Presented to identify unintended consequences of some misguided attempts at Lean.

CRM (Customer Relationship Magazine) reports this week Abandoned calls at record levels as companies put costing cutting before service delivery

More customers are calling contact centres than ever before - but consumer impatience means that 13.3% of calls are abandoned before they are even answered. The Global Contact Centre Benchmarking Report 2005 finds that the number of abandoned calls has risen for the sixth year in a row, and the situation is worst in the telecoms sector where one in five calls is abandoned.

The report attributes this to the fact that nearly half (48%) of contact centres cite cost reduction and increasing efficiency as their main commercial driver. Almost six out of 10 contact centres have cost reduction targets in their business strategies, while metrics to measure performance are based on call handling and throughput, rather than first call resolution rates (used by only 17% of organisations surveyed).

Yikes! That's not lean, that's cost cutting!

It has me wondering, though, how DOES one eliminate waste at a customer call center?

Yikes! That's not lean, that's cost cutting!

It has me wondering, though, how DOES one eliminate waste at a customer call center?
Actually, there are lots of ways, including

adequate script preparation
structured bifurcated Q/A to drill to the heart of a customer's issue.
ensuring the vocalization of the operator is understandable and intelligible to the customer.
(I had an incoming customer service call yesterday from one of my trade magazines, encouraging me to renew my subscription. The plain and simple fact was that I could understand only about 25% of the caller's words because of her extremely heavy asian accent. I asked three times to speak to her supervisor and finally hung up in frustration. I expect I will get another call since the purpose of keeping a valued customer for the advertisers was not accomplished.)
add automatic dialers and other state of the art equipment to avoid operator error in dialing outgoing calls
add CRM software to identify incoming callers and give the operator a full history of the customer's relationship to the company to shortcut asking customer for repetitive information (ever had an operator ask you to repeat a fifteen digit ID code [credit card number] AFTER you had just laboriously typed it in on the automated menu? CRM software allows operator to ask, "Is this Mr. John Doe? What can we do for you today?")

add CRM software to identify incoming callers and give the operator a full history of the customer's relationship to the company to shortcut asking customer for repetitive information (ever had an operator ask you to repeat a fifteen digit ID code [credit card number] AFTER you had just laboriously typed it in on the automated menu? CRM software allows operator to ask, "Is this Mr. John Doe? What can we do for you today?")


I heartily agree with that last one, Wes. I recently called my insurance company (name shall remain unstated, only cryptic initials: BCBS) and each of several times that I was transferred to "the more appropriate department", I had to explain the who, why, what, etc. to EACH person. Arrgghhh :bonk:

Yikes! That's not lean, that's cost cutting!

It has me wondering, though, how DOES one eliminate waste at a customer call center?

I worked for just over a year setting up an ISO 9001-based management system in a customer/dealer complaint call center for a major truck OEM. When I first arived their metrics included such measures as:

Number of calls handled by each operator/technician
Number of missed calls
Time the customer was on hold
Elapsed time per call

Their goals all related to handling a greater number of calls each year.

The stated purpose of this organization was to handle these calls, note the issue, and either provide corrective action (where known) or route the issue to the appropriate engineering group (reliability, design, procurement, or manufacturing).

After several meetings I was able to lead them to understand that their goals were inverted. The goal of any complaint center should be to work towards reducing/eliminating calls, not handling more each year. [The `ole root cause corrective action ploy - as Maxwell Smart would say.]

We began by evaluating how well we were tracking and transferring these issues to the appropriate engineering group, and then developed a process that allowed the call center personnel to track the issue to closure. We also established a history file, so that the Reliability Engineers could ensure that historical issues were dealt with in new product design.

Eliminate the issue - eliminate further calls related to the issue.

I worked for just over a year setting up an ISO 9001-based management system in a customer/dealer complaint call center for a major truck OEM. When I first arived their metrics included such measures as:

Number of calls handled by each operator/technician
Number of missed calls
Time the customer was on hold
Elapsed time per call

Their goals all related to handling a greater number of calls each year.

The stated purpose of this organization was to handle these calls, note the issue, and either provide corrective action (where known) or route the issue to the appropriate engineering group (reliability, design, procurement, or manufacturing).

After several meetings I was able to lead them to understand that their goals were inverted. The goal of any complaint center should be to work towards reducing/eliminating calls, not handling more each year. [The `ole root cause corrective action ploy - as Maxwell Smart would say.]

We began by evaluating how well we were tracking and transferring these issues to the appropriate engineering group, and then developed a process that allowed the call center personnel to track the issue to closure. We also established a history file, so that the Reliability Engineers could ensure that historical issues were dealt with in new product design.

Eliminate the issue - eliminate further calls related to the issue.
Great point:applause: . The prime purpose of call centers--beyond the basic need to help the caller--should be data collection, and that data should be used to reduce the need for customers to call and ask for help.

Great point:applause: . The prime purpose of call centers--beyond the basic need to help the caller--should be data collection, and that data should be used to reduce the need for customers to call and ask for help.
Absolutely! I agree and so do the editorial folks at CRM. So if Quality folk and the editorial voices are in agreement, why do so many incoming and outgoing call centers operate on MBO (management by objective) with the sole objective being handling the most amount of calls in the least amount of time with no regard for reducing the number of calls by eliminating CAUSES for complaints in the case of incoming calls?

In the case of outgoing calls, the scripts and operator training are often atrocious - hence the recent U.S.A. legislation which allows people to opt out of most outgoing sales calls (high customer/prospect annoyance and frustration factor.)

