Content By Tripp Babbitt

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

In my previous article, “Prying Management Away from Old Assumptions,” we talked about the relationship between thinking, system, and performance. W. Edwards Deming told us that to improve performance, the system has to change and that the system represents 95 percent of any organization’s performance. But Deming’s message fell on deaf ears and what didn’t change was the thinking. Thinking must change for the system to change.

So, where do we begin? We begin with understanding our organization as a system by getting knowledge to perform using “check.”

The Vanguard Model for “check” is a six-step process:

1. What is the purpose from a customer’s point of view?
2. What are the type and frequencies of demand?
3. How well does the system respond to demand in achieving purpose?
4. Study the flow.
5. Understand system conditions.
6. Thinking… more important, management thinking

 

Getting knowledge into the work is a must for all managers. It provides evidence to those that rely only on reports or anecdotal information where knowledge is needed.

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

Systems thinking requires a massive change in the way organizations design and manage work. Old thinking must be flushed out so that new and better thinking can replace it. The outdated functional design of organizations according to the type of work performed needs an overhaul. Frederick Taylor, Henry Ford, and a slew of other early management thinkers designed a great system for their day. But that day has long passed, and the theory that won World War II is now keeping countries like the United States from competitiveness and advancement.

Behind the need to redesign how we work are a set of assumptions. These assumptions manifest themselves in management thinking, and they ultimately get passed on to customers in the form of sales, operations, human resources, and IT departments. Although as customers we logically expect this organizational setup will help serve us, more often we get the runaround through these organizational functions.

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

W. Edwards Deming did a great disservice. He left a prescription for what the United States should do to improve government, manufacturing, and service. The prescription is composed of his 14 Points and Seven Deadly Diseases (which later became his System of Profound Knowledge), and he learned from personal knowledge that these were the issues holding the country back.

The elimination of reward systems, making the worker relevant, breaking down barriers, etc., are all very relevant and are correct actions to take. However, Deming learned this by working with U.S. companies. The key point here is he learned… other executives did not come to the same conclusion (or at least very few did).

Deming could not coerce executives into believing him, so he tried a rational approach. But red-bead experiments and four-day seminars were not enough for management to make the connection between what they were being told and how they operated. A rational argument rarely convinces anyone to change their thinking.

This is why there is a need for systems thinking. How can we create the learning that Deming achieved that led him to his prescription? Using coercion or rationalization? No. The learning must be emergent—executives and workers must learn for themselves.

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

While reading an issue of Quality Digest Daily, I came across an article by Kenneth Levine and Peter Sherman titled, “Ten Simple Principles for Treating Employees as Assets.” I thought it followed the usual themes about engaging employees and driving out fear until I ran across the following jewel in No. 9:

“Organizations must continue to improve to survive. Therefore, some consistent method (with a consistent vocabulary) for improvement is needed. Lean Six Sigma is by far the best available methodology for doing this because this methodology continues to adapt and grow, and no other competing methodology is apparent.”

Really? The authors must never have heard about systems thinking. Well, let’s pull up a chair and talk about service and improvement, and using systems thinking.

I previously wrote about this in my article “Redux: Rethinking Lean (Six Sigma) Service.” The message is relatively straight-forward: Treat service like manufacturing and service gets worse while costs increase.

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

Often when I write articles or have a speaking engagement, I like to polarize things into black and white. Almost every time I do this, I’m challenged about the audacity of the approach. Nothing seems to irritate people more than the statement “A focus on costs always increases them.” Just to stir the pot once again, I’m making that the subject of this offering.

One typical response I get is from those who claim “never” or “always” are absolutes, and should be vanquished from our communications. To these folks I say, “Can’t we always improve?” For the rest, let’s walk through this theory together and discern for ourselves what makes sense.

Let’s begin by challenging existing assumptions linked to economies of scale, which is the bedrock for assumptions about reducing costs. Then we’ll explore and debunk two popular strategies that attempt to exploit this assumption around reducing costs: outsourcing and shared services.

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

The worst man-made environmental disaster in history is a tough pill to swallow for everyone, but especially for those responsible for it. Overnight, BP’s name and reputation has turned from a respected energy company with a predictable dividend to the company that should not be named.

ADVERTISEMENT

So what makes BP better or worse than other companies? The Gulf of Mexico disaster could serve as a reminder that it’s often useful to put down the magnifying glass and pick up the mirror. BP stands guilty—quite visibly so—but don’t we all, even without the world’s attention focused on us?

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

I challenge myself each day to hear something different. Sometimes this is about education, liberals, conservatives, tree-huggers, or many other opinions and topics that counter my perspective. For me, this develops new perspectives on problems and issues that service organizations face, even if the topic is distasteful and challenges my core values.

Scientific management theory has long driven our education, management thinking, and design of work. The plight of Call Center Cindy in a government agency still haunts me. Too many service organizations have killed innovation and destroyed hope for change (that is, improvement) because of the systems we have built.

Students are trained to do well on tests, and workers are trained to comply with scripts, audits, monitoring, entrapping technology, and procedures. Then the question is asked, “Why can’t we get workers to change?” Because the system has built droids that learn to comply and not think.

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

Like there isn’t enough politics in the workplace! Command and control managers love to rank employees; there needs to be forced ranking by assessment of performance to be considered a good manager and have a well-run company.

Some rank to give bonuses or incentives, and others rank to RIF employees (have to get rid of the bad ones). I never have found a good reason to rank and always advise against it. It is a bad practice that leads to waste and suboptimization.

I won’t dispute that in any entity, there is always someone at the top and someone at the bottom in terms of performance. However, the waste of performance appraisals, competition, back-stabbing, and manipulation far outweighs any conceivable benefit. Money and morale is lost with these activities.

The distribution of people and their performance is typically bell-shaped:

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

Springtime. Birds, sun, warmer weather, and a chance to get the “Z” out for a spin. I drove it at every opportunity during this winter, of which there weren't many (rough winter). As I sat in the cockpit of my machine and turned the key in the ignition, I heard an unfamiliar click and dying of sound and light. 

The next moment I found myself strapping the jumper cables to the Infiniti and charging up my mid-life crisis. Having no problem with instant gratification, I took her out for a drive.

The next day, the same (and now familiar) click of the engine, and a no go. The next logical move was to call my local BMW dealership for a battery replacement. I told them of my problem and was put through to the parts department to see if they had my battery model. I was asked if I wanted to install the battery myself, but knowing my mechanical capability and not being sure whether the battery was the only problem, I replied “no.”

Tripp Babbitt’s picture

By: Tripp Babbitt

I have identified myself as a “reformed” lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt. Some will see this as an affront to lean and Six Sigma. I want to assure you that there are many things to like about lean and Six Sigma. The issue at hand is that a better solution is available that can help organizations achieve more robust performance improvement.

Some issues with lean Six Sigma

A couple of issues to address are the tools-based approach and the lack of change in thinking in the management and design of work found in lean Six Sigma. Lean and Six Sigma programs tend to be tools-based, where the aim seems to be for vendors to make money on tools training and not focusing on the change in thinking that must accompany it. This is a missed opportunity for sustainable and profound change.