Resistance to Change is Futile, You Will Be Assimilated

Change is inevitable. Adaptation to change is a necessary and critical component to survival. But mostly, change is a constant in business. And business seems to be where the adaptation to change -- or lack thereof -- seems to have some of the most significant impact.

Former US president John F. Kennedy said, “Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future”.

In business, we must continually change, evolution is not an option. If we stand still in our businesses we go backwards. The day that we think we have our business model perfected is not the day to stop changing. The issue comes about when we try to make changes. With the evidence in existence related to the necessity of change in business, you would think every business would constantly be revising their model. But that is not the case.

Before you can overcome the resistance it is wise to be aware of why the resistance exists. Usually it is a result of one of the following causes…

• People not agreeing with or understanding the value / benefits of the innovation.
• Fear of the unknown.
• People have had no opportunity to provide input in the planning or implementation of the change.
• Little or no reward / benefits to the people impacted by the idea.
• Increased effort from people required as a result of implementing the idea.
• Fear that the change will result in job cuts.
• Personality clashes between the people affected by the idea and the ideas inventor.
• No trust of the people who have been mandated to implement the change
• Belief that the change is unnecessary or will make the situation worse
• A belief that the idea is inferior to another idea.
• A feeling that the change will result in a loss of security, status, money or friends.
• Bad experiences from similar changes that had been or been attempted to be implemented in the past.

Being aware of the causes mentioned above and being able to specifically identify which ones may be relevant to our particular business greatly increases your chances of overcoming the resistance to change.

Being a leader today we must to be more adaptable to change than ever before. Technology alone will challenge us to learn new things and adapt almost on a daily basis! Change is absolutely unavoidable and successful people recognize this fact and learn how to play the “Change Game”.

Let go of the feelings you have associated with the “old way” of doing things. While some strategies are tried and true… change WILL find a way… and when it does, bringing emotional attachment into the fray can spell disaster. Comfort does not equal rationality.

Change is most often a difficult thing. The sooner we learn to embrace it and work within it, the easier it will be to begin the next challenge that comes along. We naturally gravitate toward the things that make us feel fulfilled, safe and happy. Therefore as we embrace change more often and see the good in it… the more we will gravitate toward it with enthusiasm!

If we accept change is inevitable, you will need a means to continually drive change throughout your business. You should have a change management process that involves every single employee in an organization. Change should be ongoing and employees should be a critical part of that process so there is not fear of change but a willingness to embrace it because it’s a part of the everyday process in the organization.

Change is necessary, resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

Moving Quality Beyond The Product

In June’s post on ASQ’s A View from the Q Blog Paul Borawski asks how you are moving quality beyond product.

… the Quality Council report provides great insights on how the quality community is responding and what it can do better. And therein lies the seed for my question of the day. The opening paragraph of the Quality Council’s perspective is, “For some organizations, ‘quality’ remains a set of tools and techniques associated almost exclusively with quality control. For others, quality has evolved into a critical partner, closely linked with business model development and the enterprise-wide execution of long-term strategy to achieve results.”

Building a quality culture is not an easy task. A quality culture starts with managers who understand and believe the implications of the systems view and know the necessity of serving customers in order to succeed. The result of that understanding is a culture where a positive internal environment and the creation of delighted customers go together. It is a culture that naturally emphasizes continuous improvement of processes, one that results in a healthy workplace, satisfied customers, and a growing, profitable company.

Every year companies ratify and formally commit to their quality policies but are they more than words on paper. It should be part of the culture of the company. Employing quality methods and practices in everything you do provides a firm foundation for your business and can be a determining factor in your success.

To create a culture of quality, an organization must align its organizational processes with quality planning and desired outcomes. Quality leadership starts with the leaders who plant the seeds, create the environment for success, empower others and deploy quality throughout the organization.

After safety, quality must be the organization’s highest priority. In lean manufacturing one of the principles we teach is to build in quality. Many think it is only about eliminating waste but that is too minimalistic. Quality issues result in all sorts of waste. As a result, lean principles specifically seek to address this point.

Quality must go beyond our product or service. We cannot add it at the end of the line or inspect it into the product. At best that is only a false sense of security. If we want a quality product it must be made with quality processes by quality minded people. A focus on quality must be intrinsic to the company culture and practices for the customer to take notice.

