Improving People and Processes

Improving People and Processes: Lean-Agile, Systems Thinking, and the System of Profound Knowledge

by Masa K. Maeda, Senior Consultant, Cutter Consortium

Click here for the full executive summary

Click here for the full executive report 

Organizations deal with pressure on a daily basis. Executive and managerial pressure frequently comes in the form of on-time delivery, cost cuts, and scope coverage; customer pressure usually comes in the form of feature requests and better quality; employee pressure continually asks for more time to finish tasks, fewer work hours, and better guidance.
Some organizations consider those kinds of pressures to be part of the daily corporate life and end up just bearing with them. Most of those organizations eventually collapse because lack of improvement puts them further behind over time. Other organizations take a proactive approach to better the organization. Some of those actions could be localized to focusing on ailing areas or could be of global scope and higher impact, such as replacing the organization's governance standard or model or adopting one if the organization didn't come with it already. Or it might mean replacing entire teams or migrating entire operations to other countries. In the accompanying Executive Report, I present, in detail, a better means to improve your organization through the improvement of people and processes, taking into account excellence, quality, and value through the application of lean-agile thinking, systems thinking, and the system of profound knowledge (SOPK).

The term "improving the whole" is not an if-you-only-have-a-hammer approach but rather the acknowledgement that we can acquire a way of thinking that broadens our perspective to look at our organization, processes, and people. It allows us to understand the kind of tools we need to continually better them.

Analytical thinking focuses on knowledge of the parts, properties, and behaviors of an object. Systems thinking focuses on the understanding of the properties and behaviors of an object, its parts, and the system under which it operates. This means that analytical thinking takes us levels inward with respect to the object, whereas systems thinking takes us levels outward with respect to the object because explanations always lie outside and not inside the system being studied. Systems thinking is very effective in solving even very difficult challenges and problems because the understanding acquired makes it easier to determine the root cause or causes of issues we encounter.
The SOPK is a management framework that has four parts: (1) willingness to change the management style, (2) transforming the individual, (3) fully applying its principles to all interaction with other people and decision making, and (4) transforming the organization.

Ponencia y taller en la Semana de la Cultura Laboral en Tlaxcala

Tuve el honor de ser invitado a dar la Presentación Magistral de Clausura de la Semana de la Cultura Laboral que se llevo a cabo en Tlaxcala, así como de dar un taller sobre Innovación de Valor el día 13 de Abril de 2011. Ambas tuvieron lugar en el auditorio del IMSS.


La presentación la atendió un auditorio lleno (con alrededor de 30 gentes de pie en los pasillos) consitente de industriales y oficiales de gobiernos de la region; maestros de enseñanza media y superior; y estudiantes de esos mismos niveles. El tema titulado "Entregando mayor valor a cliente y a la empresa mediante un enfoque moderno de calidad" lo presente bajo colaboración con la UNAM y con Esprial (empresa Española). La audiencia lo recibió con entusiasmo y parece ser que si logré tener impacto con toda la audiencia a pesar del reto que confronté debido a su diversidad. El tema incluyó innovación de valor, lean-agile, y Kanban.

Después de la ceremonia oficial de clausura se llevó a cabo el taller titulado "Mejorando la calidad mediante innovación colaborativa". La efectuamos el Mtro. Jorge Polo Contreras, el Mtro. Luis A. Nava, y yo. Efectuamos varias dinámicas para demostrar:

• El beneficio de trabajar en equipo
• El beneficio de la diversidad para llevar a cabo proyectos de manera mas exitosa
• El beneficio de limitar el monto de trabajo en progreso
• Las desventajas de efectuar múltiples tareas simultaneamente
• La importancia de darle el valor adecuado al factor humano para el éxito de la realización de productos y de la prestación de servicios.
• La ventaja de combinar pensamiento innovador con un ambiente que fomenta innovación y el contar con herramientas innovadoras que facilitan innovación.

Playing increases productivity.

Last year I volunteered to translate David J. Anderson's book on Kanban into Spanish. Translating a book was a first for me and I had no idea what I've gotten myself into. Don't get me wrong, the book in itself is great and Kanban is an important part of my business. But translating a book is much  harder than I ever imagined.


Once the translation was finished the index needed to be created and that task was to be done by sometime else mainly because were couldn't find a tool able to easily generate it. Long story short getting the index done started longer than the translation itself because we couldn't find sometime to do it and it became clear that getting it done would end up being costly.


It occurred to me that maybe we could get a highly motivated student to do it well at a lower cost. I offered a high school student a third of the amount a professional would charge, which to him was to be the highest paying gig he had ever had, and I considered that to be enough of a motivator.


Taking advantage of a week- long school break we estimated the task would taking almost the entire week working full time. That became a turn off top the student who was looking forward to having some fun least pat of the time, but the money ease too good to pass. And so he began working on it at my office. I was keeping an eye on him and my main concern was the qualify of the work and likelihood of requiring longer time.


