Systems Thinking enables us to see the bigger picture and find solutions to problems we may not even know we have! For example, the Nestle

CENTER FOR QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT

JOURNAL

© Copyright 1993,1999 The Center for Quality of Management, Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post to servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Copying is by permission of The Center for Quality of Management, Inc. • One Alewife Center, Suite 450 • Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 USA Telephone: (617) 873-8950 • Email: [email protected] The Center for Quality of Management Authors retain rights for re-publication of their articles.

ISSN: 1072-5296

REPRINT NUMBER:

RP02400

Volume 2, Number 3 Summer 1993

From the Chairman of the Editorial Board Page 2 David Walden

HP’s Quality Maturity System: CEO Roundtable Report Page 3 Thomas E. Abell and Dawn Dougherty Fitzgerald

Applying 7-Steps as a Personal PDCA Method Page 5 Cliff Scott

Systems Archetypes as a Diagnostic Tool: A Field-based Study of TQM Implementations Page 15 Gary Burchill and Daniel H. Kim

Application of Concept Engineering on the Bose Enchilada Project Page 23 Erik Anderson and Jim Sanchez

Summer 1993 5

Cliff Scott

Applying 7-Steps As a Personal PDCA Method

This article describes how I followed the con- tinuous improvement method known as the 7- Steps1 to improve the way I use my time at work. The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process in- cluded (a) collecting data on how my time was spent, (b) using a hypothesis and test model to improve my behavior and (c) establishing a pro- cedure to maintain the improvements. Through this effort I not only improved my effectiveness but also learned how untested assumptions can drive our behavior and keep us from seeing use- ful solutions. I hope this account may serve as a useful model for personal PDCA for others.

I began this effort after participating in Teradyne Corporation’s internal “TQM for Man- agers” course taught by Professor Shoji Shiba.2

This course encouraged participants to apply the 7-Steps as the means of personal improvement. The notion of personally applied PDCA is clearly timely. Robert Galvin, both in an address to The Center for Quality Management’s 1992 Annual Conference3 and in his foreword to Harry Roberts and Bernard Sergesketter’s work4 on the use of personal checklists, challenged managers to take personal responsibility for quality. Galvin espouses this personal responsibility as the means to provide leadership and develop the in- sight needed to change companies profoundly for improved competitive performance. And, of course, Roberts and Sergesketter’s work itself presents a compelling case and method for per- sonally applied continuous improvement. A per- sonal PDCA strategy also fits within the context of the current TQM implementation at my com- pany (Bolt Beranek and Newman). By adopting a plan for personal continuous improvement, I could apply PDCA not just to special projects but to my whole job.

Problem Statement As a corporate staff person in the TQM office, I was responsible for supporting the implementa- tion of 7-Steps throughout the company’s four divisions, for identifying and understanding/de- veloping new TQM methods, and for participat- ing in efforts to improve the TQM implement- ation companywide. But like a lot of people, I

1 A fact-based improvement methodology encompassing (1) selection of a theme (problem); (2) data collection; (3) causal analysis to discover the root cause to confirm and focus the problem; (4) solution planning and implementation; (5) evaluation to confirm the solution works; (6) standardization to implement the solution permanently ; (7) reflection to improve the use of the method itself and select the next problem. 2 By assigning the participants in the course the task of applying 7- Steps personally, Teradyne ensured that each person was exposed to the principles and techniques of continuous improvement and did not wait to accomplish this through a random assignment to an improvement team. In a rapidly changing work environment, this approach more predictably develops the individual’s skills as a learner and problem solver, increasing the likelihood of adding value to the company. 3 Galvin, Robert, “Quality: A Personal Responsibility for Execu- tives,” The Center for Quality Management Journal, Spring 1993. 4 Harry V. Roberts., “Using Personal Checklists to Facilitate Total Quality Management”, Selected Paper No. 73, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.

often wondered where my time went and why there was no time for many important things. I realized that in order to be more effective in helping my company implement TQM, I would have to improve significantly my use of time at work. I would have to follow the hypothesis and test method inherent in PDCA and collect a lot of data about how I spent my time.

Thus, I started out with what seemed a fairly straightforward goal: Discover where there is in- efficiency, remove the inefficiency, and have more time for important work. Like many Qual- ity Improvement Teams using PDCA methodol- ogy, however, I discovered that data collection gave me new insight and an awareness of the complexity of the problem that I hadn’t sus- pected.