In my opinion successful businesses are those that not only sell quality to their employees but make it part of the culture or what they do daily. The organization must make quality a top priority for everyone in the company, from top managers to the workers building product. The final product and goal of the organization is creating value for consumers.

A quality organization understands that the realization of quality must be continually energized and regenerated. Successful implementation of a quality focused organization requires commitment and patience, but the rewards are substantial. Beyond the obvious practical benefits, organizations become empowered to solve persistent process and performance challenges while raising the expectations they set for themselves.

It is said that the quality of an organization can never exceed the quality of the minds that make it up. The key to success lies in how well each employee is motivated and inspired to deliver quality work.


I’m part of the ASQ Influential Voices program. While I receive an honorarium from ASQ for my commitment, the thoughts and opinions expressed on my blog are my own.

Lean Quote: Reduce Fire Fighting By Not Participating

On Fridays I will post a Lean related Quote. Throughout our lifetimes many people touch our lives and leave us with words of wisdom. These can both be a source of new learning and also a point to pause and reflect upon lessons we have learned. Within Lean active learning is an important aspect on this journey because without learning we can not improve.

"I spent so much time putting out fires until I realized I was the oxygen." — John Toussaint, MD

Unfortunately, a far too common management style in many companies is the reactionary style commonly referred to as fire fighting. But fire fighting consumes an organization's resources and damages productivity. Fire fighting derives from what seems like a reasonable set of rules--investigate all problems, for example, or assign the most difficult problems to your best troubleshooter. Ultimately, however, fire-fighting organizations fail to solve problems adequately. Fire fighting prevents us from getting to the root cause. And if we don’t get to the root of problem we will be right back to fire fighting soon.

The idea of fire fighting is to let a problem fester until it becomes a crisis, and then swoop in and fix it. Fire fighting is popular because it is exciting. Furthermore, it is a win-win situation for the fire fighter. If the fix works out, the fire fighter is a hero. If it doesn’t, the fire fighter can’t be blamed, because the situation was virtually hopeless to begin with. Notice that it is to the fire fighter’s advantage to actually let the problem become worse, because then there will be less blame if they fail or more praise if they succeed.

But the real problem is the people in charge. Fighting fires instead of developing a plan to stop fire fighting and making sure it will not happen again is the job of management. Most of us deplore the firefighting style, yet many managers and organizations perpetuate it by rewarding firefighters for the miraculous things they do. In fact, it may be the absence of a vision and plan that cause your organization to be so reactive, and spend a lot of time fire-fighting rather than proactively meeting the needs of your customers. This is all easier said than done, of course, but if you get things right the first time, there's usually not much fire-fighting later.

Meet-up: Lean Leadership's Christian Paulsen

Today, we’ll meet-up with Christian Paulsen, who blogs at Lean Leadership. Christian has contributed several guest posts here. He started blogging shortly after me so we have grown through the process together. It has been nice to have someone to trade insights with and learn with.



The goal of Meet-up is provide you an opportunity to meet some other influential voices in the Lean community. I will ask these authors a series of questions:

Who are you and what do you do?
My name is Christian Paulsen and I have been working in food manufacturing since getting out of the Navy in 1989. I have held several manufacturing leadership roles with Unilever, Frito-Lay, and Nestle and a couple smaller manufacturers. I am currently using this experience to help food companies optimize their manufacturing processes using Lean - TPM as an outside consultant.

How and when did you learn Lean?
My first experience with Lean was when I was a supervisor at Frito-Lay. We were not calling it Lean yet and it was really Dr. Deming’s Total Quality approach for those that remember TQM. I was not directly involved but started to see the benefit to Pareto charts and started to glean some knowledge. Within a couple years I was a Production Manager at Lipton (Unilever). We were serious about Continuous Improvement and TQM. The supply chain was going JIT and we had teams addressing one loss issue after another. Start up losses were being driven out by the start up team and SMED principles were used to cut change-over times in half several times. I was hooked when I saw how we could work with the team to drive out losses and make it a better place to work. It was classic Theory X vs. Theory Y management to me and I’d rather work with the team than have to fight them to make improvements. I have attended several seminars and courses like Total Quality, Root Cause Analysis & DMAIC, TPM, and Lean Six Sigma. These have helped strengthen my knowledge of Lean theory and to support the hands on experience along the way.

