Leadership of Continuous Improvement (CI) must be a constantly evolving field to meet the cumulative challenges of Leadership 4.0, the retirement of the last of the baby boomer generation, the rise of hybrid working, the difficulties of recruitment into manufacturing, industries where facilities still rely on breakdown maintenance, increasingly competitive market sectors, reducing margins, etc.
Though new leadership models are constantly coming in and out of fashion, when it comes to leadership of continuous improvement it is important to look behind the latest book or trend, deeply reflect on the true roots of CI Leadership and ask yourself “Am I prepared for the challenges of CI leadership in 2024 and beyond?”
In this article that will explore CI leadership to its bedrock that precedes even the Toyota Production System, or TPS, (often credited as the origin of continuous improvement leadership), I will go back to the true father of quality and CI leadership, Dr. W. E. Deming. In fact, Taiichi Ohno, the designer of the TPS, credited W. E. Deming with having a “significant role in the development of the Toyota Production System.”
I will discuss Deming’s 14 Principles for quality and continuous improvement leadership and show, from my experience, how each principle is not only relevant today, but also transformative in preparing for and upgrading current continuous improvement leadership for the challenges leading CI through 2024 and beyond.
10. Eliminate slogans and exhortations: Remove motivational slogans and instead focus on creating systems that encourage intrinsic motivation and pride in work.
j. Gimmicks do not motivate; value and mission statements that are not the lived experience of the workforce are damaging; broken promises destroy trust. Building a motivated workforce takes leadership effort and is the primary day job. Leaders must create systems that work in an environment of respect and recognise that the team may know best. We all know this, so why is it not made a primary focus? Often, it is a case of the ‘squeaky wheel gets the most oil.’ Do not waste your time running around ‘putting out fires.’ Put your effort into creating systems and culture. Make it a priority on your daily Leader Standard Work and then hold yourself accountable. When the systems and culture are working, you will not need slogans or exhortations, neither will you spend the day chasing the next fire.
11. Eliminate numerical quotas: Do away with arbitrary production targets and numerical goals, which can lead to poor quality.
k. I consulted in one company whose sole focus ‘as a production centre’ was producing tons. They were far less concerned that the tons were first quality or would command the highest price. They were actually quite proud of the fact that they had a steady income stream from second quality product. WIP was ten times more than what was required, and they were about to rent extra warehouse space to store even more ‘WIP,’ that was in fact off-quality product for re-work. By adopting a CI culture, I reduced WIP by 40% and increased first pass yield by 15% in just 4 months. Focus had to be good tons and robust systems to sustain the change, not ‘tons at all costs.’
12. Remove barriers to pride in workmanship: Foster a sense of pride and ownership in employees’ work by allowing them to take pride in their contributions.
l. The primary role of any leader in a CI culture must be to set the vison and remove the barriers. Your people cannot have pride in their work if they are constantly hindered and frustrated by physical and metaphorical barriers. So how do you find out what the barriers are? There are many extremely useful statistical tools, but why not start by simply asking your teams what you can do to improve their day? They will be quite candid if you are courageous enough to ask the question, and many will even offer solutions just for being considered able to offer a solution. What you as the leader must reflect on after listening to their comments is to ask yourself, “Am I a barrier?” If you are a barrier, then you have a positive data point for your own CI.
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement: Encourage employees to continuously learn and develop their skills.
m. Invest in your people. In one plant where I was the quality leader, the teams wanted to do something for charity and to get to know each other outside of work, so the business decided to support a local food pantry. There was a cost, as the business paid the hourly rate when they were at the pantry as if they were at work. However, the forward-looking GM saw the value in building morale, team spirit and giving people the time to just get to know each other. The pay-off was that the teams brought these relationships back to the factory and new dialogue and opportunities were found that were not expected at the start of the scheme. Meet the point of need for all your people and look for the opportunities – not the disadvantages.
