Developing a Continuous Process Improvement Culture, and Sustaining It

I have always heard, but never understood, that a process is a process is a process. This didn't click for me until about three weeks ago when I was teaching a Senior Leader course designed to introduce Continuous Process Improvement and basic problem solving to those senior leaders assigned to squadrons within the Maintenance Group of the Air Force Base I am assigned to.

This course, originally developed by the Air Force Reserve Command and lent to me for trial runs, was designed to teach the principles of Lean, learn how to identify Waste, understand how to complete the Air Force 8-step Problem Solving Model, and most importantly teach these leaders how to identify inefficiencies at their own level of control. As we neared the end of my very first class I taught the course to, it was time to brainstorm opportunities for improvement that could go back to their sections and implement these new tools learned.

It was during the brainstorming session one of the attendees ideas was to develop a CPI culture within his section. I quickly thought about this as the class tried to use a PIC chart to say whether his idea had a high or low impact on the mission and would be easy or hard to implement using his position of authority and tools learned. The class was quickly jumping to a High mission Impact, but a Hard Chance for implementation. It was here that it all clicked.

If a process is a process is a process, then I can use CPI tools to address developing a CPI culture. I had him verbally walk through the 8-step as I: one, tried to show the class that it isn't hard to do, and two, prove to myself my new understanding of the phrase.

Step 1: Identify the problem
This section leader did not currently have an environment within the section he led that fostered a culture of CPI.

Step 2: Identify Performance Gaps (quantify the Problem to prove it's existence)
I asked him how many ideas are discussed in his section, how many CPI efforts have been made. The answer: 0

Step 3: Set a Target
We figured one idea per person and three CPI efforts a year

Step 4: Root Cause
After we asked "why" a few times we learned that previous leadership was quick to dismiss ideas essentially shutting down the "Idea Mill." Furthermore, leaders felt bound by policy and directives that no one ever bothered to question or pursue their legitimacy.

Step 5: Brainstorm Countermeasures
We quickly devised a idea board that had pre-printed Idea forms that asked the employees what type of Waste was in their process. What type of S (from the 5S or 6S) would be affected? Then gave room for their Idea on the back of the form. All implemented Ideas would earn the person some time off; while a display board would track the progress of the Idea.

Step 6: Implement Countermeasures
We devised an action plan and assigned a POC and timeline of implementation

Step 7: Validate Countermeasures
The boards are currently in development and are showing promise with those assigned. It appears this one easy step will allow this leader to achieve his goal.

Step 8: Standardize Results
I quickly briefed the Maintenance Group leadership and now all units are looking into their own boards.

This showed the team that not every task is impossible to achieve. You just have to scope things down to your level of control. Finally, something we all learn as we help to facilitate change, is that there is always a lacking in sustainment. I briefed the class of why they, the senior leaders assigned to their units, were in attendance of this inaugural course. It all got summed up with this:




1. It takes our Senior Leaders to direct change. That course would have never happened if their commanders would of never had asked for it.

2. Process Workers must develop their improved processes. As the section leader, he knew a traditional Idea Suggestion program wouldn't work. Controlling the idea flow by forcing the presenter to identify the Waste in advance allowed Value Added Ideas to be presented rather than the traditional gripes of what type of hand soap should be used in the restrooms.

3. Finally, our Process Managers, those attending the course, are key to sustainment. This is part of that culture change where we empower at the lowest level, and ask our process managers to support and defend those process workers. This is no longer "Fire Fighting," but "Fire Prevention." This is tough to swallow for most as Fire Fighters are labeled as true heroes when they save lives and property by putting out fires; more so, then when handing out batteries for the smoke detectors.

It takes these three components working in harmony if you truly want to see sustainment in the development of a CPI Culture.

Has "Big Brass Fever" Infected Your Agency

Recently, I had the privilege of viewing several Air Force presentations that introduced lean six sigma methodologies to senior leaders. The training was developed by the University of Tennessee's, Center for Executive Education. I highly recommend their courses of instruction for any agency moving forward with Lean Six Sigma. I found particularly useful one of the presentations that dealt with the cultural dynamics that can occur between leaders and the layers of personnel ranks beneath them. One topic, "Big Brass Fever," stood out for me the most, as I have seen this in both my military and law enforcement careers.

Here are a few of the symptoms you may have observed in your careers, many times attributable to, "Big Brass Fever."

• Fear of disappointing leader drives to over production
• Simple tasks become gold plated efforts
• Casual question or comment treated as tasking for briefing or action
• Briefings reviewed at multiple levels
• Yes men-ism isolates leader from reality 

 
The course gives a humorous, but true, example of this leadership challenge that you may find all too familiar at your agency.