My own recent experience outlined above is probably NOT rare as some of you can attest from your own experiences.

More than once I have asked myself after dealing with such a call, "What were the managers who approved this call thinking? Do they EVER bother to listen to a tape of one of the calls? If they do listen to such a tape, do they merely fire the operator or do they try to help the operator learn how to speak? How did the operator get employed and put in position in the first place? Don't they have an audition?"

Last week I called my credit card company to change my contact information. This call should have taken 2 or 3 minutes at the most. I was on the phone with this gentleman for over an hour. I can now tell you what he presently makes, used to make, hobbies, likes and dislikes, etc.

He started our conversation with informing me that he just got off the phone with an @@@ that should have realized that with the push of a button he could disable that guys credit card. This would be why I sat and let him ramble on.

It seems to me that if there is such a thing as quality and monitoring phone calls, this guy wouldn't be employed. Just my opinion :)

Last week I called my credit card company to change my contact information. This call should have taken 2 or 3 minutes at the most. I was on the phone with this gentleman for over an hour. I can now tell you what he presently makes, used to make, hobbies, likes and dislikes, etc.

He started our conversation with informing me that he just got off the phone with an @@@ that should have realized that with the push of a button he could disable that guys credit card. This would be why I sat and let him ramble on.

It seems to me that if there is such a thing as quality and monitoring phone calls, this guy wouldn't be employed. Just my opinion :)
The really scary part is imagining that if this guy were a crook instead of just a jerk, he would be in a perfect position to loot someone's account, since he obviously had no oversight by a manager who could have detected such a security breech.

Maybe even worse to imagine: What if he were a stalker? Empowered with all the personal information in a credit card file, he could make a person's life sheer he!!.

My own recent experience outlined above is probably NOT rare as some of you can attest from your own experiences.

More than once I have asked myself after dealing with such a call, "What were the managers who approved this call thinking? Do they EVER bother to listen to a tape of one of the calls? If they do listen to such a tape, do they merely fire the operator or do they try to help the operator learn how to speak? How did the operator get employed and put in position in the first place? Don't they have an audition?"

Good posts, all.

Wes, in fairness to the call center industry, poor performance and your last paragraph of questions (similar questions) could apply to many businesses. I recognize one of my weaknesses as being too naive in many situations. In this day and age I am still amazed when I come across a case of terrible management -- especially when it is on the part of a mid-to large company and not a Mom and Pop startup -- despite the fact it happens relatively often.

The really scary part is imagining that if this guy were a crook instead of just a jerk,
Wes, the really scary part is that most of these call centers are located in prisons. The guys are not only jerks but they are crooks!
60 Minutes did a story on this a couple months ago, it was eye opening.

add CRM software to identify incoming callers and give the operator a full history of the customer's relationship to the company to shortcut asking customer for repetitive information (ever had an operator ask you to repeat a fifteen digit ID code [credit card number] AFTER you had just laboriously typed it in on the automated menu? CRM software allows operator to ask, "Is this Mr. John Doe? What can we do for you today?")
[/list]

I've seen the automation make things worse, especially with new voice response systems. It takes me five or six tries to get the correct flight information from Delta because their system wants you to speak the flight number, not punch it in on your phone. With the background noise of a busy airport, it was impossible for the system to understand what I was saying.

Their goals all related to handling a greater number of calls each year.

After several meetings I was able to lead them to understand that their goals were inverted. The goal of any complaint center should be to work towards reducing/eliminating calls, not handling more each year. [The `ole root cause corrective action ploy - as Maxwell Smart would say.]

Great stuff!

So, can you please elaborate how you "made change happen"?

I assume these were people who had some firm opinions, how did you bring them around? Appeals to logic, offers of money, threats?

How long did it take to change their minds? Did it stick after you left?

My only wins occur when I plant ideas and let them come back as someone elses idea.

It is a bit hard on the ego to have to sit in a meeting and heartily agree to support "the bosses" great new idea. But, I can get over it (mostly).

I am trying to improve my success rate at change...I am finding some of these things take a very, very long time, unless there is a crisis. Any ideas to speed things up?

Great stuff!

So, can you please elaborate how you "made change happen"?

I assume these were people who had some firm opinions, how did you bring them around? Appeals to logic, offers of money, threats?

How long did it take to change their minds? Did it stick after you left?

My appeals were made on the basis of the logic behind them. In a meeting with the applicable directors and managers, I began by asking them to define the purpose of their organization to me (as an outsider).

BTW: Here I started leading them slighty (to get them thinking in the direction I was headed). This was accomplished by asking some pointed questions such as: As a company, what should I be expecting of my call center? How should the recipients of the information your providing react? What should be the end result of their efforts (the recipients of the information)?

After listing these purpose statements, I ask for them to define their current metrics (those that the managers, as well as their bosses (also present at the meeting), were using to determine their organizations effectiveness). Here I had to make my plea a little more direct and asked what performance factors their personal reviews were based on.

We as a group then began classifying their metrics against the purpose statements and noted some gaps when it came to those statements involving the corrective action/complaint closure aspects.

I then led an interactive discussion regarding the corrective action/complaint closure process (giving them the opportunity to wrap their minds around how that process really was the ultimate purpose of their organization).

Then they began discussing the lack of processes/systems that would support this "real" goal of their organization.

This meeting was wrapped up with action items assigned to begin developing these processes/systems (including scheduling meetings to involve those organizations that were the recipients of their data).

