Archive for the ‘Leading Six Sigma’ Category

Toyota Announces Quality Committee

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Quality Digest reports that Toyota Motors Corporation (TMC) has announced the formation of a Special Committee on Global Quality. Toyota Motor Corporation president Akio Toyoda announced the formation of the committee at a press conference in Japan on February 17. According to Toyoda,


“I have been eager to keep management decision-making close to our customers. We need to be where we can hear directly from our customers. That will enable us to incorporate customer feedback swiftly in research and development and, as necessary, in hands-on measures in the marketplace, including product recalls.

“To further promote this effort, the Special Committee on Global Quality, which I will head and which will include people in the post of chief quality officer from various regions, is now being set up. In the same spirit, we have strengthened our framework for conveying customer input from each region directly to our company’s Quality Group and Product Development Group.”

In addition to the announcement, Mr. Toyoda summarized other activities relating to his company’s ongoing quality and safety issues. Read the complete announcement here.

TMC will appoint a person to the post of chief quality officer for each principal geographical region to make the company more alert to customer sentiment. Such officers will serve on the company’s newly established Special Committee for Global Quality. That committee, to be headed by TMC’s president, is for steering the company’s quality-improvement activities onto a new and higher plane. The Special Committee for Global Quality will hold its first meeting on March 30.

TMC will ask independent third-party experts to review the contents of that meeting.

In another initiative, TMC is strengthening its framework for conveying customer input from each region directly to its Quality Group and to its Product Development Group to translate that input more promptly into quality improvements in products. The initiative will get under way first in the United States, where TMC will expand its network of technical offices to fine-tune its information-gathering capabilities in an aim to be able to conduct on-site inspections within 24 hours of every reported incident of suspected product malfunction.


Toyota's Jim Lentz describes plans for fixing sudden unintended acceleration

The current activities are a response to issues with sudden unintended acceleration. Toyota’s Jim Lentz has described Toyota’s program for dealing with this problem. There is controversy regarding the effectiveness of Toyota’s actions to fix the problem. View the video here.

GD Star Rating
loading...

The Toyota Media Feeding Frenzy

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

Unless you’ve been in a cave, you know that Toyota has been in the news lately for a problem involving “sudden unintended acceleration,” or SUA. This occurs when Toyotas apparently zoom off on their own, without the driver depressing the accelerator pedal. The official definition, according to the NTSB, is

“Sudden acceleration incidents” (SAI) are defined for the purpose of this report as unintended, unexpected, high-power accelerations from a stationary position or a very low initial speed accompanied by an apparent loss of braking effectiveness. In a typical scenario, the incident begins at the moment of shifting to “Drive” or “Reverse” from “Park”

The definition limitation “from a stationary position or a very low initial speed” has drawn criticism. Newer reports involve acceleration from highway speeds, with deadly results.

For facts-and-data people like us, there are a few questions that need to be asked:

  1. Have SUA incidents been increasing in recent years?
  2. Do Toyotas have a higher incidence than other vehicles? Does the Prius?
  3. Has the cause of SAS ever been investigated by an objective researcher? If so, was a cause identified?

Let’s examine these one by one.

Trends

The data do appear to show a couple of spikes (see figure.) However, it is interesting that the spikes immediately follow news coverage of the problem. This is the second media feeding frenzy about this issue. The first was the Audi 5000, the target of a 1986 episode of “60 Minutes.” In other words, drivers have been complaining about sudden unintended acceleration events for a quarter of a century and continue to lodge these complaints with manufacturers and NHTSA.If the news reports were the result of covering the problem, rather than fanning the flames of public hysteria, one would expect the spikes to come before rather than after the reports. Another interesting fact is that a Google search on the term sudden unintended acceleration include a large number of legal firms in the search results. Could they be fanning the flames?


Are Toyotas The Worst of the Lot?

But does the focus of the news, the Toyota Prius, stand out as particularly dangerous? Not according to the web site AllAboutPrius. The site reports that an analysis of all complaints to the NTSB related to vehicle speed control for the 2004-2009 Toyota Prius revealed that it ranked only 18th in reported injuries. That’s roughly consistent with the number of Priuses sold as a proportion of overall new cars.