Step 1: Theme Selection I gathered initial data indicating that my work fell into eight basic categories of time spent:

1. Learning. By attending a training session or by reading and researching.

2. Facilitation. Preparing and conducting training or facilitating for a QI team of which I am not a member. QI training fo- cuses on teams, organized at the depart- ment level, to improve some local process.

4. Communication. Communicating via e- mail, phonemail, and memos.

5. One-on-one. Consulting or meeting ad hoc to discuss work.

6. QIT. Any improvement work (e.g., analy-

Cliff Scott was responsible for helping with BBN’s company- wide implement- ation of the 7-Steps and TQM in general. He is currently working with the Charter Oak consulting company.

6 Summer 1993

sis or planning) that I am responsible for as a team member, whether in team meet- ings or on my own. This work focused pri- marily on improving the implementation of TQM companywide.

7. Informational meetings. Participating in staff or interest group meetings for status updates.

8. Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA). Working on this personal PDCA project.

9. Administration. Doing office tasks and special projects not accounted for above.

A Pareto graph (figure 1, below) of my time spent over approximately three weeks indicates proportion of time per category of task.

This data represented some important things about my work. The most important things I do fall into two basic areas of endeavor: (1) provid- ing direct service to “customers” (members of my company) and (2) increasing my skills to provide those services. The tasks in the first area consist of facilitating, one-on-one meetings, and my own QIT work, with occasional administra- tive activities. These are the tasks where I add value for my customers by helping them achieve their goals.

The tasks in the second area consist of learn- ing, informational meetings, and PDCA activi- ties. I realized that only one of these primary activities, facilitating, was among the top three time categories shown in figure 1. Even though

Categories of Hours Spent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Facil 21.5 (28%)

Comm 14

(18%)

Learn 10

(13%)

1 / 1 9

(12%)

QIT 8.5

(11%)

Info 5.5 (8%)

PDCA 5

(6%)

Admin 3

(4%)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

P e

rc e

n t

o f

T o

ta l H

o u

rs S

p e

n t

N u

m b

e r

o f

H o

u rs

s p

e n

t

Time Spent by Category 9/10 – 9/30, 76.5 hours total

Figure 1

Summer 1993 7

learning consumed a significant slice of time, I decided not to analyze the learning category, be- cause I felt that it was all germane to work either in facilitating or in my QITs.5

Communicating caught my attention. This was the one category that I did not see as clearly falling into either area of work. Some communi- cating was supportive of direct service and some was related to incidental administrative things (e.g., scheduling). I reasoned that while commu- nicating may be the glue holding other work to- gether, not all communicating may add value. Since I spent approximately 18 percent of my time in communicating, time saved here might allow more time for adding value in the “provid- ing services” category. I decided to track exactly what I was doing in communicating; I began re- cording separately the amount of time I spent on the phone, using e-mail, and writing memos.

After monitoring three more weeks of data, I ran into a dead end. Only 8.2 percent of my time was now spent in all communicating activities, down from the 18 percent average of the previ- ous period. I’m going to call this a kind of self- generated halo effect—that is, just being mindful of possible wasted effort cut down my time spent on the phone and e-mail. It no longer seemed useful to analyze how I spent time communicat- ing. In spite of the percentage improvement, I was saving less than three hours per week. I felt I needed more improvement than this.

I was left frustrated. Where should I turn to find inefficiency and improve my work?

The need to “Jump Up” I knew that I needed to increase time available for providing services to others, but what was the most important way for me spend that time? Un- til now I had not done something quite important and necessary to answering the above question. What I had neglected is what Professor Shoji Shiba refers to as “jumping up”. Jumping up is a matter of going up a level conceptually to exam- ine the context of improvement, asking “what is the purpose of my job” before homing in on a specific area for improvement (known as “se- lecting a theme”). When I jumped up, I saw that my original assumption was that I just needed to improve efficiency by spending more time in the providing services area. But this assumption did not take into account what my customers might want and therefore was not validly addressing the question “what is the purpose of my job?”