The development and implementation of the resultant process/system took several months, involved personnel from several other organizations (Reliability, Design Engineering, Procurement, and Manufacturing), and more than a few iterations to "work out the bugs". But overall they made it their process, it is now a part of their metrics, and yes it is still in place (I speak with them often).

The reason it is still in place: They have witnessing improvements in new product design (fewer customer complaints, increased new product reliability) and much of this is due to the data provided by the call center to the Reliability Engineers that are a part of the product design effort.

They are also seeing fewer call-backs (calls received by the same customer, for the same problem).

Did we have our nay-sayers? Yes, in the initial stages of the process development. How were they handled? If they could not be convince that this effort was the right thing to do, management was brought in and their "participation" was made mandatory (the value of selling management first). BTW: Even these nay-sayers are no longer arguing in the face of the results (eventhough some still don't like the "additional" work that is being required of them).

I also applaud ddhartma on leading his client to focusing on corrective action / complaint closure. I am not sure if everyone saw the real bottom line here because it tends to be a little hidden.

What is the real reason anyone is in business?

To understand and satisfy the customer needs.

Since this statement seem's a little cliche. Let me rephrase it more clearly.

"It's not the employer who pays the wages.
Employers only handle the money. It's the customer
who pays the wages" Henry Ford

good job dd

I look on the internet on on lean manufacturing and found a survey conducted in 2005 of managers and employees. Some of the key finding is that communcation was a problem and clear message. Key recommendations for implemenation 5-1 (p 38) were.
http://www2.oakland.edu/oakland/ouportal/file_repository/pawley/ResearchResults.pdf

The following five level recommendations are a result of the employee and manager survey responses and the analysis of the collected data. These recommendations are suggested as a beginning point in the lean implementation process.
1. Prior to lean implementation baseline measurements are taken and communicated to all employees.
2. Develop metrics that:
a. are calculated on a regular basis
b. are shared on a regular basis
c. are understandable by all employees in the organization
3. Create and implement a communication process that supports:
a. the message of the purpose of lean implementation at all levels
b. the understanding of the employee’s role in implementing lean
c. managers and employees working together to solve problems
d. departments staying in constant communication with each other regarding the implementation of lean
e. the reduction of artificial boundaries between departments
f. employees taking calculated risks
4. Determine the tools needed to implement lean and:
a. provide to all levels of employees in the organization
b. train all levels of employees on how to use the tools
c. maintain and update the tools as needed
5. Celebrate the successes related to lean implementation throughout the organization as they occur.

Many of us forget step 5

I took the liberty of doing a little editing, and removed all references to "lean." I also added #6, which is perhaps the most important part. Surprise!! It still makes good sense!! Good management practices don't need to be named.

1. Take Baseline measurements and communicate to all employees.
2. Develop metrics that:
a. are calculated on a regular basis
b. are shared on a regular basis
c. are understandable by all employees in the organization
3. Create and implement a communication process that supports:
a. the message of purpose at all levels
b. the understanding of the employee’s role
c. managers and employees working together to solve problems
d. departments staying in constant communication with each other
e. the reduction of artificial boundaries between departments
f. employees taking calculated risks
4. Determine the tools needed
a. provide to all levels of employees in the organization
b. train all levels of employees on how to use the tools
c. maintain and update the tools as needed
5. Celebrate throughout the organization as successes occur.
6. Go to #1

I also applaud ddhartma on leading his client to focusing on corrective action / complaint closure. I am not sure if everyone saw the real bottom line here because it tends to be a little hidden.

What is the real reason anyone is in business?

To understand and satisfy the customer needs.

Since this statement seem's a little cliche. Let me rephrase it more clearly.

"It's not the employer who pays the wages.
Employers only handle the money. It's the customer
who pays the wages" Henry Ford

good job dd

It is unfortunate that for a while, Ford (and GM, DCX, airlines, Hotels, etc.) has forgotten that to a degree...

Good posts, all.

Wes, in fairness to the call center industry, poor performance and your last paragraph of questions (similar questions) could apply to many businesses. I recognize one of my weaknesses as being too naive in many situations. In this day and age I am still amazed when I come across a case of terrible management -- especially when it is on the part of a mid-to large company and not a Mom and Pop startup -- despite the fact it happens relatively often.

Poor management is often more common at the biger companies. They have more talent and fat paychecks, so they are better at shucking and jiving to hide their sins. Managers at smaller companies frequently feel more secure and are willing to admit they made a mistake.

Yikes! That's not lean, that's cost cutting!

It has me wondering, though, how DOES one eliminate waste at a customer call center?


Understanding variation and not to set arbitrary targets based on volumes of calls that have to be processed. With call centers as one example of a service industry as with others, demand variation is at the point of transaction, the customer is part of the process. By setting arbitrary targets of how many calls have to be processed the operators use there skills in a negative fashion to please the measure and do what they can to move the call on (like the comic bomb scenario), dump the call etc leaving unhappy customers, unhappy operators, and failure demand on the system as the customer inevitably has to call back again (rework!). A large percentage of demand on the system is from this rework. This is one of the biggest issues facing service and call centers today. Trying to use manufacturing techniques and measures to standardise operations and forgetting why they are there in the first place, to satisfy the customer. Variation in this case is part of the process, standardise with arbitrary measures at your peril!

Control charts may be the best way to measure, over time you will see an in control process with normal variation. By analysing the system, start to remove failure demand, ask why that customer could not get what they wanted on the first call and start looking at the system to address. Get the best out of your people by understanding that they will have the best ideas to improve the system, instead of letting them use there ingenuity and ideas to beat the system which they undoubtably will when the arbitary target based mangement stick is wielded!