Root Cause

An investigation of the problem in the Audi 5000 in the mid-1980s by the NTSB concluded that the problem was driver error. Other NTSB investigations implicate floor mats. It is possible that SUA is related to the cruise control, a hypothesis that isn’t hard to test. Steve Wozniak, the cofounder of Apple, speculated that his Prius had the problem and speculated that software might be the issue. In short, the debate over the root cause of SUA is still unknown

Conclusion

Considering that it has been the object of intense interest for over 24 years, it seems unlikely that a consensus on the cause will be reached any time soon. There are many constituencies with an interest in prolonging the publicity around SUA. And there is no doubt that the public’s interest is intense. People have been killed and injured in accidents caused by SUA and millions of Toyota drivers (including me and my wife) are concerned about the safety of our vehicles. The news media is in the business of attracting an audience for their product, and this story does the trick. Product liability and personal injury lawyers stand to collect millions in fees and the longer the story is big news the greater the market for attorneys.

But one thing seems clear: the problem is not linked to the Toyota Production System, widely known as Lean. This has never been asserted by serious investigators or journalists, but it has been suggested by some who don’t especially care for Toyota. Lean is a methodology that assures that standard procedures are developed and followed to assure both efficiency and quality. It is almost certain that, once the cause is known, Lean will be part of the long-term solution by incorporating the revised design into the Toyota Production System.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Lean, Six Sigma, and Lean Six Sigma Elevator Speech

Friday, February 5th, 2010

I teach that by itself Lean is a way to redesign a value stream according to certain principles to improve flow in a value stream, thereby reducing cycle time and achieving a number of other benefits quickly. Six Sigma has two modes: project and operational. The project mode involves a framework such as DMAIC or DfSS. The operational mode employs Six Sigma principles (management by facts and data, statistical thinking, systematic identification of root causes of outcomes, etc.) to achieve stakeholder goals. Lean Six Sigma can be used to provide a framework for kaizen bursts, or to solve other problems preventing continuous flow in an organization or value stream.

Hmmm…Upon re-reading this it strikes me that it’s full of jargon. Let’s try putting it into layman’s terms.

Lean helps you make things with minimal waste and delay. Six Sigma helps you find out why things vary and how to reduce variation. Lean Six Sigma helps you solve challenging problems causing waste and delay.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Management is broken

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

While we work to improve quality and efficiency, our leaders manage our organizations into oblivion. Literally. Something is terribly wrong. Leaders of major corporations in virtually all industries do things that causes them to, either accidentally or deliberately, destroy billions of dollars in value in a breathtakingly short time. What could be behind this phenomenon? I’d like to explore a few possibilities.

Business Education

This subject has been the topic of many an article lately, and even a few scholarly papers. Most of these place the blame on one or more of the following:  inexperienced professors focused on academic pursuits; failure to teach ethics/social responsibility; lack of practical experience opportunities for students. Professor Henry Mintzberg warns that business school academics pursue the arcane just to achieve academic publication. For state-funded institutions, being published means points and points bring prizes in the form of additional government funds.

“We need more innovative ways of teaching,” Professor Cary Cooper of Lancaster University’s Management School admits. “MBA courses, case studies and knowledge transfer are not the whole answer to what management education should be about. We need more strategic management experience related to front line management. Managing change in technology, ethics, leadership and management skills is what dictates the success or failure of companies today. I don’t think management education is enough about the skills of management – the skills of managing other human beings.”

Dr Peter Hahn, a banker turned academic, points out that too much of business academia maintains a two-tiered universe, with those doing most of the central business teaching lacking business experience, and those leading and administering often lacking academic experience. Those with business backgrounds could add so much more. “Business schools need to entice more experienced men and women to gain superior academic credentials,” Hahn says. “The economics of teaching will assure that this is never going to be a large group, but it should be a vital one to keep business schools viable and relevant.”

