between management and the production line.

Using this article, I hope you’re able to leverage the Hawthorne effect as you manage your business. Stay tuned as I use this, and other aspects of the human condition, to reveal a larger strategy.

Thanks for your attention. Go forth, and calibrate thyself.

Sal

 

 

 

 

Consultants, Improvement

Consultants – There’s an ISO for that! ISO 10019.

Leave a comment

Consultants, for the most part, can be a tremendously valuable resource. Or, if badly selected, they can be as Arnold H. Glasow (1905-1998) –  frequent and long-time contributor to the Wall Street Journal, Fortune Magazine and Readers Digest , says “A consultant is someone who saves his client almost enough to pay his fee.” He was being kind, I think.

Lets talk about management system consultants, in particular. These include folks who help set-up ISO-compliant systems, or help maintain them. And I’ll make a quick disclaimer here – I don’t get any kind of monetary kick-back for recommending any consultants (but yes, I’ve done a little bit of it myself – though never for my Registration clients).  I don’t mind telling you, for free, that they’re a good idea.

Let’s look at why a consultant is a good idea.

I’ve become familiar with, literally, hundreds of companies in my twenty-five year career in quality. Not the “Hi Randall, how’s the kids? Terrific, glad to hear it.” kind of familiar – I mean the, “Hi Randall… show me your procedures, records, management meeting minutes, goals, objectives, customer satisfaction data,  factory processes, lunch menu and hey, how are those kids of yours doing?” kind of familiar.

Well over one-hundred of them several times each within the past few years alone – and the best ones, have all used, or are currently using, the services of a consultant.

And by “the best ones” I mean that they consistently get better over time; they’re able to find opportunities for improvement, and they are able to convert those finds into gold by managing them, trending them, utilizing solid root-cause techniques and executing any actions in efficient ways. They try new things, they keep up – they get better.

It is of course possible to do all this without help from the outside world – but it has proven to be a rare, near-mythical; “management system unicorn”. And it isn’t that the quality leadership in the less successful companies don’t have the required skills – they mostly do – but there is a different perspective that a consultant brings. And what they say, if they’re worth their salt, is generally listened to with more focused ears. Money talks back.

I will say that while most of the work I’ve seen is quite good, there are exceptions. The “what in the heck was this supposed to be?” kind of exceptions. Like the fresh ISO 9001:1994 installation on a planet where ISO 9001:2001 had grown stale and ISO 9001:2008 was being mandated – I know a twelve-year-old who knows what planet that guy was from.

Or the less obvious, but possibly more damaging, audit “nonconformances” that were clearly a product of another consultant’s imagination. And, less irksome, but troubling – the ones that miss opportunities completely. It’s not all their fault, sometimes a horse is too distracted to know it’s dehydrated – and, when told of impending death, is satisfied with a nice photograph of water. It is a rare thing to find a talented and inspirational consultant.

The problem is that one bad consultant tarnishes the reputations of many great ones.

How to get a good consultant.

Beyond the common sense, due-diligence, buyer-beware kind of advice (at least make an effort to do some vetting; call some references) there are a few good resources.

One is an actual ISO standard, ISO 10019:2005, “Guidelines for the selection of quality management system consultants and use of their services”

While it is somewhat dated, it was reviewed this September by the technical committee that controls it (ISO/TC 176/SC 3) and no changes are pending.

The scope reads something like this, “This International Standard provides guidance for the selection of quality management system consultants and the use of their services. It is intended to assist organizations when selecting a quality management system consultant. It gives guidance on the process for evaluating the competence of a quality management system consultant and provides confidence that the organization’s needs and expectations for the consultant’s services will be met…. This International Standard addresses the realization of a quality management system but, at the same time, could be used with appropriate adaptation for the realization of any other management systems.”

A good indication of the content of the standard is provided by its section 4.1.3

Evaluation of the competence of the consultant
When evaluating the competence and suitability of a consultant, due consideration should be given to
a) personal attributes (see 4.2.2),
b) relevant education (see 4.2.3),
c) knowledge and skills necessary to meet the organization’s overall objectives for the quality management system (see 4.2.3, 4.2.4 and 4.2.5),
d) work experience (see 4.2.6), and
e) ethical behaviour (see 4.3).

It also describes useful bits such as what should be in the contract for the consultant’s services (5.2), and typical activities of quality management system consultants (Annex A).

If you’re considering a consultant, ISO 10019 is easily worth the investment of about 90 USD (I really have to find out how to get a piece of that!).

Another great resource is a website called Elsmar Cove. Actually it is an excellent resource for a lot of things such as discussions of various regulatory affairs issues, manufacturing issues, and other quality assurance related tools and aspects – Business Systems are the focus.

It is a set of forums, where members (membership is free) ask and answer questions – it is self-policing and generally a safe place to ask for help.

The forum you may find handy is this one: ISO 10019 – Consultants and Consulting. Consultants post their availability and folks ask for consultants in particular locations, that kind of thing.  I probably should say, if you happen to find a consultant based on this advice, I take no credit or blame for their work. Just in case something crazy happens…

There, some resources for you if you decide to fortify your company’s abilities with a qualified consultant – ISO 10019 and Elsmar Cove.

Here are a few ways you might begin using a consultant.