Poor management is often more common at the biger companies. They have more talent and fat paychecks, so they are better at shucking and jiving to hide their sins. Managers at smaller companies frequently feel more secure and are willing to admit they made a mistake.

Why do I get so bent when I hear the term poor management?

Perhaps, because if I am not one of the people building the product, I must be management.

The plant I am consulting for does not do a good job of recording defects. It would have been easy for me to say "Management is doing a poor job". Instead, my purpose was to assit in making this system work.

One of the problems was that an edict was passed down from corporate to start using tick charts and coordinate it with their QIRP system of recording and tracking what they were not doing countermeases on.

So I put together a short 10 min presentation of how to use a tick chart using a fishbone as introduction. It started like this......
.....Management does not care that we have problems
..........Why
.....Management sees the problem as small
...........Why
.....Management only hears about problems, not see them
...........Why
.....We do not capture and show problems in a form that they understand.


.............
.............
The program then goes on to show the complete closed loop of how and why to fill out tick charts.

"The problem is not that we have poor managers, the problem is that we do not show managers the problems in a form they can understand". -by as

I just love making quotes.

"The problem is not that we have poor managers, the problem is that we do not show managers the problems in a form they can understand". -by as

As Dr. Juran pointed out many years ago, management speaks in the language of money, while hourly workers speak about "things." Middle managers have to be bilingual and act as interpreters. Sometimes executive types actually don't realize that hourly workers don't speak what I call the "million language." Hourly workers sometimes don't understand that executives might not understand what making fifty "things" in a day means (one reason that I think the concept of PPM, or God forbid, DPMO, is such a crock).
Actually, a big part of all manufacturing problems is that we do have too many poor managers--people who can't see beyond the end of the month--and they make it hard for everyone.

Actually, a big part of all manufacturing problems is that we do have too many poor managers--people who can't see beyond the end of the month--and they make it hard for everyone.

I must be a "glass is half full" kind of person. Or, perhaps I life a sheltered life.

I tend to believe that people are not problems, rather, people have problems.

If a manager is poor, and this "poor" can be quantified, then we can separate the condition from the person. This may conclude that the manager is not poor, only that the manager has a problem that needs to be improved.

If a manager is poor, and this "poor" can be quantified, and if we can separate the condition from the person. Lets say we inlighten this manager with facts that logically leads the mananger to a better decision, and the manager doesn't give a rats patute. Does this make a poor manager?

hummmmmmm,

at a minimum, stupid perhaps.

After looking at both sides of the coin, perhaps my glass is half empty...

After looking at both sides of the coin, perhaps my glass is half empty...
Or perhaps, as I suggested in another post recently, the glass is just the wrong size:D.

Absolutely! I agree and so do the editorial folks at CRM. So if Quality folk and the editorial voices are in agreement, why do so many incoming and outgoing call centers operate on MBO (management by objective) with the sole objective being handling the most amount of calls in the least amount of time with no regard for reducing the number of calls by eliminating CAUSES for complaints in the case of incoming calls?

In the case of outgoing calls, the scripts and operator training are often atrocious - hence the recent U.S.A. legislation which allows people to opt out of most outgoing sales calls (high customer/prospect annoyance and frustration factor.)

My own recent experience outlined above is probably NOT rare as some of you can attest from your own experiences.

More than once I have asked myself after dealing with such a call, "What were the managers who approved this call thinking? Do they EVER bother to listen to a tape of one of the calls? If they do listen to such a tape, do they merely fire the operator or do they try to help the operator learn how to speak? How did the operator get employed and put in position in the first place? Don't they have an audition?"
So, today, at a breakfast meeting, I received the answer to my question about
why do so many incoming and outgoing call centers operate on MBO (management by objective) with the sole objective being handling the most amount of calls in the least amount of time with no regard for reducing the number of calls by eliminating CAUSES for complaints in the case of incoming calls?
My breakfast companion just happened to be a guy who had created several off-shore call centers in his native country and stayed here in the USA selling their services.

Bluntly, I posed the above question. His reply: "The American companies figure the number of calls is the only metric they can be sure of, so that's the only one they want to pay on."

I guess he was just meeting "customer requirements," huh?

When we say "poor panagement" we are unfortunately applying a label without defining or quantifying it, or without considering that management also operates in a 3-M (man, material, machine; I always add environment because it affects all three Ms) atmosphere.

It took the Japanese car makers quite a few years to reach the pinnacle of success after their decision to transform. (I'll define "pinnacle" as overcoming the U.S. car makers in customer satisfaction, and quantify it as seizing the larger market share of automobiles sold.) The Japanese management and engineering staff worked together for a long time--about a generation--to develop the widescale quality mindset, process control, and supplier control to achieve that.

I view human performance as an outcome, not a factor. When U.S. management fails I think of it not as personal foibles (except in spectacular cases like Enron, Adelphia and Worldcom) but usually an end product of complex constraint interactions.

1. The U.S. treats its macroeconomic free trade system in a nearly laizzes faire fashion that is not built to encourage knowedge sharing or recognize the "lifting all boats" concept of other successes like rising wages. Economists call it "efficient" when consumers and workers flow from bad to better, but in a microeconomic sense there is an enormous amount of waste while consumers and workers struggle through the process of moving from bad to better.