The Secretary for the Department of Energy was touring a national laboratory’s grounds when a snake crossed her path. She casually asked: “I wonder if there are poisonous snakes here?” Six weeks later she received a report prepared by the lab’s top biologist entitled “Census of Venomous Snake Population”.

One has to wonder how much valuable time and taxpayer dollars were spent on this outbreak of "Big Brass Fever." How much of this goes on at your agency? Better yet, how much of it are you causing?

The above example happens all too often, and usually very innocently, as many leaders never expect people to take the whimsical remarks they say so literally. Sadly enough, there is also the opposite out there among the leadership ranks. Some leaders feel that personnel should jump at every word they say because they have finally earned their stripes, bars, or stars. To me, this is an indication that they have been promoted beyond their ability to lead and are reduced to using positional authority to get things done. A sad, but true condition of, "Big Brass Fever."

The best protocol is to learn to recognize "Big Brass Fever," from both perspectives of the leadership realm; as leader, and subordinate.

As a leader, it is important to remember that everyone is going to do their best to try and please you and to deliver well on what they believe you want. After all, you're the boss. Sometimes even the passing phrase or statement can be misconstrued in a subordinates mind to send them on a mission so full of waste that it halts any real work for days, weeks, or even months. Sometimes the best thing a leader can do is simply listen, and say, "keep up the great work." At least then he or she isn't adding to the workflow with unintended consequences.

As a subordinate, try to remember that your leaders do not want you tied up doing busy work that has no relevancy to the overall mission. This is where employee empowerment and challenging status quo by asking "why" becomes more and more important everyday. Never be intimidated to ask your boss for clarity before going on a wild goose chase. Whether in police work, or the military, lives may count on it one day. Get in the habit of consistently asking your boss, "what actions would you like me to take next?"

The University of Tennessee's presentation gives of few points as well for controlling, "Big Brass Fever" that I also found to be quite helpful.

• Talk about it
• Explicitly state “I don’t want action on this – we’re just considering options”
• Be critical of over production and gold plating
• Imagine the unintended consequences of your requests taken to their ill-logical extremes
• Be clear on your expectations and test for active listening
• Remind your people to stay focused on the top priority and not the side issues
• Make a point of asking for bad news and thanking the individual who delivers it

I will close with one final phrase from the presentation:

"Remember, the stronger you are as a leader, the greater the threat of Big Brass Fever becomes."

Search Amazon.com for it's your ship 

About the Author: William "Billy" Wilkerson is a Police Sergeant with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and 21 Year veteran with the Florida Air National Guard. He is currently assigned to Sheriff's Office Continuous Improvement Division and also supervises the Staff Inspections Unit. The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has been using Lean Six Sigma to streamline many of its processes for the past several years to much success. Billy has also been assisting with the Florida Air National Guard's rollout of their CPI Program (Continuous Process Improvement). Billy can be found on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/billywilkerson or by email at Billy@Leanleaders.org

Airmen...Our Number One Mission

I've seen it over and over again. An airman makes a mistake and then the reprimands begin, "He should know better," says one sergeant. "Put a letter of counseling in his file." says another sergeant. "Let's not recommend him for promotion." says even another sergeant, etc., etc. To me, these are all examples of when root cause analysis should be done. It seems as process improvement professionals, it is easy to get hyperfocused on processes, but in reality, I believe people should be our main focus. If an airman makes a mistake, whose fault is it really? What is the root cause of the airman's mistake? Can we do a five why analysis and determine the root cause? A fishbone diagram perhaps? Perhaps the root cause is a lack of good leadership from their initial onboarding. We often say and hear that our people are our greatest assets. If that is true, and I believe it is, then they should have an entire team of professionals ensuring their individual success. Not unlike an F-15 fighter crew. I can assure you, if something goes wrong with an airplane, the crew works diligently to attack the problem, and get it back ready for flight as soon as possible...they don't blame the plane !Same should be true for our young Airmen. When something goes wrong, supervisors need to ensure they are doing everything possible to help them be successful. Never start off blaming the airman. For example, it should never take two to three months for a new airman to show up on my pay roster after being reassigned from student flight. I should never have an airman come to me and tell me he has not been paid for the last three drills. I should never have an airman tell me that his hotel reservation did not get reserved properly, therefore he has to pay the full rate himself. I think you get the idea. If these recurring issues were happening to our birds we would have serious issues. Fortunately, we treat our planes with high regard, as they are one of our greatest assets; second only to our Airmen! The moral to the story is simple. If we treat our Airmen like our greatest asset, even better than we treat our planes, then we are assured we will maintain air superiority...have you made developing Airmen your number one mission?