Progressive Education and Pragmatism

Not only is the content of business education irrelevant and the faculty in business schools inexperienced and unqualified, the method of teaching and the underlying philosophy are also flawed.  The most popular approach to teaching business students is the case method. In essence, the case method replaces textbooks and lectures with disguised historical data about a (usually disguised) company and discussions among students and professor about how to respond to the data. Truths and right answers are not only not taught, proponents of the case method do not believe that universal truths exist and faculty often disagree among themselves on the answer. Teaching students business principles is thought to be “dictatorial.” Instead, learning is considered a social venture (not an individual accomplishment) and the emphasis is on acting rather than knowing.

With few exceptions, students who are taught using this approach are not able to think for themselves. According to Jerry Kirkpatrick of Northwestern University, “The case method of instruction does not enable students to think for themselves; rather, it teaches students to become arrogant, emotion-driven, critics who do not have any knowledge to think about even if they could think.”

Can you think of any managers in your company who might fit this description?

Governance

Warren Buffett lists the following guidelines for good corporate governance:

  • Minimal Board Compensation: The board is the lowest paid of all Berkshire employees.
  • No Stock Options: Buffett believes stock options should not be part of executive compensation and resigned from Coca-Cola’s board when the beverage giant insisted on paying stock options. Berkshire directors get no stock options and instead must buy stock on the open market, or “pay to play.”
  • No Indemnity: Although Berkshire is an insurance company, it doesn’t provide professional indemnity insurance for directors and officers, unlike 93% of US companies. This forces management to better identify, assess and manage risks.
  • No Retirement: Directors and officers are asked to serve for a lifetime, with no term limits, enabling the company to seamlessly tap accumulated experience and knowledge, especially of the owners-turned-managers running the family businesses acquired by Berkshire. There are no management contracts, and managers are free to leave at any time.
  • Transparency: Buffett explains his principles on values and investing in the Berkshire Hathaway Owner’s Manual. These include treating shareholders like partners, not taking on debt, preferring to buy family-owned businesses, and being free to talk about anything except the stocks that Berkshire is buying or selling, which would create investing competition.

Assuring good governance, Buffett points out, is the responsibility of all stakeholders, not regulators.

Incentives

President Barack Obama believes that the cause of the financial meltdown was greedy bankers. Indeed, we are all conditioned from childhood on to believe that selfishness is bad and that it is immoral to be “greedy.” But all living things pursue their own self interest, plants and animals alike. All of us are “greedy” in the sense that we would like to improve our lot or that of our loved ones. Are bankers (or big businessmen, or stock brokers, etc.) as a group more prone to this than the rest of us? I seriously doubt it. Instead I believe that the incentive structures allow and encourage business leaders to act in ways that jeopardize the interests of investors and employees while enriching themselves. For example, the 2002 Berkshire Hathaway annual report includes this insight in the discussion of derivatives:

“The parties to derivatives also have enormous incentives to cheat in accounting for them. Those who trade derivatives are usually paid (in whole or part) on “earnings” calculated by mark-to-market accounting. But often there is no real market … and “mark-to-model” is utilized. This substitution can bring on large-scale mischief.”

“Greed,” aka self-interest, is a constant. It didn’t just appear in the fall of 2008. Blame the system that caused leaders in entire sectors of the economy to act in ways that harmed their major stakeholders, and the economy. Structure incentives such that the interests of all groups are in harmony. Make sure that business leaders’ fortunes rise and fall in the same way as those of their constituencies.

Solutions

Assuming that the problems of incentives and governance are addressed as recommended, the Lean Six Sigma approach can then be used to remedy the problems with management education. Lean Six Sigma is more than a set of technical tools that can be used to solve specific problems. Over the decades since WW II it has evolved into a complete system for managing an enterprise. Rather than a haphazard approach to leadership based on a social consensus, we begin with fundamental principles of leadership and deploy these principles using a rigorous approach. The approach can be summarized as follows:

  1. It all begins with the vision of the founder. This foundation establishes the purpose of the enterprise and it doesn’t change. Deming calls it “Constancy of purpose.”
  2. Next, leaders identify stakeholders, learn their voice, and translate these voices into broad strategies for achieving long-term success.
  3. The strategies are operationalized with specific balanced scorecard metrics that are sorted into those metrics that represent requirements which must be competitive and those requirements that must be world-class.
  4. Selected metrics (we have a process for making this selection) are displayed on leadership dashboards. This provides leadership with a focus and a way to measure progress.
  5. The dashboard is used to identify improvement projects and plans. Some of the projects will be “just-do” projects, others will be lean six sigma projects.
  6. The feedback provided by the dashboards will be used to determine if the plans and projects are successful in terms of implementing the strategies. Strategic plans will be modified accordingly. Thus, strategic planning becomes an ongoing activity rather than an annual exercise in futility.

Unlike the approach taught in business schools, our approach is based on a vision of a new and better world resulting from the enterprise’s existence. We look to harmonize the interests of all stakeholders, rather that pitting one group (shareholders) against all others. We believe that there is an objective reality and that we can know it, albeit imperfectly, through models, facts and data. We believe that facts and data can help us make better decisions, and we have tools which help us glean information and knowledge from the data. Finally, we understand that our strategies and plans are a model of reality and that our actions have an impact on this reality, i.e., our plans are a transfer function that connects the root causes we address with the outcomes we desire. We believe that although all models are wrong, some models are useful. We use objective feedback to help us determine how to make our models more useful.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Business Profits Radio Interview Podcast

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Developing a great lifestyle from your business depends on your ability to create automatic systems to get work done without your day-to-day attention.  This program gives you a step-by-step process for creating effective business systems that allow you to automate your business.  In this podcast Business Profits Radio host Robert Skrob asks Tom about Six Sigma. What is it? How is it useful to small businesses? Can it be used to improve sales, marketing, operations? This wide-ranging interview covers a tremendous variety of topics relating to business process excellence.

GD Star Rating
loading...

Lean Six Sigma Lives On After It Disappears

Monday, October 12th, 2009

A while ago I was asked by a colleague to recommend a Lean Six Sigma benchmark partner for a large aerospace firm that had been using Six Sigma for quite some time. Upon calling some of my favorite clients I learned that their Lean Six Sigma initiatives had been phased out. I was dismayed to hear of this and arranged to meet with one of the senior leaders to discuss why this had occurred in his organization. I learned that what had disappeared was not the Lean Six Sigma approach. Indeed, the senior leader said he knew of no other way to manage his operations. What had gone was the Lean Six Sigma bureaucracy. The personnel devoted to coaching senior leaders, providing Lean Six Sigma courses for training, etc. were gone.
It doesn’t take a lot of thought to understand why this would occur. Lean Six Sigma has been around in one form or another since 1986. That’s a pretty long run. It has evolved into a complete system for leading organizations to operational excellence. If an organization is still using Lean Six Sigma solely to execute projects, then it is missing the benefit to be had from applying the approach in its normal day-to-day operations.
If the organization has been using Lean Six Sigma for several years, it is also wasting a lot of talent by relying too much on Belts. The nature of Lean Six Sigma’s change agent infrastructure is such that the personnel involved in the program full time are routinely cycled back into the organization. These people are “damaged goods” in the sense that they can no longer function as traditional managers. Lean Six Sigma is based on principles such as root cause identification, value flow, defect prevention, etc.. Traditional management is based on command-and-control, not process; it focuses on results, not on causes. Traditional managers manage via feedback, Lean Six Sigma Leaders manage using feed-forward models.
In short, Lean Six Sigma is at its best after it has all but disappeared from the organization chart. It is still there, embedded in everything the organization is doing in its operations. It won’t go away because its practitioners realize that old-fashioned management is horribly flawed and a terrible way to run an organization. Traditional management is a disease; the Lean Six Sigma approach, done properly, is the cure.

GD Star Rating
loading...

SAS software billionaire John Sall on Six Sigma

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

SAS software billionaire Sall on Six Sigma and the economic recovery: Big Brain Week continues – Burns on Business.