2. The publicly owned company concept is simply an invitation to disaster unless there are better controls that result in a more transparent reporting effect than we've been seeing. Spectacular greed (as in the above examples) is weighing down investor confidence, but the real damage is in the need to speculate to make the system really work for you (investment wise). The (glowing coals) healthy types of returns are no longer attractive as they don't make people rich. Investors are pressured to seek out the (blazing, crackling fires of) highest returns, which unfortunately places pressure on management to produce numbers, if not actual outcomes.

3. Business schools have long operated under principles 1 and 2, and historically have not taught students that reducing costs of poor quality equals profits, and growth when included in a well-rounded systemic quality business model. Making matters worse, businesses have been applying pressure to business schools to produce specialists over well rounded business leaders. Leadership is belatedly being introduced into curricula, as well as ethics, but they are classes and not part of the curricula's core or the schools' philosophies.

Management has thus been trained (the machine element) and pressured (the environmental element) to think in terms of large numbers and dollars, to ask suppliers to reduce their costs without interacting much on how to make their codependency more effective (the material element). Given these factors it can be quite challenging to behave as a "good" manager. Indeed, in this Dilbert world the good manager seems vastly overwhelmed and in many cases the people to leave an organization are the organization's best and brightest.

4. In the end there is the pointy-haired boss, the manager (the Man element--could be several of them too, as the Man element becomes culture) that simply fails or resists in efforts to improve how an organization performs. The organization's top management is responsible to establish, in the face of factors 1, 2 and 3, an efficient, durable and goodness-based culture that squeezes out the inevitable poor performers (and psychopathic bosses/managers) instead of the good ones.

So you see, in my view there is a need to address the many factors that constrain good managers, their development and their performance. Until we can manage this, we will continue to measure worthless, superficial factors; apply band-aids where cures are needed; and celebrate numbers over goodheartedness and excellence.

Perhaps globalization will apply the necessary pressure to send this society into a more pragmatic, introspective mode that encourages excellence, but I am not holding my breath.

Regarding Jennifer's comments, I have nothing further to add; they stand alone.

Regarding Wes'es breakfast Q&A, it reminds me of the story of the hobo searching around under a streetlight. A man asks what he's looking for. He says, "my cigar". The man asks, "where did you lose it?". He points off into an alley and says, "over there". The man asks, "why are you looking here then?". The hobo says, "The light's better here".

Regarding asutherland's banter, Harry Truman had on his desk a sign that said, "the buck stops here". Manager's cannot simply dismiss their responsibilities with the excuse that they don't receive proper information from the shop floor. A manager's responsibility is to set up the system of manpower, materials, and machines (borrowing Jennifer's phrase) and include a feedback system that is easy for the worker's to use. He must welcome ideas from the floor, but ultimately, he is responsible for getting input.

You state:
"The problem is not that we have poor managers, the problem is that we do not show managers the problems in a form they can understand"

Could that be similar to saying, "the problem is not having poor parents, the problem is that the children don't communicate their problems in a form the parents understand. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think the point is made.

Good managers aren't perfect. They have deficiencies, and they get training or outside assistance to fill those voids - but they still accept their responsibilities. Poor managers (and yes, there are poor managers) refuse to acknowledge their deficiencies and turn to blaming the systems above and below them.

Short and sweet:

Good managers have the strength of character to admit mistakes, and to learn from them. Bad managers believe that all mistakes are caused by others.

Short and sweet:

Good managers have the strength of character to admit mistakes, and to learn from them. Bad managers believe that all mistakes are caused by others.

Yep, :Self-centered, ego, big me, little you, I got the power,etc.

Banter...hahah.. I like that... banter.

I have found that Quality does not speak the language of Manufacturing.
Manufacturing does not speak the language of Engineering.
Engineering does not speak the language of Human resouses, etc,etc.

Yet, we are a necessay mix of diverse thinking individuals with a common goal.
Make money, increase market share, maintain a high quality of life.

I have seen some excellent "Best Quality" compony's go out of business, even those where their quality was exceptional. So quality is not enough.

I have seen some excellent "High volume" compony's go out of business, even those their quantities was exceptional. So volume is not not enough. etc, etc.

We are all responsible for training everyone. If we know or assume that Management has thus been trained (the machine element) and pressured (the environmental element) to think in terms of large numbers and dollars, to ask suppliers to reduce their costs without interacting much on how to make their codependency more effective (the material element).
do we say that, oh well, that "Management".

In the face of statements like So you see, in my view there is a need to address the many factors that constrain good managers, their development and their performance. Until we can manage this, we will continue to measure worthless, superficial factors; apply band-aids where cures are needed; and celebrate numbers over goodheartedness and excellence.

It seems to be a little more clear that "The problem is not that we have poor managers, the problem is that we do not show managers the problems in a form they can understand". -by as

If "Management" is responsible for all of these wonderful things....Why arn't they doing them.

We can not continue to make excues's. Whats the data say? What is the systematic approach that best governs this problem, and do we now how to use it. Do we understand so that we can use it. Now that we have used it, the way is was intended to be used, did it work?

If we continue to point fingers at "Management" we only point to ourselves.
It also proves that we as supportes of our systems dont have the b@lls, as well as the facts to show what needs to be done in a system that creates understand to change.

Sry, just "Bantering"

It also proves that we as supportes of our systems dont have the b@lls, as well as the facts to show what needs to be done in a system that creates understand to change.

My fervent hope is that the quoted sentence is the result of too much work followed by a liberal indulgence in akvavit (http://www.beerliquors.com/buy/liqueurs/akvavit.htm). Otherwise, http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/surrender.gif

Hummm,
maby... 14 hr days + weekends. And the coffee here in Europe can stand without a cup to hold it.