About the Author: William "Billy" Wilkerson is a Police Sergeant with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and 21 Year veteran with the Florida Air National Guard. He is currently assigned to Sheriff's Office Continuous Improvement Division and also supervises the Staff Inspections Unit. The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has been using Lean Six Sigma to streamline many of its processes for the past several years to much success. Billy has also been assisting with the Florida Air National Guard's rollout of their CPI Program (Continuous Process Improvement). Billy can be found on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/billywilkerson or by email at Billy@Leanleaders.org

Emotional Intelligence...The Hidden Component of Great Organizations

Daniel Goleman, Author of Emotional Intelligence wrote, "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds."

After my brain quit hurting from reading this, I started to understand what he meant. So, I decided to take the quote and break it down into a leadership perspective. Here goes:

1) "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice" - I was in a meeting not long ago with some very high ranking individuals. In the blink of an eye, a well thought out decision made by a process improvement team was overturned. The high ranking individuals gave little reason. Basicially, they limited their thinking to what they "failed to notice." That a team of highly skilled people already came up with a good solution, which addressed the same concerns that they were citing. I have to wonder, how engaged will this team be once they go back to their normal work environments? How much extended damage did these, "leaders" just do by "failing to notice" someone else's hard work? Certainly, decisions need careful review by leadership. But, careful review and servant leadership models show that dialogue between leadership and the people who do the job should take place before overturning and disempowering a team. Only then will they believe that you care, and trust you as a leader.

2) "And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds." - The "leaders" in part one are not bad people. Nor do I consider them to be poor leaders necessarily. Having worked with them, I have come to understand the constraints on their time. I also understand that law enforcement, by its very nature, is a system known for quick decision making. In several instances, this can be a very good thing, as hesitation can get someone killed.

As the second sentence reads, they simply failed to notice what they failed to notice. Leaders sometimes do not recognize the impact of their decisions on the people that do the work, until long after they have made their decision, if ever. This equates to the beginning of, 'What were they thinking," by line personnel. After that, the shut down starts. Line personnel and middle managers quit offering ideas because they believe, "leadership" doesn't care about what I say anyway. Leadership then starts to believe people need constant guidance since they never offer solutions. Line personnel then start feeling micromanaged and disengage...it goes on and on and on, until you have a culture of followers. This happens until one day, a leader realizes that he "failed to notice" an important factor in his decision...input from the people that do the job. From then on, he becomes the people's advocate.

How much do your leaders,"fail to notice?" What is your organization doing to realign and prevent this from happening in the future? Do you have the courage to tell leaders that they are "failing to notice?" Someone's I can only ...Ponder.

Search Amazon.com for emotional intelligence


About the Author: William "Billy" Wilkerson is a Police Sergeant with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and 21 Year veteran with the Florida Air National Guard. He is currently assigned to Sheriff's Office Continuous Improvement Division and also supervises the Staff Inspections Unit. The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office has been using Lean Six Sigma to streamline many of its processes for the past several years to much success. Billy has also been assisting with the Florida Air National Guard's rollout of their CPI Program (Continuous Process Improvement). Billy can be found on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/billywilkerson or by email at 7388wtw@gmail.com .

Chain of Command and its Effect on Empowering Employees

Lean Six Sigma has special challenges in organizations that have a military styled rank structures. I have personally experienced this as a representive of a law enforcement agency and as a military guardsman. Recently, I have had the good fortune of making the acquaintance or Retired Colonel Billy Asbell, former Director for the Air National Guard's Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century program (AFSO21). AFSO21 is the Air Force program geared towards Lean Six Sigma, and other continuous improvement methodologies used for years in the public sector. For a more detailed breakdown of the AFSO21 program, this link may prove helpful:

https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=140227&lang=en-US

Since getting to get to know Colonel Asbell, I was inclined to draw from his years of experience in the military, coupled with his expertise as Director of the AFSO21 program. He was kind enough to give a response to an email that I sent him regarding rank structure and its effect on empowering employees towards continuous improvement. He graciously allowed me to post that email to this blog. For that I am forever grateful. Leadership such as his is what has made, and continues to make, the United States of America the greatest country in the world. Below are the details of the email, titled:

Chain of Command and its Effect on Empowering Employees

Colonel, as you may know, law enforcement is considered to be "para-military" in that it has a rank structure, consisting of line personnel, Sergeants, Lieutenants, Assistant Chiefs, Chiefs, Directors, etc. I am curious of what someone with your extensive background in CPI could offer as insight as to how the rank structure effects empowerment of the line officers and middle ranks, and how it it relates to CPI. This seems to be a major issue and something that is holding several agencies back from making major leaps forward with its culture change.