How and why did you start blogging or writing about Lean?
I started blogging while in transition from my traditional manufacturing roles into consulting. It was a good time to establish a stronger presence on the social media scene and served as a great way to refine my thinking on a variety of topics. Tim McMahon (author of this blog) was a lot of help to me while getting started. He was kind enough to field my questions even though we didn't know each other at the time. Jamie Flinchbaugh was helpful while starting as well. Guest blogging for other Lean thinkers has been a great way to challenge my level of thinking on a topic. Several bloggers have been kind enough to have me guest blog. Tim at A Lean Journey, Beyond Lean (Matt Wrye), Gemba Tales (Mark Hamel), Gotta Go Lean (Jeff Hajek) and My Flexible Pencil (David Kasprzak). The Lean community is helpful and open with information. My blog is Lean Leadership. The name of the blog reveals the focus of that blog. I am also one of a dozen contributing bloggers at Consumer Good Club but I am the only one with a Lean focus there.

What does Lean mean to you?
Lean is all about a pursuit of excellence. While many of us focus on reducing cost by eliminating waste, it should be about being great at what we do. Pursuing excellence will maximize profits while eliminating waste and reducing cost. There is a big difference between just cutting costs and making sustainable improvements. Lean thinkers attack waste and optimize value added activities rather than slashing budgets and letting others deal with the consequences. Lean principles give the structure to make it sustainable rather than the flavor-of-the-month.

What is the biggest myth or misconception of Lean?
You hear a lot of discussion in Lean circles about Lean being a way of thinking and not a set of tools. There is certainly a lot of misconception about that. I think that there is also a lot of misconception about the difference Continuous Improvement camps. I hear some people talk about Lean, Six Sigma, TPM, and even TQM as if they are mutually exclusive. There are books and courses about Lean-Six Sigma, Lean-TPM, and such that seem to imply that the different camps can somehow co-exist (There are some great manufacturing minds and Lean thinkers behind this material, so these comments are not intended to be critical of them). I'd suggest that there is more similarity between the methods and less differences than many people think. I grew up on Deming & TQM principles then got deep into TPM. I started to hear more and more about Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma. I decided to start reading up on Lean and was very surprised to see that it was a lot of what we had been doing under the TQM umbrella. Then I decided I better read up on Six Sigma. Again, I was surprised to find more similarities than differences. Don't think though that I didn't learn anything in this process. I'm still learning with each new venture. To me, there is a lot of overlap and similarities. They are far from being mutually exclusive.

What is your current Lean passion, project, or initiative?
I have been doing a lot of TPM work, mostly Autonomous Maintenance with a couple well known food companies which has been a lot of fun. It's great to see a teams come together and improve Safety & Quality while reducing downtime by 50%.

I am also working on a Kaizen initiative with another food manufacturer. This one is focused on eliminating the waste is a manual process. It's also fun to see the light bulbs go off as we teach the operators about the lean concepts.

Checking Your Lean Progress Discussion on Metrics

After the webinar Jeff Hajek and I gave we posted the video and slides from our talk on "Checking Your Lean Progress". This started a conversation on metrics that I wanted to share with you and get your thoughts on.

Don Fitchett from Business Industrial Network asks:

Do you think if the metrics you mention in your powerpoint focused a little on dollars, success would be more likely? Like instead of or in addition to % of/ # of kaizen per year, the metric indicate $s saved per year with Kaizens? True Downtime Cost, etc. Money is the bottom line, Lean initiatives need more upfront ties to money (bottom line)

To which I respond:

Well, I am not sure everything good needs to be tracked financially. I have seen many a company try to do so but many improvements might not easily be found on the P&L. In the beginning large events might be but the goal is many many tiny activities daily. Those are likely harder to track. It has been my experience that those who truly understand the benefits of lean are not concerned with tracking the finance like that because they know it will come as a result of the improvements. That is typically why they apply this thinking. Those that want to tack cost savings are generally only looking at the result and not the process to achieve it. These executives are typically not aware of the power of lean thinking and have to substantiate it with cost savings. Again I say not everything good or worth doing is found on the P&L.

