Bert Takes an Intellectual Short Cut and Winds Up Lost.

Solutions require experiments. Ernie wants to eat cookies in bed, but when crumbs become problematic he needs to find a solution.Bert was attempting the management role of problem solver. Bert could see the whole problem as well as the (obvious) solution, but was clearly missing the mark on his problem solving approach.Bert's first problem was allowing Ernie to engage in fundamental attribution error. Fundamental attribution error is when we personify a problem. By focusing on Ernie eating cookies and the crumbs getting in Ernie's pajamas, the solution domain became Ernie himself.The second problem with Bert's approach was that his application of the Socratic method was inconsistent. The structure is fairly simple: continue to ask "Why?" until assumptions are stripped away. So it's great when Bert asks, "What are you doing with those cookies in bed, huh?" But then he starts to lead Ernie through Bert's personal logic trail, and Ernie understands merely what Bert said about this particular application, not the underlying system.Ernie and Bert as well may have taken on Toyota's Five Whys. Bert approaches Ernie with a problem he noticed - as well as a potential solution - but Ernie needs to understand the problem's context and make sure the solution actually addresses the root cause. So when Bert said that Ernie should not eat cookies in bed, then we could have had this progression:Bert: Ernie, I believe we should have an official policy placing a moratorium on all biscuit-style baked goods in sleeping areas.Ernie: Why is that, Bert? (Why One)Bert: Because people aren't getting enough sleep.Ernie: Why is that, Bert? (Why Two)Bert: Because people are getting itchy.Ernie: Why is that, Bert? (Why Three)Bert: Because there are crumbs in their pajamas.Ernie: Why is that, Bert? (Why Four)Bert: Ernie! Can't you see the logic here?Ernie: Just humor me Bert. Taiichi Ohno said, "Ask why five times in every endeavor." I'm just being lean.Bert: (sighs) Okay, because there was crumbs in the sheets.Ernie: Ahh! This makes sense, Bert! Why are there crumbs in the sheets? (Why Five)Bert: BECAUSE YOU'RE EATING COOKIES IN BED!!!! THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU!!!!!Ernie: Yes, this makes sense Bert. But it's not just me. I see there's a system here that when one eats cookies in bed, one gets crumbs first in the sheets, then into their pajamas, and then they itch and can't get to sleep.Bert: Good, now that that's all understood, can we stop eating cookies in bed?Ernie: Are you kidding? Eating cookies in bed is my only perk working here! Perhaps we can all wear wetsuits to bed instead, that should keep the crumbs out.Bert: (sighs again)When we approach any problem, understanding how to frame it and investigate root causes is vital for finding a real solution...or a silly one.This is sixth in a series of Lean Muppet Posts: For a list of Lean Muppet posts and an explanation of why we did this, look here -> Lean Muppets Introduction

On my travels through startups and the corporate world I see small to gross acts of negligence. They usually come in the wrapper of something like, “because that’s our process.” Metrics are gathered for the sake of reports no one acts on. Information is collected to feed otherwise ignored databases. People fill out forms to protect the company from a long-forgotten infraction.Policies and processes we adopt over time are corporate inventory. We have to maintain them, administer them, and be annoyed by them. All these actions are waste.The tricky thing here is that all policies can be defended by “what if” arguments. “We can’t get rid of that policy … what if someone does something bad?”Well, what if someone does something bad? How likely is that to occur?We know for certain that the waste is making the group less effective when subjected to the policy. What is the likelihood of your What If?A gross example of this is airport delay post 9-11. The 9-11 hijackings had nothing to do with airport screening points. They were a systemic breakdown (and a highly improbable one) of the global intelligence network. Yet, the 631,939,829 people who flew in 2010 all were delayed at least one hour by needing to get to the airport early, stand in line, and subject themselves to security policies. At about 40,000 as an average income, this quickly pencils out to about 12.5 billion dollars worth of delay every year. That delay can be easily compounded by the lost time of collaboration that people have endure by leaving the office early.The What Ifs here are obvious. But so are the costs. Are there better ways of dealing with terrorist threats than incurring billions of dollars in passenger delay?Other examples are regular reports that show the progress of various business metrics. One company we visited generated a weekly report of dozens of pages and nearly 100 metrics every week. Not only did report generation take more than a combined 40 hours to produce (an obvious cost), it delayed the very projects it was trying to measure. In the end, the overwhelming number of charts, graphs, and numbers created a culture of managing by the numbers while totally ignoring what was really happening. Managers would comb through the document until they found the metric or two that went in the wrong direction, then they’d come to find out why.More often than not, the why was a normal fluctuation in the number. The conversation was waste, the “analysis” was waste, and the generation was waste. But those receiving the report had become so fixated on it that they couldn’t see beyond it. “What if we didn’t have this report? We’d never know what was going on!”Examine your policies regularly. Make sure that you don’t have policies to create waste. Photo by Anders V

Root Cause Analysis: Lean Muppets Series Post 6

One Day’s Idea is Another Day’s Waste