Basically, what does an empowered employee look like in a large rank structured organization, how should leaders learn to recognize these traits, and how do we foster that culture to get us out of the "yes man" mentality that the rank structure claims it needs to keep order?

Here is Colonel Asbell's Response:



Billy - you are right - this is a challenge and it takes leadership committment from the top to make it work.

First you have to get leadership - at all levels - to buy off on the idea that "if they had the answer they would just put it in place - if it is a problem obviously then they don't have the answer so they have to support what ever the subject matter experts come up with..." This is hard but it works. I have seen process owners say this but not do it when the decisions are hard - nothing changes. I have seen ones that mean what they say and hold the team resposible if their solutions don't work to fix them so they will and success goes thru the roof. Here is the approach i take.

1 - when the problem is identified sit down the the process owner and write out a charter for process improvement. You can usually tell in the meeting if they really think it is a problem or if someone told them it was a problem. I normally tell them right then - you have to let the subject matter experts fix this because you don't have the answer - you, as the process owner have to tell them that you don't have the answer and that you will try/accept any solution they provide as long as it does not violate safety and/or cost over x amount of dollars. I state - if you can't do this without reservation then we don't need to address the issue now.

2 - when you have that committment then I do some awareness training with the supervisors - since I will use the front line workers to change the process - I want the supervisors to understand what is going to happen and how they need to support it. I like to do the airplane exercise with them (sure Linda taught you that) so they can see how things can be broken. It is fun to add some goofy rules to the exercise so they can see the impact of policy.

3 - on the first day of the project - the process owner and any supervisors should all meet with the team members and empower them - I usually draft out key points for them to say. The main ones are 1) you are the experts 2) you know what works 3) this is broken I can't fix it 4) I need solutions from you 5) I will support your solutions as long as they do not violate safety or cost over x dollars. The last statement should be "I expect you to fix this problem."

4 - if you do an RIE the mid week vector check with the process owner should be positive - you need to brief the process owner on the key changes being discussed PRIOR to the meeting and tell them they CANNOT MAKE ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS - "we can't do that, that is stupid, what are you smoking, etc." All comments should be directed at them being on track or not based on the charter - and discussion of the discussion looks very good.

5 - outbrief - the process owner has to go in with acceptance in mind - they have to say - this looks good - I am behind you getting this done - they should know who the team leader is and turn to them and say - I am holding you accountable for success of this change. It works great when they set a review schedule in the meeting. The process owner needs to say to the team - if your solutions don't work - I want you to continue to work until you fix this - turning back is not an option.

6 - Then there is the follow up - you or whomever is the CPI lead needs to make sure a tracking mechinism is in place so that you leadership champion can hold the process owners accountable for their projects.

Finally, you have to look at the CPI or LSS projects as outside the chain activities - the only command structure is focused on the process owner and up to the champion. Consider it a detail in LEAN terms - these folks have this side detail that reports thru a different chain. It does work.

Hope that helps.

Billy (aka George "Billy" Asbell, Colonel, USAF, Retired)

Colonel Asbell's profile can be found on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/billyasbell

A Tale of Two "Lean" Cities

In August 2009, I had the distinct honor of facilitating a Rapid Improvement Event with the Alaska Air National Guard, 176 WG. Being a guardsman for the past 20 years, I have come to look forward to these short, but very beneficial trips to new places. The Air Force started its Continuous Process Improvement initiative a fews ago, marketed under the acronym "AFSO21" (Air Force Smart Operations for the 21st Century). This trip provided an opportunity for me to use my facilitation skills for the betterment of my country. But, this trip was ever more special to me.

Deputy Chief Steve Smith, Anchorage Alaska Police Department, had previously reached out to my full time employer, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, to inquire about implementing "Lean." Recognizing the once in a lifetime opportunity to introduce another law enforcement agency to "Lean" while serving my country at the same time, I quickly invited Deputy Chief Smith to observe our event at the Alaska Air National Guard. I am happy to say that he accepted the invitation.

Since that time great things have happened. Deputy Chief Smith reached out to the Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Inc (AMEP), and has started a local Lean Consortium, very similar to the Jacksonville Lean Consortium, which the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office is a member.

To read the story in the Jacksonville Lean Consortium's newletter, click here.