Banter...hahah.. I like that... banter.

I have found that Quality does not speak the language of Manufacturing.
Manufacturing does not speak the language of Engineering.
Engineering does not speak the language of Human resouses, etc,etc.

Yet, we are a necessay mix of diverse thinking individuals with a common goal.
Make money, increase market share, maintain a high quality of life.

I have seen some excellent "Best Quality" compony's go out of business, even those where their quality was exceptional. So quality is not enough.

I have seen some excellent "High volume" compony's go out of business, even those their quantities was exceptional. So volume is not not enough. etc, etc.

We are all responsible for training everyone. If we know or assume that
do we say that, oh well, that "Management".

In the face of statements like

It seems to be a little more clear that

If "Management" is responsible for all of these wonderful things....Why arn't they doing them.

We can not continue to make excues's. Whats the data say? What is the systematic approach that best governs this problem, and do we now how to use it. Do we understand so that we can use it. Now that we have used it, the way is was intended to be used, did it work?

If we continue to point fingers at "Management" we only point to ourselves.
It also proves that we as supportes of our systems dont have the b@lls, as well as the facts to show what needs to be done in a system that creates understand to change.

Sry, just "Bantering"
Gee! None of this
I have found that Quality does not speak the language of Manufacturing.
Manufacturing does not speak the language of Engineering.
Engineering does not speak the language of Human resouses, etc,etc.
is even vaguely evocative of my own experience nor that of many of my customers and suppliers over the years. When there was a disconnect, it was a rare instance.

As a denizen of the executive suite for more than 30 years, I can tell you flatly that coordination and cooperation among these functions IS the mark of a successful organization. Why would we want to deal with a non-successful organization at either end of our supply chain, let alone continue to work in or allow such a disconnect in our own organization?

One of the primary precepts of Contract Review, for instance, is that the organization use a cross-functional approach to assure all bases are covered before granting or accepting a contract for work.

Engineers, of course, encompass a lot of fields. Over the years, I have worked with mechanical, electrical, civil, architectural, design, computer, social, aerospace, nuclear, chemical, metallurgical, and other engineers and find them to be extremely open and receptive to using quality tools to ensure delivery of final product or service to a customer.

Similarly, everyone in marketing and administration has an important stake in the success of the organization. It is part of the leadership role to continually communicate this big picture and its understanding to every level of the organization and to see each level does cooperate and coordinate in delivering goods and services which meet customer requirements.

Good organizations have been doing this for millenia, long before Deming, Juran, or any other Quality guru started preaching his particular brand of common sense.

Standards are nothing new. I've attached a commentary about a presentation piece related to Standards describing a DOCUMENTED usage of a Standard before the Common Era.

Certainly, the folks who used this Standard had a big incentive to fulfill customer requirements!

One of the problems was that an edict was passed down from corporate to start using tick charts and coordinate it with their QIRP system of recording and tracking what they were not doing countermeases on.

So I put together a short 10 min presentation of how to use a tick chart using a fishbone as introduction.

Is this not indicative of a "management" issue? Since "corporate" passed down the requirement to use a tool, but never provided training on its use.

The problem is not that we have poor managers, the problem is that we do not show managers the problems in a form they can understand".

How could the workers have formed this problem in a way that management could understand? Hey! You gave us a tool we don't know how to use. Why would management assume that everyone knows how to use this tool?

I've seen this one too many times and I'm sorry, but this WAS a management problem - providing tools without taking the time or intiative to see if training was necessary.

Wes.... you have been in an executive role longer than I have been in Manufacturing. I do not disagree with anything that you have stated as it relates to coordination of activities closely monitored by such executives. I have worked with giants such as yourself and gained more in a minute than in a month with many others. But enough flattery.... The farther away someone is from the basic functions of manufacturing, the farther away the perspective.

I have worked in only 6 jobs in my life time, and have been involved with dozens as a lean / change agent. And many of the comments I hear at the floor level show a serious disconnect from the floor to the executive level.

Quality pointing at production, production pointing at engineering, engineering and everyone else pointing at "MGT".

I tend to get 'bend' at any derogatory statement from anyone about their company from someone in the company. Such things as "management is poor", "management can't make a good decision, "management doesn't know what is going on", etc, etc.
It is from these concerns that direct my efforts in Lean. Not to teach 5'S, to teach common sense about 5S. Not to teach VSM, to teach how process tools can be used to identify critical areas of our process. Not to teach "Std. Wk", to teach how standardization is used to improve all of our process. And in each case, this requires that information be transformed from the level of the floor to a level understood by the executive.
I get tired of hearing, "Mgt this, Mgt that", and it concerns me that we haven't said "Mgt this because, I am not communicating in a form that they understand".
It is all too easy to pass on blame to "Mgt" without considering how "Mgt" hears or see's the information. We just assume, because it wasn't done the way we suggested, "Mgt" must be poor.

From my perspective, I need to insure that what I teach is understood in the same way with a closed loop system to the floor as well as the top office and anyplace in-between.

I cannot belive that anyone would not be able to see a disconnect from bottom to top, and in some case's, top to bottom. (in more than a rare instance).

Quote: (Originally Posted by asutherland) One of the problems was that an edict was passed down from corporate to start using tick charts and coordinate it with their QIRP system of recording and tracking what they were not doing countermeases on.

So I put together a short 10 min presentation of how to use a tick chart using a fishbone as introduction.