Don replies:

I hear you Tim, but think you missed my point. While there are people like you and me who have blind faith, or understand the logic behind Lean and/or seen the profitability in past Lean initiatives, my point is it is easier to keep the masses (all employees, exp and new, operator and excutive) on board if you have KPIs proving to those non-believers or those who would otherwise start to lose faith, the success of their Lean efforts. the same reasons we use OEE/TEEP, but dollars and cents will be a more universal and easier understood KPI for the layman or new to Lean program/facility. that is my point. I am not advocating assigning dollar value to every little aspect of plant wide/corporate wide Lean initiatives, just those areas where it is easily (even automatically) applied. (like with Kaizens savings, raw material usage savings, etc.) Hope this clarifies.

Some Thoughts from Jeff Hajek: 

Dollars and cents is a great metric, if it is accurate and indisputable. It is a horrible metric if it is fluffy or if it is debatable. If a kaizen takes $27,308 in average inventory off a shelf, it saved money that can be directly traced (easily) to a working capital change. But if the same kaizen also freed up a person who joins a resource team, how much was actually saved? We know intuitively that it is a good thing, but unless something else happens, there is no savings. And that ‘something else’ likely also has a person wanting to track the financial impact. So, where does the money show up on the KPI? There is also the complication of the cumulative effect of many different factors on dollars, as well as the delay between activity and actual impact. And then you get into the debate about cost avoidance vs. hard saving. How do you address the dollar savings of floorspace when you own a building? Do you credit it with the cost of rent avoided, or just the cost of overhead, which in itself is an average/estimate? Finally, I once had a VP tell an audience that if all the cost changes he heard in kaizen report-outs were true, that it would be a billion dollar company with a 80% profit margin and 4 employees. He was a Lean zealot, but also understood the issue with reporting savings. But not all people are like him. If a metric is confusing or debatable, it is worse than having no metric at all. That is why I prefer something like # of kaizens vs trying to create a $ number that people won’t trust anyway.

Don concludes:

Wow Tim, a great discussion we are having here. (And I thank you for that.:>) You last reply is a perfect example of the mentality that has kept TDC (True Downtime Cost) from catching on in our industry all these years. Reminds me of the challenges Lean had catching on in our US industry. I am one of the few who believe our computing power and monitoring technology have reached a point we can accurately calc and monitor TDC (IE: more cost metrics) The same you said about tracking cost savings/avoidance can be said about calculating and tracking OEE. But at the end of the day, both are just a benchmarks that's usefulness is only as good as its consistency in calculating and who's trustworthiness is only as good as the company's leadership/culture. The trust of metrics/KPI/benchmarks vary from facility to facility based on those two factors.

What are your thoughts on Lean metrics especially those financial measures?

Guest Post: Benefits and Value of Continued Learning and Training

Today's post is written by Tim Hoff from American Trainco, who specializes in maintenance training.  Tim shares 11 benefits of continued learning and training in our workforce that I think we all will find valuable. 

Offering continuing education opportunities for employees has several benefits for employers. One of them is that a workforce that is well-trained provides an important productivity enhancement. This creates more dedication within the employees who value education benefits.

Specialized training increases value
Employees with specialized training provide more value to the company. They realize that specialized training makes them more valuable to the company and more marketable. Education benefits that include tuition reimbursement show that the company is making a future investment in their employees.

Company sponsored continued training results in employee retention
Another advantage to companies that provide continued training opportunities is increased employee loyalty. Studies have shown that up to 61% of employees who are provided with specialized training benefits remain with the company for five years or longer. This is a strong reason to empower employees with additional educational benefits.

Continued training improves performance
It is a proven fact that companies that invest in the continued training and proficiency of their employees enjoy improved performance, lower attrition rates and a greater overall return on their investment. One organization designed a training program for their IT department that reduced their rate of attrition from 20 percent to 10 percent in just three years.