A couple of hours later I noticed  him doing things extremely quick. I went to his desk to check upon his progress and saw that not only everything was being done as expected but he was blasting away! I asked him how he was doing and he said "I am pretending this is one of my video games and figured out a strategy to do this with the minimum eye and keyboard movements." This was awesome! Although money was a good extrinsic motivator, he had found his own intrinsic motivator... to win the game.


He got done in just a day and a half. Upon reviewing the work done I noticed the need to do some time- consuming changes to improve the index and asked him to do a second pass, which he finished in less than one day. He was able to spend over half of the week having fun with his friends and having pocketed some good money, which he added to his savings to buy a semi- professional video camera.


Reading the Wired magazine this morning while enjoying a hot mocha I read an article about how the UK' s Guardian newspaper had the daunting task of analyzing 170,000 pages of bonus expenses and how reporters were, understandably, reluctant to do that. They then turned the task into a hammer and made it public. The result, over 2,000 people played it and the task got done in less than
four days.


One of the three core aspects of value innovation is to have an innovation fostering environment and the more work we do in the form of games is a great way to achieve that.

Perspiration, innovation, and success.

On a day like today, 164 years ago (Feb 11, 1847), Thomas Alva Edison was born. Most people know about Edisson as the inventor of the light bulb and the phonograph, and that he invented a bunch of other things (but have little to no idea what those other inventions are). He held a recortd 1093 patents! According to the Wikipedia, Edisson had only three months of official schooling--he dropped out amongst other things because he was considered "addled".

Edisson is also credited to have said "Invention is 1 percent genius and 99 percent perspiration"--he might have had quite a metabolism. But really, what made him do so much was a combination of high energy, a curious mind, and an amazing skill for making associations. Figuring out new, different ways to put seemingly unrelated things together and coming up with new applications to things that already existed or that he had invented were the skills allowed him to do so much. Just look at his inventions and you will see that most of them were incremental inventions; an invention was built from the results of a previous one. But that wasn't all, he was a great businessman and created an industry to support him, so the 99 percent perspiration was done mostly by all the workers he had at his factories and laboratories. A good number of the inventions and patents weren't a result of his ideas but rather the result of the collaboration with some of those workers; and some key ideas were actually from those people and not from Edisson himself.

Edisson's Menlo Park, NJ laboratory

Long before lean manufacturing and before Frederick Taylor, Edisson was pioneering mass production; most likely influenced by the raise of the Industrial Revolution and the works of Eli Whitney Jr., who make key inventions on machinery to automate some processes for the textile an milling industry.

Edison had an amazing insight on the importance to balance value to customer and value to the Enterprise to have a successful business. He also understood the importance of collaboration as a means to accelerate innovation. The conversations held with his most important workers and seriously consideration and analysis of what they proposed led to most of "his" inventions.

Today's organizations have fallen behind. They make employees work isolated inside cubicles and "teamwork" is rally a buch of people working by themselves on separate pieces of a product. Communication between groups in the organization is limited to orders and FYI's mostly. The groups building products have no direct, or very little, contact with customers or end users. The enterprise's priority is to make profit and not to satisfy users. As we try to turn things around applying Value Innovation, Lean-Agile, and Kanban we often confront strong resistance to change.  It seems some executives are so afraid of failure that they lost track of the fact that to move ahead of the competition and to succeed it is important to move away from the beaten path and do something new and different; and that to do so we have to be willing to invest and perspire,

A case of Lean-Agile Kanban adoption with value innovation

I did Lean-Agile Kanban adoption with Value Innovation at a 90-people organization back in mid September. Around 60 people where at the headquarters and the other 30 at a neighboring city just a 1.5 hour drive away. The training was given at the headquarters with the away team receiving instruction remotely taking advantage of the remote-training infrastructure they themselves developed. I myself didn't feel very comfortable with the remote training because my training technique includes doing games and, believe me, conducting team games for training purposes remotely is not for the faint of heart. Even more so when you also have a group to teach in person.

Coaching followed the training. The local group was difficult to train and coach because they allowed themselves to be distracted and continuously left the room to attend work related matters, even against my strong recommendation to focus entirely on the training by pretending they were doing this out in San Francisco instead of at their offices farther south. To make matters worse, the coaching wasn't done at their work area but at a training room with mixed teams. As result the employees and leaders treated the coaching as if it wasn't part of their every-day activities and the results weren't carried to their actual work. And then, there was lots of politics going on such that the leaders were more focused on how to position themselves to get a higher position in the coming elections than on getting the job done.

The remote group, on the other hand, was less preoccupied with political capital and more concerned with operations. When I got to their offices to do the coaching I was concerned with how effective it could be given how limited the success of the remote training was. The group was somewhat disfunctional. It became clear to me that they were segregated. Teams did not communicate or collaborate well. Leaders and individual contributors did not communicate well. It was a typical command-and-control environment. They continuously struggled to get projects finished and had a long list of pending projects.