Is this not indicative of a "management" issue? Since "corporate" passed down the requirement to use a tool, but never provided training on its use.

In this case both ways.
Tick charts were used to record defects.
Defects were recorded on the QIRP awaiting response.
Responses were make (however be in in lip-service).
thus, the edict was satisfied.....
we then had a system of almost no value. Why, the training that was provided was not at a level that supported a closed loop system with a clear methodology for effective countermeasure activity.
This system was responsive to the previous 7 days data. Any data after 7 days was considered of no value... (unless of course the lip service response was more than 7 days late.)
How could the workers have formed this problem in a way that management could understand? Hey! You gave us a tool we don't know how to use. Why would management assume that everyone knows how to use this tool?

From the workers perspective, they were filling out the tick charts as directed, the method of training to the manager was too poor for them to figure out what to do with it.... Why should they, every 7 days, it would start all over, and they simply reported what that had been doing the last 7 days to the director level without complaints.

Ever stop to think that only organizations in trouble and not using common sense are the ones who hire outside change consultants?

I didn't spend my career looking for foul balls. I looked for and easily found EXCELLENCE.

If you work as a garbage collector, it might SEEM as if the whole world was smelly, but that would only be because you concentrate on the narrow view.

If I find a dysfunctional customer or supplier, I'd need a strong motive to stick my oar in to cure or at least ameliorate that dysfunction. I am human. I normally choose the path of least resistance. If I am not paid to tell the managers how to fix their operation, there certainly needs to be some other incentive for me to expend time and energy in helping them.

Here's a weak analogy.
Assume I'm at a shopping mall and develop a hunger for a snack. I make my way to the food court and walk around, looking at the various offerings. I notice Panda "Unimpress" has flies hovering and landing on the food in their steam table, which isn't steaming. No one is in line at Panda "Unimpress". I look over 50 feet to the left and Noodles Are Us has ten people in line and the counter help look clean and cheerful, no flies are in evidence and all the steam tables are steaming and giving off wonderful aromas.

Do you need any further clue which of the two operations will get my business? Do I have an incentive to tell the counter person at Panda why I won't buy? Do I have an incentive to look up and call the regional vp for Panda and tell him about the bad operation? If I call anyone, it might be the local health department.

Would my view be different if Panda's Board had hired me as an adviser? You betcha!

.........I get tired of hearing, "Mgt this, Mgt that", and it concerns me that we haven't said "Mgt this because, I am not communicating in a form that they understand".

It is all too easy to pass on blame to "Mgt" without considering how "Mgt" hears or see's the information. We just assume, because it wasn't done the way we suggested, "Mgt" must be poor......).

Hi asutherland

I have weighed in on this very topic before in other threads.

I do agree that complaining gets nothing done.

I have made a great effort to be more effect as a staff person in the last several years to clearly communicate to management in "a manner in which they understand".

So what happens after I communicate the cost of poor quality to management in dollars. Say we make $1 million a month just in scrap.

After I show them the money and the improvement ideas with payback, ROI, IRR, DCF studies - they should act right?

So why don't they?

Is it me? Did I fail to communicate?

I put myself through heck over this.

My new working theory is that I did fail to communicate with management in a manner in which they understand.

But that manner is not money.

I have gotten more cynical. The driver for action for management is "power" - pure and naked. What is in it for them. Money is a red herring.

I have not yet attempted to sell my ideas based on increasing the bosses power....it disturbs me too much.

Anyway - like it or not, and some here will not....I will give up...I will not endlessly. cheerily blame myself and try, try again.

Once I recommend not to fly the space shuttle cause the o-rings won't seat in the cold (supported by data) I consider my job done.

I will not take on any blame or guilt for managements subsequent decisions. Their job is to weigh risk and make decisions. If they are being politically pressured to fly, hopefully they will weigh the facts, separate them from the opinions, and make a good decision.

I look to leaders to lead. They set the tone and direction. I can get a lot done without their support, but with their support almost anything is possible.

So to summarize - my new theory - money is not the language of management - that is a red herring. Power is what drives them.

So how do we feel about selling our projects based on that idea?

I cannot disagree with Caster's insights. Of course it is about power. Money simply helps common people to measure it.

Arguably money is power (or at least enables it) for many upper-level types. Leona Helmsley types, where they are linked because who among these powerful people is so without a focus on money?

Advertisements for cars famously cater to the whimsical, the desire to have power of some kind. SUVs sell through a communication of empowerment, although few of their drivers roil their way through the muck.

Power is not always overt. Sex sells in advertisements because of the desire someone has to have that intangible power over others.

The thing that has made it hard for me to retool in my new environment is, I think, a disinclination to sell the potential power of my skills to my potential employer. I'm not an advertising person; it feels like promisemongering to sensationalize what should be occurring through pragmatic common sense. Further, I too well understand that promises could look empty if failures occur through lack of cooperation or follow through.

Basically I shrink from placing a spin on what people should be doing anyway.

And I remain underemployed as a result of it.

I agree that power is a big factor in the relationships between managers and workers. It is also true that "knowledge is power" and the more knowledge (Deming's Profound Knowledge) distributed throughout an organization, the more powerful that organization becomes.

It is not enough for the worker to have the knowledge to speak in the manager's language and answer the Question: "What's in it for me?" The manager must have the knowledge and the ears to hear the dialect of the workers when they say, "Here's what we need to do a better job."

Some organizations really do have their act together. I freely admit to being consistently wowed by UPS and how seamlessly they integrate into the business of their customers, filling in gaps the customers never knew existed.