  1. Supplementing your internal audit resources with an external auditor. I don’t really recommend replacing your own internal audits, but a periodic fresh perspective can be invigorating.
  2. Targeted training on a tool or technique, such as 5 Why’s, kaizen events, 8D’s, FMEAs – etc.
  3. If you’re currently certified to one standard, such as ISO 9001, a consultant can make (relatively) quick work of adding the infrastructure to support other ISO standards – adding 14001 (environmental) or 18001 (health and safety) are probably easiest. Especially handy if you’ve inherited your current system.
  4. Helping to select a Registrar. Likely worth a post in itself, but consultants tend to work with several Registrars and get a feel for who might be a good fit for whom.

Whether you’ve considered hiring a consultant, and have been on the fence, of if the possibility has never entered your mind – I hope this post helps you to take the next step.

Good luck, go forth, and calibrate thyself.

Sal

 

 

 

 

 

5 Whys, Improvement, Quality Tools

More 5 Whys – How To’sday!

Leave a comment

5 whys have been introduced here already, but I wanted to expand on it briefly, cover a few of its pitfalls and give you a tip on how to 5-Why TURBOCHARGE.

As a quick summary, 5 Whys is essentially asking the question “Why” a number of times, expanding on the answer on each iteration. In this way the root cause of a problem will eventually be revealed. The magic number of question levels tends to be five. After five, there will likely be found a missing process or an action item, or some unmitigatable (okay, that’s not a word) natural force – like “gravity”.

Beyond that, it is a vehicle for investigation. There is no substitute for careful, fact-rich, investigation.

Benefits:

  1. Low barrier to understanding and use
  2. Introduces the concept of disciplined problem solving
  3. Helps avoid the “Hammer = Nail” effect; the tendency to apply a known solution to an unknown problem.

Drawbacks or criticisms:

  1. Tends not to be data-driven
  2. Answers are particularly subject to cognitive bias
  3. Stymied by multiple-cause situations
  4. Often the only tool used

Let’s look at these in turn:

Tends not to be data-driven. This is the 5 Why’s double-edged sword. Because it isn’t data driven it is easier to adopt and use; the learning curve is approachable. However, without data the conclusions are often not repeatable, especially when the problem is complicated. Generally, this isn’t a big problem, but it is something to be aware of.

Answers are particularly subject to cognitive bias. What is a cognitive bias? These are  shortcuts the mind uses due to numerous factors such as the human brain’s processing limits, emotional and moral motivations or societal influences. Consider the audiences of Fox News versus MSNBC – the respective audiences tend to watch only one or the other, depending on what their political view is. This type of cognitive bias is called “Confirmation Bias” – interpreting data to fortify existing views.

Cognitive biases, while hugely interesting as a field of study, are very powerful and part of what makes us human – but they can often lead to incorrect conclusions. This drawback is linked to the lack of data used with this tool. Much of the mental process is “off the cuff” – especially if the investigations are weak. Again, something to be aware of.

Stymied by multiple-cause situations. 5 Whys seeks to find a single cause, that is what it does. Be aware that there may be other factors at work.

Often the only tool used. There are many other tools that can be used – fishbone (Ishikawa Diagrams), 8Ds, Design of Experiments, House of Quality, cause-effect diagrams, FMEAs. I won’t explain these now, but there are these and more. With all of these available, it’s a shame to use just the one.

5 Whys – Turbo Charged

How to get a little more out of 5 Whys, once you feel the technique has been mastered.

For each “WHY” answer, consider in what way it could have been detected, and what could be done to prevent this particular why. Once a cause has been determined, review those countermeasures and decide how to implement them, or a selection of them.

Example:

Problem: Delivery trucks are late 60% of the time.

1 Why are they late? Interviews with drivers reveal they sometimes get lost en route.

2 Why do they get lost? Unfamiliar with territory.

3 Why are they unfamiliar with the territory? New hires, new to area.

4 Why don’t the new hires know the area? They haven’t been shown.

5 Why haven’t the new hires been shown? Never needed to be; expanded business has led to the hire of several new drivers.

As you review each of these, you should allow yourself to get a sense of the arbitrary nature of some of the answers. Again, this is a feature of 5-Whys and no reason to avoid using it.

Now, the turbocharging comes into play like this:

1 Why are they late? Interviews with drivers reveal they sometimes get lost en route.

HOW COULD THIS HAVE BEEN DETECTED and/or PREVENTED [SOONER]?

  1. Provide a means for drivers to communicate with HQ when they are running late.
  2. Determine a “comfort zone” for timeliness
  3. Escalate awareness of late deliveries

2 Why do they get lost? Unfamiliar with territory.

HOW COULD THIS HAVE BEEN DETECTED and/or PREVENTED [SOONER]?

  1. Communication path (as above)
  2. Provide GPS devices

3 Why are they unfamiliar with the territory? New hires, new to area.

HOW COULD THIS HAVE BEEN DETECTED and/or PREVENTED [SOONER]?

  1. Place hiring preference on local inhabitants

You probably get the idea here. Real-world problems may have more sensible details, but the lesson is the same. For each why, determine what could detect or prevent it.

From the exercise above, it could be that the company chooses a few, or all of the countermeasures determined. Flexibility is key.

Having said all this, please do remember that adding inspections, or detection layers without modifying the process to eliminate their need is a recipe for failure. Always strive to create a process whereby failure is not an option.

So.  5 Whys; a nice, easy to wield tool – but has some limitations mostly because of it’s simplicity.

Thanks again for your time and attention. Go forth – Why? to calibrate thyself, of course.

Sal