Instead of going straight to the Kanban face-to-face training I started by conducting exercises to remove the communication and collaboration impediments. Fist, I conducted some NLP exercises to get them to mix and talk to each other at same level (no hierarchies or roles). Then I got them to create a snapshot of the organization using innovation games. By then they were already communicating much better. Next activity was to crate a value-stream map of their core process and by the time they were done the director told me this was the first time in the history of the organization that everybody knew the entire process in detail, him included. I proceeded to solidify lean-agile thnking some more. The following day we talked about Value Innovation and then worked on learning Kanban.

I followed up via email with the teams. The teams at headquarters didn't carry on any activities but the other group did put effort on the adoption, not without struggle, but keeping in close communicaton with me they managed to get Kanban implemented. I visited them last week and was no less than astonished by the amazing implementations they have made. They started with one Kanban board to get all in synch and then implemented custom team Kanban boards that were in agreement with the common board to communicate efficiently. One team actually had two team boards and each team member had his own board in perfect synchronicity without any extra effort. The team they interacted with had its own two boards also in agreement with the other team's main board. It was a mastery of coordination. They asked me some fine tuning questions.

There was one team whose manager deviated from Kanban, not on purpose, in an effort to be original and creative. Nor surprising, this team was struggling to get things done smoothly. I gave my opinions and recommendations to the team, and then talked to the manager in private to help him realize the creativity has to go towards adding value rather than over thinking a Kanban design and letting the Kanban board evolve naturally. We spent the rest of the day digging into the activities around the Kanban board: the meeting, analysis, discussion, decision-making, and execution.

A director from headquarters had joined me on this visit upon instructions from the CEO, who had considered making a dedicated effort to bring Kanban to the most progressive team at headquarters after I reported to him the progress at the remote location. The director was so impressed that on the way back to headquarters discussed with me a strategy to make the adoption at the entire headquarters instead of just one team. :-)

Rapid Maturity on sight

I did Lean-Agile Kanban adoption with Value Innovation at a 90-people organization back in mid September. Around 60 people where at the headquarters and the other 30 at a neighboring city just a 1.5 hour drive away. The training was given at the headquarters with the away team receiving instruction remotely taking advantage of the remote-training infrastructure they themselves developed. I myself didn't feel very comfortable with the remote training because my training technique includes doing games and, believe me, conducting team games for training purposes remotely is not for the faint of heart. Even more so when you also have a group to teach in person.

Coaching followed the training. The local group was difficult to train and coach because they allowed themselves to be distracted and continuously left the room to attend work related matters, even against my strong recommendation to focus entirely on the training by pretending they were doing this out in San Francisco instead of at their offices farther south. To make matters worse, the coaching wasn't done at their work area but at a training room with mixed teams. As result the employees and leaders treated the coaching as if it wasn't part of their every-day activities and the results weren't carried to their actual work. And then, there was lots of politics going on such that the leaders were more focused on how to position themselves to get a higher position in the coming elections than on getting the job done.

The remote group, on the other hand, was less preoccupied with political capital and more concerned with operations. When I got to their offices to do the coaching I was concerned with how effective it could be given how limited the success of the remote training was. The group was somewhat disfunctional. It became clear to me that they were segregated. Teams did not communicate or collaborate well. Leaders and individual contributors did not communicate well. It was a typical command-and-control environment. They continuously struggled to get projects finished and had a long list of pending projects.

Instead of going straight to the Kanban face-to-face training I started by conducting exercises to remove the communication and collaboration impediments. Fist, I conducted some NLP exercises to get them to mix and talk to each other at same level (no hierarchies or roles). Then I got them to create a snapshot of the organization using innovation games. By then they were already communicating much better. Next activity was to crate a value-stream map of their core process and by the time they were done the director told me this was the first time in the history of the organization that everybody knew the entire process in detail, him included. I proceeded to solidify lean-agile thnking some more. The following day we talked about Value Innovation and then worked on learning Kanban.

I followed up via email with the teams. The teams at headquarters didn't carry on any activities but the other group did put effort on the adoption, not without struggle, but keeping in close communicaton with me they managed to get Kanban implemented. I visited them last week and was no less than astonished by the amazing implementations they have made. They started with one Kanban board to get all in synch and then implemented custom team Kanban boards that were in agreement with the common board to communicate efficiently. One team actually had two team boards and each team member had his own board in perfect synchronicity without any extra effort. The team they interacted with had its own two boards also in agreement with the other team's main board. It was a mastery of coordination. They asked me some fine tuning questions.

There was one team whose manager deviated from Kanban, not on purpose, in an effort to be original and creative. Nor surprising, this team was struggling to get things done smoothly. I gave my opinions and recommendations to the team, and then talked to the manager in private to help him realize the creativity has to go towards adding value rather than over thinking a Kanban design and letting the Kanban board evolve naturally. We spent the rest of the day digging into the activities around the Kanban board: the meeting, analysis, discussion, decision-making, and execution.

A director from headquarters had joined me on this visit upon instructions from the CEO, who had considered making a dedicated effort to bring Kanban to the most progressive team at headquarters after I reported to him the progress at the remote location. The director was so impressed that on the way back to headquarters discussed with me a strategy to make the adoption at the entire headquarters instead of just one team. :-)