You would expect John Sall of SAS Institute to embrace the statistical approach. But he goes beyond merely giving a nod to the quality movement and Six Sigma. “The quality movement really changed the world…because of the appreciation for using data and measurement to show cost savings and revenue enhancements.” Said Sall. “Before Six Sigma, you were proving you were watching things rather than figuring out what you should do.”

In other words, you went from focusing on results to understanding what drove those results. This is, I believe, a critical distinction that is lost on most business schools. Business schools must teach aspiring managers all about command-and-control systems, guided by “results.” In my opinion you can’t figure out what needs to be done merely by watching results. Results tell you nothing about causes. They are effects. They are the Y in a transfer function that links them to causes and a process. The process is the set of actions that links the inputs and causes to the results. Business schools and accounting systems can not teach a business leader about these relationships.

Sall doesn’t promote Six Sigma. In fact, he seems to dismiss it. “As a brand, Six Sigma is not as strong. It overpromised. The brand will fade.” No doubt. Brands always fade, eventually. Still, as a brand Six Sigma has outlasted nearly all other contenders. SPC, TQM, Reengineering and many more have come and gone while Six Sigma remains. But it’s not about the staying power of the Six Sigma brand. John Sall sees it as analyzing data and experimentation. I believe that it’s about something deeper than this. It’s about understanding cause-and-effect. Statistical analysis helps with this, as does experimentation. But there’s another ingredient that isn’t emphasized nearly as much as it needs to be: thinking.

Thinking is a process of integrating new facts with all existing knowledge. It is a profoundly individual activity. Business schools act as if a leader can effectively lead by using command-driven management to direct activities and using results as feedback. This approach leads to superstitious learning and management actions that are based on trial-and-error . This approach is largely responsible for the failure of many formerly great enterprises.

Ultimately, management is not about Six Sigma, quality, analyzing data, or experimentation. It’s about knowing how to create and deliver consistent, long-term value for all stakeholders. These other things are tools to help managers figure out how to do this well.

GD Star Rating
loading...

10 Reasons Why Six Sigma is Fading

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009
  1. It isn’t. Six Sigma is still going strong. Under new names. As part of the way things are normally done. Six Sigma has become fully integrated into the organization. Why call what you do all day by a special name?
  2. Charlatans and hacks. I once saw an interesting question in a Six Sigma forum. I subscribed and followed the discussion for two or three weeks. The right answer was in there all right, in the middle of a very long list of irrelevance and flat out bad advice. I’ve listened to and read enough to know that there are plenty of pretenders out there. But it’s hard for the non-expert to sort the wheat from the chaff.
  3. Baggage from previous failures. As leaders move from places where it was poorly done. When I mentioned Six Sigma to a new CEO he exclaimed “We used it at the last company I worked at. It was nothing but DPMOs for everything. Worthless!” Yeah, DPMOs everywhere is worthless alright. Too bad he had this experience, but it doomed the efforts at his new company.
  4. Saturation of the base. Most manufacturing organizations of any size are already doing it. Other areas are more resistant. Six Sigma doesn’t always translate easily into industries like healthcare. It works alright, but it’s not obvious to the healthcare expert at first glance.
  5. Cost cutting. In the economic downturn programs of this type are easiest to cut. The benefits are not always immediate, and in a downturn some managers insist on immediate payback.
  6. Mobility of management. One of Deming’s deadly diseases. Owner- and Board-driven Process Excellence (PE) seems to last longer. If leaders come and go, Six Sigma won’t last long either.
  7. Victory has been declared. Many businesses, especially in America and Europe, only did Six Sigma to deal with some crisis. Once the crisis is past, Six Sigma is abandoned.
  8. Displaced by Lean. Lean can get you a fast, big improvement using simple tools. Why bother with the complexity of Lean Six Sigma or Six Sigma? The trouble is, Lean has its place and so does Six Sigma. It’s not a case of “or”, it’s a case of “and.”
  9. Not the latest-and-greatest thing. Many organizations did Six Sigma because it was the big thing at the moment. Six Sigma has been around for a while. The glamor is no longer there compared to other fads. True, there’s nothing better around. But to the glamour seeker that’s no reason to stay the course.
  10. Death by accounting. Six Sigma and Activity Based Costing or Resource Consumption Accounting don’t mix well. These are still the dominant accounting systems used by business. Until they go away, leaders who improve using Six Sigma will continue to suffer as the accounting systems mistakenly report poor performance. Until an item made for sale is valued differently than an item made for inventory, Six Sigma is doomed.