I'm pretty impressed with Kinkos, too. Apparently, so was Fedex, enough to buy them.

I was consistently happy with the independent metallurgy lab I used for ten years. I referred lots of business their way and never heard a complaint from any of the referrals. They did both routine and forensic analyses with equal good humor and never failed to fit in a time-sensitive task. What most impressed me was that every employee there from the owners down to the newest apprentice, was always willing to take time to explain what they were doing and how the various instruments and testing machines worked. It was obvious to anyone they were absolutely confident and competent in their work. I once took our entire staff of experienced aerospace engineers there for a tour and each one said he learned something new.

I like to think my own machining company had that WOW factor, too. We really did treat all our customers and suppliers as partners. We often took machine operators along to visit customers to see how the product we made got used by the customer. Similarly, we visited suppliers to see how they produced the materials, tooling, and machinery we used. We welcomed our suppliers and customers to visit 24/7, sometimes when only a maintenance man was on duty and the machines were running smoothly in the dark.

I don't recall ever having a problem with quality or delivery on material from the mill that supplied my specialty alloys.

This is not to say that I didn't refuse to do business with some would-be suppliers and didn't turn down business from some would-be customers.

There is an old truism that always seemed to work for me:
"You don't get a second chance to make a good first impression!"

I always tried to live up to my first impression. Sadly, from the stories I read here in the Cove, some suppliers and customers live DOWN to their first impression.

I was not quick to pull the trigger if I ran into a problem with a supplier or customer once I agreed to do business. The response and cooperation I got in working out a problem with a view toward solution rather than blame went a long way in deciding whether to stay at the dance or cut the date short.

Ever stop to think that only organizations in trouble and not using common sense are the ones who hire outside change consultants?


I get the impression that there is not a close fondness for consultants.

Does this mean that we should not listen to rambeling "banta foder" (from star wars) of consultants such as Juran, Evans, Ishikawa, Deming, Pyzdek, to name a few?

If I find a dysfunctional customer or supplier, I'd need a strong motive to stick my oar in to cure or at least ameliorate that dysfunction. I am human. I normally choose the path of least resistance. If I am not paid to tell the managers how to fix their operation, there certainly needs to be some other incentive for me to expend time and energy in helping them.

I ment no intent to referece outside companies we work with, or outside companies we dont work with, but as an employee of a company, is it not our obligation to educate when such additional knowledge in necessary to make a systematic change to lead us to a better course of action. (based of course on facts).
It is not my intent to change attitude, as only the person with that attitude can change, my intent is to change the way that person thinks, so by thinking different, that person can change his/her own attitude.

It is not enough for the worker to have the knowledge to speak in the manager's language and answer the Question: "What's in it for me?" The manager must have the knowledge and the ears to hear the dialect of the workers when they say, "Here's what we need to do a better job."

Exceptional incite and a closed loop system.

I get the impression that there is not a close fondness for consultants.

Does this mean that we should not listen to rambeling "banta foder" (from star wars) of consultants such as Juran, Evans, Ishikawa, Deming, Pyzdek, to name a few?



I ment no intent to referece outside companies we work with, or outside companies we dont work with, but as an employee of a company, is it not our obligation to educate when such additional knowledge in necessary to make a systematic change to lead us to a better course of action. (based of course on facts).
It is not my intent to change attitude, as only the person with that attitude can change, my intent is to change the way that person thinks, so by thinking different, that person can change his/her own attitude.


Exceptional incite and a closed loop system.
I'm an "outside consultant!"
The truth is the biggest money for an outside consultant is where there is the biggest trouble. Why pay for an outside consultant if your business is running smoothly and folks are innovative and creative and managers are knowledgeable?

When I come in as a change consultant, often my task is to change the entire culture, not some silly little thing like excess clutter. I see my task as drilling down to find the root cause of the clutter and repairing that. Often the root cause is an attitude on the part of one or more of the managers. I have to be part psychiatrist, part drinking buddy, part mother, part lawyer, part accountant, part bully, etc. in order to change an entire culture. As part of that, I have to be able to grasp the big picture and show how the small parts (like clutter) affect the entire operation.

I have often written here in the Cove that the first task of a change agent is make all the players realize the status quo is broken and hurts each of them in some way. Next, to get them to WANT to make things better for themselves. Finally, to help them learn how to fix the system and stay in a constant state of evaluation to look for ways to improve and guard against backsliding. When they can do that without me goading, the job is done.

I tell you flatly that when I go into a company I do not talk about "Deming," but I do talk about his concepts. Similarly, I never raise the term Ishikawa, but I may use a "fishbone" diagram. I don't use slogans like 5S, 8D, 5Y, but I do talk about the value of getting to the root cause of a problem and keeping a clean workplace to avoid accidents and make things more efficient and pleasant while working. I also talk about adequate lights and tools and ambient temperature and repaving parking lots if that's a factor in fixing the organization. I talk about finding ways to supply benefits, collect money from customers faster, pay suppliers quicker to build loyalty and rapport.

You can't fix a broken window pane with a bandaid; nor can you fix a broken organization with a bandaid like 5S if the real problem is that the company is taking unprofitable work.

:topic: please compare the words "incite" and "insight" in a dictionary to get an idea of the big smile I got when I read the post.

Good Problem Identification, Corrective and Preventive Action to resolve the call center issues. However, did we venture off course - where exactly did lean go wrong?


I appreciate the input nonetheless.

Ken