I knew that facilitating and one-on-one meet- ings were the places where I was in contact with some of my customers, helping them. I recog-

nized that QIT work was where I worked on con- textual issues of concern to all my customers. I also recognized that the time I spent learning would be quickly “capitalized” as input to these three activities.

I began to examine my customers’ needs, es- sentially asking: “If I discontinued one of the eight activities on the Pareto chart, who would care?” What was immediately apparent was that QIT activity was the one area of my work di- rectly supporting my manager’s concerns. For instance, QIT work took place on teams that my manager participated in, whereas my facilitating a team, or consulting one-on-one in one of the company’s divisions, was not reported to him.

I then analyzed the various elements of my work, using the first three of the 7 Fundamental Questions.6 The two areas about which I gained the most insight were QIT work and facilitating, as indicated by figure 2 (see next page).

I recognized that QIT work and facilitating had the following consequences:

Consequences of QIT work:

• Work here addresses improvement oppor- tunities affecting the whole company’s TQM implementation effort.

• The work has high leverage because of the team membership and the visibility to the CEO—a critical set of customers to my job.

• The research I do for QIT work is on such things as building infrastructure for change rather than on specific tools for fa- cilitating.

Consequences of facilitation work:

• When I facilitate, I not only help indi- vidual teams that are stuck but keep in touch with the realities of applying 7- Steps in the divisions.

• I become more familiar with the applica- tion of the various 7-Steps tools and feel pressured to focus my research on under- standing them.

5 It has since become clear to me that such self-referential assump- tions can divert attention from potentially important data. I did not demonstrate through analysis that my assumption about learning was correct. While this realization came too late for me to act upon it in the course of this effort, it is a very important lesson for me. 6 These are basic questions which, when answered, guide and focus improvement efforts. (1) Who are my customers? (2) What are my products? (3) What are my customers’ needs? (4) What are my customers’ measures and expectations for how I meet those needs? (5) Do my products meet or exceed their needs? (6) What is my process for satisfying their needs? (7) What actions are needed to improve my process?

8 Summer 1993

Fundamental Questions Chart

Figure 2

Figure 3

Time Spent by Category 9/10 – 10/14, 124 hours total

Customer Product Needs VP Corporate Quality, directly

(indirectly, Companywide Quality Committee, CEO)

QIT output: recommendations to improve the TQM implementation, mobilization of improvement teams, and utilization of improvement methods

1. Positive impact upon the whole company's TQM implementation 2. A knowledgeable resource for issues of leadership effectiveness and cultural change

Teams, directly (indirectly, sponsors, team leaders)

Facilitation: help for teams in getting through a step or in using a particular tool

1. A knowledgeable resource about tools 2. Group process skills 3. Knowledge of the team's context

Summer 1993 9

• I am engaging in activity that others are also trained to perform (a redundancy).

• I affect only a small subset of all those implementing TQM.

While I had other insights about other activi- ties on the Pareto, I had come to believe that the highest value-added work I could do was in my QIT efforts.7 Whatever activities consumed a greater percentage of my time than QIT work were candidates for improvement reduction until QIT work became my number one activity. I now turned my attention to collecting data on time spent in facilitating. I reasoned that while facili- tation was not a bad thing, it detracted from higher-leverage work and therefore was a “de- fect” in this context.

Step 2. Data Collection Over the next couple of weeks I continued to col- lect data. Because I had now added a significant number of hours to my data, the Pareto showing the pattern of my time spent became more accu- rate (figure 3, facing page).

My new Pareto graph confirmed a “defect” in the first column: I was spending too much time facilitating teams in the divisions if I wanted to increase the amount of time for QIT efforts. My time spent communicating was drop- ping. Time spent learning had actually risen and was quite high, but this was a temporary result of participation in an activity I knew was not part of my ongoing schedule. In the future I would need to do only enough focused reading and research- ing to prepare for QIT efforts.8

I now felt that if I could implement some be- havioral changes to reduce my involvement in facilitation, I would see increases in the QIT col- umn. My revised problem statement or theme be- came: “Reduce the amount of time spent facilitating by 50 percent by 12/13/92.”

I hoped also to increase time spent in QIT work by 50 percent and to increase my reading/ research activity. I translated my Pareto into some straightforward statistics:

1. Facilitation averaged 6.8 hours/week 2. QIT work averaged 3.0 hours/week

I therefore expected the facilitating to drop to about 3.4 hours and QIT work to rise to about 4.5 hours per week. I also decided to show at least 2 hours per week devoted to reading/research.