The only acceptable reason for not using Six Sigma to improve operations is one that I don’t think is true, at least not yet: A better way to achieve process excellence has been discovered. If there is a better approach to achieving operational excellence, I don’t know what it might be. If you have any ideas, please let me know. I’m all for copying a good thing when I see it!

GD Star Rating
loading...

How to Give a Great Presentation

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

The Purpose of a Presentation

Unlike a meeting where all in attendance are expected to contribute and participate, a presentation involves a speaker who is trying to communicate with an audience.  There are two common reasons why a person might want to address an audience:

  1. To inform or educate them.  This is the purpose of business presentations, training classes, technical reports, and so on.  The speaker discusses, explains, describes events or ideas or teaches the audience how to do something.  This type of presentation often involves audio-visual aids such as charts, graphs, recordings, video presentations or computer presentations.  Success is defined by an audience leaving with more knowledge than they had when they arrived.
  1. To convince or persuade them.  The audience may have an understanding of a particular topic but lack the desire to change.  The speaker’s goal is to get the audience to take a certain type of action.  In these presentations the speaker may seek to generate an emotional response rather than communicating factual data.  Success is accomplished when the action is taken.

An old saw on speaking states that there are three steps involved in a presentation, 1) tell them what you’re going to tell them, 2) tell them, 3) tell them what you told them.  The effective speaker understands that he or she must provide the audience with a compelling reason for attending the presentation.  Thus, the focus of preparation should be the audience, not the speaker.  The beginning of the presentation should summarize the content of the presentation and explain why the audience should be interested.  The body of the presentation should present the information in a way that is clear, entertaining, and concise.  The ending should review the major points of the presentation and solicit the desired audience response (e.g., ask the audience to provide resources for a project).

Preparing the Presentation

Many speakers find it difficult to organize their presentations.  Here are a few guidelines that the author has found helpful.

  1. Prepare a list of every topic you want to cover.  Don’t be selective or critical at this point, write down everything that comes to mind.  When you have finished, take some time off, then do it again.
  2. Cull the list to those select few ideas that are most important.  You should try to keep the list of major ideas down to three or less.  Where possible, group the remaining points as subtopics under the key ideas.  Eliminate the rest.
  3. Number your points.  The numbers help the listener understand and remember the points.  Numbers set the point apart and help with retention.  For example, “there are three reasons why we should proceed: first, lower cost; second, higher quality; and third, improved customer satisfaction.”  However, keep the number of items small; a speaker who announces “I have fifteen items to discuss” will frighten the audience.
  4. Organize the presentation’s ideas. Some speech experts recommend the “buildup” approach: good ideas first, better ideas next, best points last.
  5. Analyze each major point.  Tell the audience why the point is important to them.  Make the presentation relevant and entertaining.

Visual Aids

A visual aid in a speech is a pictorial used by a speaker to convey an idea.  Well designed visual aids add power to a presentation by showing the idea more clearly and easily than words alone.  Whereas only 10% of presented material is retained from a verbal presentation after 3 days, 65% is retained when the verbal presentation is accompanied by a visual aid. ASQ reports that poor quality visuals generate more negative comment from conference attendees than any other item.  The visual aid must be easy for everyone to see.  Small type which cannot be read from the back row of the room defeats the purpose of the visual aid.  There should be good contrast between the text and the background color.  Visuals should have text that is large enough to see easily from the worst seat in the house.  The speaker must also reevaluate the visuals when the room size changes.  A presentation that is perfectly acceptable to a group of 30 may be completely inadequate for a group of 300.