14. Put everyone in the company to work to accomplish the transformation: Quality improvement should involve all employees at every level of the organization, not just a select few.
n. In the recently published Project7 Consultancy book, ‘Tomorrow’s OpEx Today,’ (2023) we specifically address the issue that continuous improvement is not just the responsibility of quality, maintenance, and operations, but that the tools of CI – and more importantly, the culture that sustains CI – must have input from all departments HR, Suppliers, Purchasing, Logistics, Finance, Customers, etc. I have seen that when CI is implemented in each of these areas, the business benefits through a common vision and from speaking a common language. Everyone in CI leadership must as a priority look for opportunities in each department to show quick wins and move CI culture forward.
CI Leadership – Conclusion
Deming’s 14 principles have been influential in the field of quality management and continuous improvement since the 1950s. They have been adopted by many organizations worldwide as a framework for achieving continuous improvement. Importantly, these principles are as key to business success today as they were 70 years ago, and they will continue to maximise the potential of business going forward. Key to this success is how CI is led and how that leadership builds an attitude and culture of continuous improvement, and it is not just about the tools and techniques – it is just as much about all your people. Driving CI is about People + Processes to provide Performance, and neither on its own will change or sustain business. Deming knew this 70+ years ago and I advocate that as leadership fashions come and go, we hold fast to his principles to drive and sustain continuous improvement.
Bibliography
Deming, W. E., (1993) The New Economics For Industry, Government, Education. MIT CAES. Cambridge.
Kenneson-Adams, A., (2023) Tomorrow’s OpEx Today. Project7 Consultancy.
Book Review – A Practical Guide to Creating Operational Excellence and High-Performance Teams
In this latest book from ‘The Project7 Consultancy,’ Dr Kenneson-Adams provides the simplified OpEx tools and practical experience to give the reader all they need to begin to implement a robust lean manufacturing stratergy with high-performance teams and authentic transformational leadership.
Kenneson-Adams uses his 40 years’ experience in implementing high-performance teams to provide a well sign-posted journey to Operational Excellence, whilst making sure the reader knows how to sustain the changes as part of an integrated ‘People + Process = Performance’ continuous-improvement journey.
Its balanced analysis, practical insights and accessible writing style make this an invaluable addition to the library of any professional engaged in the field of operational excellence and continuous improvement.
If you are not sure how to begin your journey to operational excellence or need a mentor through design and implementation? This no-nonsense volume will be the teacher and coach that you need.
Dr. Anthony Kenneson-Adams had a 30-year career in the Royal Air Force, becoming a Senior Engineering Officer, Project Manager and Engineering Authority responsible for multiple fast jets and large-body aircraft in peace and war operations. On retiring from the Royal Air Force, he became a Corporate Operational Excellence Consultant in the Paper Manufacturing and Packaging Industries and is now the Head of Learning and Knowledge Transfer for the international Project 7 Consultancy. You can contact Anthony at www.project7consultancy.com or [email protected]
As many of us strive to improve the reliability of our plants, several comments bemoan how challenging that is to do in an era of continuous deep cost cutting. They say that in their operation, maintenance is seen as a cost, and is one of the first things to arbitrarily cut. Some think their operations have cut too far! What they seek is a way to justify a strong maintenance capability. I submit that one approach is to speak of maintenance as an “investment in capacity.” Use the language that plant managers, controllers and senior management understands: capital investment and return on investment (ROI).
As many of us strive to improve the reliability of our plants, several comments bemoan how challenging that is to do in an era of continuous deep cost cutting. They say that in their operation, maintenance is seen as a cost, and is one of the first things to arbitrarily cut. Some think their operations have cut too far! What they seek is a way to justify a strong maintenance capability. I submit that one approach is to speak of maintenance as an “investment in capacity.” Use the language that plant managers, controllers and senior management understands: capital investment and return on investment (ROI).
With today's limited internal resources, it's tough to transform machine maintenance from reactionary to preventive, and ultimately proactive, despite the obvious upsides in higher overall equipment efficiency (OEE), better process control and lower total cost. Outsourcing this requirement to a third-party specialist, however, is a cost-effective alternative, according to companies that have crunched the numbers.