Tribal knowledge is not a sustainable continuing training option
In addition to continuing training programs for existing employees, it is important to invest in initial training programs for new employees on an ongoing basis. Many organizations invest in the initial training of the startup personnel and then rely on tribal knowledge from then on. Relying on on-the-job training via tribal knowledge to train new employees can cause a break down in understanding proper business systems.

Current trends indicate a huge need for continued training
In "The New American Workplace", authors James O'Toole and Edward E. Lawler III highlight several trends to show that organizations must focus on continual learning and associated job training. These trends have to do with the following issues:

• Rapid changes in technology
• The exportation of jobs 
• Downsizing, deficiency in formal education
• Global competition 
• The aging workforce. 

Some companies leave continued training up to the individual
Despite the fact that many organizations focus on training, individual development for specific job responsibilities still tends to be neglected. Additionally, many companies feel that career development is an individual responsibility rather than a company responsibility. Not all employers feel responsible to provide development opportunities.

During bad economies continued training budgets get cut
When economic times are difficult, continued training and development becomes a prime target for the necessary budget cuts. Nevertheless, O'Toole and Lawler emphasize a social and moral responsibility for organizations to develop employees beyond their current job and to provide opportunities to learn and grow.

Knowledge based societies require continuous training
Since we have shifted to a knowledge-based economy, the need for continuing training is greater than ever before. Trends in the business world such as rapid advances in technology, changing definitions of competencies relating to leadership and global competition are all fueling the need to create specialized continuous learning programs. The numerous advantages that come from continuous learning and the expansion of human capital knowledge and increased business performance create an urgency for companies to provide budgets for this.

A strong project management solution is very helpful in overseeing training programs
HR is the most likely division of the company to take the key leadership role in putting continuous training programs into action and oversee them. They can oversee the focus, strategy, design and implementation of the training and development programs that their respective organizations need to provide. In some instances, in-house training programs can be created. In other cases, budgets need to be put in place to outsource the training. Either way, a strong project management system is critical in overseeing the continued training agenda of the company.

Intellectual capital is the competitive advantage
Other trends stress the importance of training and development. Intellectual capital is now a critical factor for competitive advantage in today's competitive world. The development of training programs and associated partnerships for knowledge sharing are essential to the competitive viability of cutting edge organizations.

The investment is worth the return
Continued training is clearly essential for maintaining the investment an organization has made in the development and/or deployment of any new systems. Institutionalizing a continued education program enables organizations to improve project management practices resulting in better execution and significantly increased profits. The organizations that recognize the benefits and value of providing continuing training opportunities to employees will be better able to compete in a rapidly changing world.

About the Author: Tim Hoff works for American Trainco in various roles including marketing, writing and assuring that training instruction is of the highest quality. A market leader within the training industry Trainco provides various training courses (electrical safety, HVAC, plant management, etc.) across North America.

Lean Quote: Quality Defined, More Than Standards

On Fridays I will post a Lean related Quote. Throughout our lifetimes many people touch our lives and leave us with words of wisdom. These can both be a source of new learning and also a point to pause and reflect upon lessons we have learned. Within Lean active learning is an important aspect on this journey because without learning we can not improve.

"The problem of quality management is not what people don't know about it. The problem is what they think they do know." — Philip Crosby

"Quality" means different things to different people. We use the term but the concept and vocabulary of quality is elusive. If you ask someone to define the word "quality", you may get a variety of answers.

Manufacturing-based definitions are concerned primarily with engineering and manufacturing practices and use the universal definition of “conformance to requirements.” Requirements, or specifications, are established design, and any deviation implies a reduction in quality. In service industries, customer satisfaction is often the primary measure.

Excellence in quality is not necessarily in the eye of the beholder but rather in the standards set by the organization. This approach has serious weaknesses. The consumer’s perception of quality is equated with conformance and hence is internally focused. Emphasis on reliability in design and manufacturing tends to address cost reduction as the objective, and cost reduction is perceived in a limited way–invest in design and manufacturing improvement until these incremental costs equal the costs of non-quality such as rework or scrap.

Quality is important to businesses but can be quite hard to define. The meaning of quality differs depending upon circumstances and perceptions. For example, quality is a different concept when focusing on tangible products versus the perception of a quality service. Quality is built in to the very fiber of the organization.