Color plays an important role in the design of effective visuals, if used properly.  However, the improper use of color can make visuals ugly.  Most computer software for preparing presentations comes with preset color schemes.  Unless you have some skill and training in designing visuals, it is recommended that you use one of the schemes or contact a graphic artist.

Here are a few rules recommended by ASQ for effective visual aids:

  • Never read the slide!
  • Each visual should address only one idea.
  • Only the most important points should be the subject of a visual.
  • The visual should be in landscape format.
  • The maximum viewing distance should be less than 8 times the height of the projected image.
  • The original artwork should be readable from a distance 8 times the height of the original; e.g., a 8” x 10” visual should be readable from 64” away.
  • Use no more than 5 lines on a single visual with 7 or fewer words per line.  Ideally, 20 words maximum per visual.
  • Bar charts should have no more than 5 vertical columns.
  • Tables should have no more than 4-6 columns.
  • Graphs should have only 2-3 curves.
  • Lines on charts or in tables should be heavy.
  • Avoid sub-bullet points whenever possible.  Use “build slides” instead.
  • Show each slide for 1.5 minutes maximum, e.g., 10 slides for a 15 minute presentation.
  • Put a black slide on the screen when you want to divert attention back to yourself. (Hint: Pressing the “B” key while showing a Power Point slide will toggle between the slide and a black screen.)
  • Spacing between words should be approximately the width of the letter “n.”
  • Spacing between lines should be 75% of the height of the letters, or double-spaced.
  • Use sans-serif fonts (e.g., H) instead of serif-fonts (e.g., H).
  • Use both upper case and lower case letters.
  • Avoid italics.  Use bold lettering for emphasis.
  • Maintain consistency in type size and fonts.  The minimum letter height should be at least 1/25 the height of artwork (approximately 24 point type).  Labels on graphics should be at least 1/50 the size of the artwork.
  • Never use hand-written or typed slides.
  • Maintain at least a 1” margin on all sides.
  • Recommended background colors (white lettering): deep blue, deep green, deep maroon or black.  Use yellow lettering for highlighting text.

Position and Movement

When using visual aids it is sometimes necessary to darken the room.  However, the speaker should never be in the dark  The visual presentation supports the speaker, it should not be allowed to replace him.  The speaker must always be the most important object in the room.  If the lights must be lowered, arrange to have a small light on yourself, such as a podium light.
When using visual aids a right-handed speaker usually stands to the left of the visual and directs the attention of the audience to the material.  If using a pointer the speaker may stand to either side.  Never stand in front of the material you are presenting to the audience.  Direct the eye of the viewer to the particular portion of the visual that you are emphasizing, don’t just wave at the visual in a random manner.  Layout the visual so that the viewer’s eye moves in a natural flow from topic to topic.
Speak to the audience, not to the screen.  Always face the audience.  A microphone may make your speech audible when you face away from the audience, but it is still bad form to turn your back on the audience.

Charts, Graphs and Data Presentation

Line and bar graphs are an effective way to convey numerical data at a glance.  People understand things they see more quickly than things they hear.  The eye is more effective in gathering and storing information than the ear.  Auditory stimuli is presented and processed sequentially, one word at a time.  Visual information is presented simultaneously.  This is part of the reason why visuals are so effective at displaying patterns.
Business and industry are number-driven entities.   Much of the information presented in meetings is numerical.  Many, perhaps most decisions rely on numbers.  The effective use of graphs makes numbers easier to assimilate and understand.  In most cases, one of three types of graph can be used: line graph, bar graph, and scatter plot.  There are endless refinements on these basic three, e.g., multiple lines, grouped or stacked bars, stratified scatter plots.  Line graphs are most often used to display time-series data (care must be taken to standardize time-series data, e.g., using constant dollars to correct for inflation).  Bar charts are used most often to compare different items or classifications to one another.   Scatter plots examine the association between two variables.
Regardless of the type of graph being used, it is important that the graphic have integrity, i.e., it must accurately portray the data.  In his book The Visual Display of Quantitative Information Tufte lists six principles that enhance graphical integrity:

  1. The representation of numbers, as physically measured on the surface of the graphic itself, should be directly proportional to the numerical quantities represented.
  2. Clear, detailed and thorough labeling should be used to defeat graphical distortion and ambiguity.  Write out explanations of the data on the graphic itself. Label important events in the data.
  3. Show data variation, not design variation.
  4. In time-series displays of money, deflated and standardized units are nearly always better than nominal money units.
  5. The number of information carrying (variable) dimensions depicted should not exceed the number of dimensions in the data.
  6. Graphics must not quote data out of context.
GD Star Rating
loading...