With today's limited internal resources, it's tough to transform machine maintenance from reactionary to preventive, and ultimately proactive, despite the obvious upsides in higher overall equipment efficiency (OEE), better process control and lower total cost. Outsourcing this requirement to a third-party specialist, however, is a cost-effective alternative, according to companies that have crunched the numbers.
Results-oriented organizations focus first on the quality and volume of production throughput, followed closely by the cost to produce the required quality and volume. This approach will improve reliability performance, which will drive manufacturing costs down.
Results-oriented organizations focus first on the quality and volume of production throughput, followed closely by the cost to produce the required quality and volume. This approach will improve reliability performance, which will drive manufacturing costs down.
The concept of Best Practice is easy to describe and discuss – the more difficult part is determining your path towards reliability and maintenance Best Practice and more importantly, sustaining standards and developing a continuous improvement culture.
The concept of Best Practice is easy to describe and discuss – the more difficult part is determining your path towards reliability and maintenance Best Practice and more importantly, sustaining standards and developing a continuous improvement culture.
Regardless of the nature of the manufacturing process you maintain, the subject of your maintenance budget has doubtless come up in recent days—probably over and over. That's because most organizations still view the maintenance department as a cost center, and when it's difficult to locate the bottom line, senior managers have a tendency to look behind the maintenance budget to find it.
Regardless of the nature of the manufacturing process you maintain, the subject of your maintenance budget has doubtless come up in recent days—probably over and over. That's because most organizations still view the maintenance department as a cost center, and when it's difficult to locate the bottom line, senior managers have a tendency to look behind the maintenance budget to find it.
Whether your company is large or small, whether you're hiring an entry-level employee or a top executive, any one of the following mistakes can result in a hiring disaster for your organization. Recent Kennedy Information audio conference speaker Lori Davila and her co-author Louise Kursmark offer 10 key points for reviewing your organization's hiring procedures and making adjustments where needed.
Whether your company is large or small, whether you're hiring an entry-level employee or a top executive, any one of the following mistakes can result in a hiring disaster for your organization. Recent Kennedy Information audio conference speaker Lori Davila and her co-author Louise Kursmark offer 10 key points for reviewing your organization's hiring procedures and making adjustments where needed.
You can develop, document, and preach your improvement plans as much as you want, but if those plans do not result in better front line maintenance performance, you have just wasted money and time. Maintenance managers cannot produce expected results without the help of others, especially the frontline. Those organizations that have experimented with autonomous teams lacking front line leadership often fail to deliver sustainable results. If you believe this statement is wrong, I am very interested in hearing back from you.
You can develop, document, and preach your improvement plans as much as you want, but if those plans do not result in better front line maintenance performance, you have just wasted money and time. Maintenance managers cannot produce expected results without the help of others, especially the frontline. Those organizations that have experimented with autonomous teams lacking front line leadership often fail to deliver sustainable results. If you believe this statement is wrong, I am very interested in hearing back from you.
The component importance measure is an index of how much or how little an individual component contributes to the overall system reliability. It is useful to obtain the reliability importance measure or value of each component in the system prior to investing resources toward improving specific components. This is done to determine where to focus resources in order to achieve the most benefit from the improvement effort.
The component importance measure is an index of how much or how little an individual component contributes to the overall system reliability. It is useful to obtain the reliability importance measure or value of each component in the system prior to investing resources toward improving specific components. This is done to determine where to focus resources in order to achieve the most benefit from the improvement effort.
I routinely ask my consulting clients and seminar students if they have lube procedures, and they sheepishly admit that they don't. They often look embarrassed to have to admit it, but I believe these folks represent the cream of the crop. If they are attending classes on lubrication, or are having their program audited, they must have good intentions.
I routinely ask my consulting clients and seminar students if they have lube procedures, and they sheepishly admit that they don't. They often look embarrassed to have to admit it, but I believe these folks represent the cream of the crop. If they are attending classes on lubrication, or are having their program audited, they must have good intentions.
