{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Lean Management Systems and Mysterious Performance Metrics

Do your metrics pass the “so what” test?

Mark R. Hamel
Wed, 05/25/2011 - 05:30
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

Among other things, an effective lean management system drives process adherence and process performance. The daily accountability portion of the system includes brief tiered meetings with the stakeholders.

ADVERTISEMENT

At the tier I level, the core meeting participants are pretty much the natural work team (with hopefully key support people and rotating attendance by the managers). You know—the folks who actually do the value-adding work.

The backdrop for tiered meetings is often a performance metric board, supplemented by things like task accountability boards and thoughtful reflection on what is being seen by the leaders when they conduct their standard work.

Mystery

Sometimes the performance metric board—its purpose, “story,” relevance, and “actionability”—are a mystery to the tier I stakeholders, and it fails the “So what?” test.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by mgraban on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 19:10

I agree, but...

Mark - I agree with putting the "so what?" on the chart. When I've had hospital departments develop a "critical few" metrics, I coach them to put statements in the lower corners of the chart:

1) How is this measure calculated?

2) So what does it mean?

The one point I'll quibble with is how to present the "target." I'm reminded from SPC training (and Dr. Don Wheeler) to NOT put the target on the run chart or SPC chart, lest people confuse the natural process limits with that target. Leaders should know what "targets" are (and hopefully they are sensical and not based on B.S.)... yes, you have be aware of it, but having the target on the chart can create (and does create) dysfunctions.

Thoughts?

  • Reply

Submitted by sprevette on Thu, 05/26/2011 - 05:22

In reply to I agree, but... by mgraban

SPC and Targets

I am glad someone already has commented on what about SPC?

As Deming did say, we do need goals and aims, but to express those as numerical targets, and claim that the "C" in PDCA is to check against a target may be a problem.  This is why Deming moved the C to Study.

One can reconcile SPC and targets, by allowing a goal statement to read "The current performance (baseline, UCL, LCL) is Acceptable / Not Acceptable (choose one).  If Acceptable, the target is to maintain or improve performance as determined by SPC rules.  If Not Acceptable, decide upon a system/process fix, and the target is to achieve a significant improving trend, per SPC rules".

  • Reply

Submitted by John Gunkler on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 13:07

In reply to SPC and Targets by sprevette

Metric Profile

I'm worried that you already have nine items on the "metric profile" and are asking about more.  How does posting such a long list of things jibe with your stated desire to make the board usable?  Shouldn't we get the metric profile down to just three or four items?

Also, just to quibble, I believe Dr. Deming originally named the Shewhart cycle PDSA and it was Dr. Juran who "moved" the S to C(Check.)  I've never understood why Juran did this.

John Gunkler

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us