American Kaizen

Monday, September 28th, 2009

In the 1980s it was much in fashion to compare America to Japan. One of the key differences between the two nation’s approaches was that Japanese were much more likely to embrace a strategy of gradual, continuous improvement. Americans more-or-less lurched forward. We would start out with a sizable lead in some area, then wait until it was clear that we’d fallen behind. At that point we would rally the troops and quickly implement a set of innovations that would once again put us in the lead. Then the cycle would repeat itself.

An example of this was Sputnik. The USSR surprised the world, including the USA, by being the first nation to put a satellite in orbit. I was only 9 at the time but I distinctly remember people in the neighborhood looking skyward with telescopes and binoculars to catch a nighttime glimpse of the small, man made orb passing overhead. It captured mankind’s imagination. And it demonstrated clearly that America had fallen behind.

The American response was to dramatically increase spending in science and mathematics education, defense, and space research. President John F. Kennedy declared a national goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. The improvement project was on. And, of course, it worked. To be sure, the space program as well as education in math and science continued, but improvement never again reached the rates of the 1960s.

In 1986, Masaaki Imai established the Kaizen Institute to help Western companies introduce kaizen concepts, systems and tools. That same year, he published his book on Japanese management, Kaizen: The Key to Japan’s Competitive Success. This best-selling book has since been translated into 14 languages. Kaizen means ongoing improvement involving everybody, without spending much money. It occupies a space between innovation and maintaining the status-quo (see Figure 1.) In an interview 11 years later Imai said “Many companies still have not fully embraced the kaizen concept.”

Kaizen

Kaizen

Figure 1-Kaizen

Kaizen is widely used in Japanese firms. Toyota is known to use the approach to engage its entire workforce in the ongoing quest for improvement. Most of the improvements wrought by Kaizen are small, but they add up. American firms pay lip service to improvement, but they failed to embrace Kaizen for well over a decade. This lack of interest in Kaizen in America could well have been due to America’s lack of interest in improvement that was “ongoing,” we want things fast! Enter the “Kaizen Blitz.”

Kaizen Event

The Kaizen Blitz, more commonly known as a Kaizen Event, is usually a five day affair that addresses a particular issue. The Lean Six Sigma Kaizen event usually follows the Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC) format. The issues that are addressed are usually those identified during an initial Lean deployment to a value stream. The Lean team creates a value stream that is as lean as possible for the moment, then identifies obstacles to moving closer to one piece flow. These obstacles, such as long changeover times, quality defects, equipment limitations, etc. are targets for Kaizen Events. The Kaizen Event combines several well-known improvement approaches into one:

  • Workout. GE’s workout was designed to identify quick ways to streamline a process. The Kaizen event follows what amounts to a Lean “workout” in the sense that obvious improvements in flow have already been made. However, a first step in a Kaizen event is to list other obvious ways to improve the process. These improvement activities are made immediately or assigned to an individual or group.
  • Just-do projects. These are improvements where it is obvious what needs to change, but it takes time and resources to make the changes.
  • Six Sigma projects. These are improvements where the desired goals are known, but the means of accomplishing these goals are unclear. The Six Sigma skill set of a Black Belt or Green Belt is needed to link the goal (Y) to the root causes that will accomplish it (Xs) via a transfer function (Y=f(x).)

What’s missing here is the original idea of Kaizen: gradual, continuous improvement. Still, I’m all for improvement any way I can get it. And in America the Kaizen event has caught on in a big way.

GD Star Rating
loading...