Regardless of the approach taken to measure true dynamic movement, coupled machines need to be set to cold alignment targets that will reflect the actual changes in the shaft alignment. This will lead to lower vibration levels, increased Mean Time Between Failures, decreased maintenance expenditures and increases in production. Much like the philosophical change from aligning shafts with dial indicators to aligning shafts with laser based systems, these types of measurements will take some time to be generally accepted and routinely practiced.
Regardless of the approach taken to measure true dynamic movement, coupled machines need to be set to cold alignment targets that will reflect the actual changes in the shaft alignment. This will lead to lower vibration levels, increased Mean Time Between Failures, decreased maintenance expenditures and increases in production. Much like the philosophical change from aligning shafts with dial indicators to aligning shafts with laser based systems, these types of measurements will take some time to be generally accepted and routinely practiced.
The business process is most commonly named Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) or root cause analysis. The name itself implies the largest and most expensive problem when implementing problem solving in an organization. The results wanted from the process are to eliminate the problem, not to analyze the failure. To convey the desired result to the organization, the name should therefore be changed to Root Cause Problem Elimination (RCPE).
The business process is most commonly named Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) or root cause analysis. The name itself implies the largest and most expensive problem when implementing problem solving in an organization. The results wanted from the process are to eliminate the problem, not to analyze the failure. To convey the desired result to the organization, the name should therefore be changed to Root Cause Problem Elimination (RCPE).
The more I delve into this subject, the more I discover the pronounced impact lubrication has on energy and the environment. A case in point is the impact of clean oil on fuel consumption and emission in engines. There are many ways that a lubricant could fail to deliver fuel-efficient engine performance. Many of these are due to formulation issues as opposed to transient properties of the lubricant in service.
The more I delve into this subject, the more I discover the pronounced impact lubrication has on energy and the environment. A case in point is the impact of clean oil on fuel consumption and emission in engines. There are many ways that a lubricant could fail to deliver fuel-efficient engine performance. Many of these are due to formulation issues as opposed to transient properties of the lubricant in service.
The "breakthrough strategy" really works. Equipment becomes more reliable, costs go down, and behaviors change along the way. The key is focusing on results-the kind of results that will get people's attention on the plant floor as well as in the key decision makers' offices. Select the equipment that, if it ran better and was more reliable, would generate sizeable savings. But more importantly, choose equipment that would generate more throughput and revenue.
The "breakthrough strategy" really works. Equipment becomes more reliable, costs go down, and behaviors change along the way. The key is focusing on results-the kind of results that will get people's attention on the plant floor as well as in the key decision makers' offices. Select the equipment that, if it ran better and was more reliable, would generate sizeable savings. But more importantly, choose equipment that would generate more throughput and revenue.
From my experience, it is more common than not to find that the working relationship between operations and maintenance is one of adversity instead of a relationship of close and productive cooperation. Operations often sees itself as the customer of maintenance, and, consequently, maintenance is viewed as a service provider. In such a relationship, it should be obvious that operations is responsible for the cost of the maintenance work it requests and gets delivered. However, in a bad relationship, this is not the case.
From my experience, it is more common than not to find that the working relationship between operations and maintenance is one of adversity instead of a relationship of close and productive cooperation. Operations often sees itself as the customer of maintenance, and, consequently, maintenance is viewed as a service provider. In such a relationship, it should be obvious that operations is responsible for the cost of the maintenance work it requests and gets delivered. However, in a bad relationship, this is not the case.
Over the years, our quest for lower production costs through technology has drastically changed the role the operator in our mills. Once an operator spent the majority of his day “on the floor.” This provided a hands-on knowledge of how equipment worked and what are the signs of it starting to fail. In today’s world, most operators are running the mill via computer-controlled systems.
Over the years, our quest for lower production costs through technology has drastically changed the role the operator in our mills. Once an operator spent the majority of his day “on the floor.” This provided a hands-on knowledge of how equipment worked and what are the signs of it starting to fail. In today’s world, most operators are running the mill via computer-controlled systems.