Step 3. Causal Analysis I now felt ready to analyze the causes for why I spent too much time facilitating. My first thought was that I would do an Ishikawa cause- and-effect diagram. In the end I decided upon a

7 In retrospect, I might have strengthened my analysis by continuing the 7 Fundamental Questions exercise to show how my customers measured whether I met their needs. This would have provided a clearer confirmation of whether the customers for my QIT work were being satisfied. I did not do this, I think, because the importance of my QIT customers’ needs seemed self-evident and, again, because it was difficult to recognize failures in objectivity when working in an “auto” 7-Steps exercise. 8 I did a little “side analysis” of my reading backlog and found:

12 books dealing with organizational development topics 20 books dealing with TQM 13 articles dealing with TQM 1 TQM course revision recommendation

9 “Stakeholder/Role Mapping”. Edgar Schein, MIT 1992 (unpub- lished)

Relations Diagram to map the various causes (figure 4, below). (Relations Diagrams that focus on roles are also familiar as a technique called role mapping.9) I chose this method because the issue I am exploring is my own behavior and is more about the role I play in the company than about a wide range of possible causes.

The players shown in figure 4 contribute as “senders” to my role. When I asked myself, “why do these senders contribute to my role?”, I determined the following:

Relations Diagram/Role Map

Figure 4

Sponsors of teamsTeam members

Team leaders

TQM/T&D department members

Divisional TQM directors

Senior management

ME Facilitator

Role

= impact created by my assumptions about the real interests/needs of these role senders

= sources (or role senders) of messages supportive of my role as a facilitator

Other facilitators

= overload or uncontrolled source of messages to fulfill facilitator role

O

O

O O

Why do I spend an average of nearly 7 hours/week facilitating?

10 Summer 1993

The TQM office: • Because other members of the work group

model similar behavior by accepting lots of facilitator assignments, – because I respond to this as a perceived norm.

Team Leaders, Team Sponsors and Team Mem- bers:

• Because they call me for help and expect me to be responsive (my assumption), – because they do not recognize their own divisional resources

Divisional TQM Directors10 and Senior Manage- ment:

• Because I need to be very up to speed on how things are going in their division by spending time with their teams (my as- sumption), – because they ask for feedback on some aspect of their implementation efforts.

• And because they expect me to be avail- able to facilitate (my assumption).

Other divisional facilitators: • Because I trained many of them and they

feel I am committed to support them (my assumption).

ME (the major contributor to my role): • Because one of my primary roles, given

the assignment to initiate 7-Steps at BBN over the last 18 months, has been that of a trainer/facilitator and it is difficult to break the mold, – because 7-Steps and how QITs are doing is important at BBN.

• And because I like the process of facilitat- ing, – Because it is important for me to feel that I am making a visible/tangible con- tribution; facilitating accomplishes this.

• And because I operate as if my assump- tions about other role senders’ (specifi- cally the TQM directors’) expectations of me are true.

As I sought to verify the root causes of me as the primary role sender, I determined the following:

• It is true that 7-Step process is important and that I have had a role as a facilitator in its implementation in the past.

• It is also true that I like to facilitate and to feel I am making a contribution in a vis-

ible/tangible way, since these are motivat- ing for me.

• My assumptions about the other role senders’ expectations are testable and are probably the strongest root cause.

Therefore I decided to test my assumptions by interviewing divisional TQM directors. These people have an excellent overview of the 7-Step implementation issues that are common to many of the role senders. I felt they would provide a valid perspective on my assumptions about the expectations of senior managers, facilitators, and team sponsors and leaders.

When I interviewed two key members of this group I learned surprising things. Not only did they not expect me to be knowledgeable about the status of teams in their divisions, they felt that my being responsive to requests to facilitate would deprive their divisions of the opportunity to rely on and strengthen their own resources. These TQM directors felt it would make more sense for me to turn requests for help back to them. They, in turn, would call on me if they felt that the nature of the request was something that would be well served by my involvement. So I verified that what my “role senders” expected of me was not consistent with my assumptions–and at the same time discovered an opportunity to be supportive in a better way.

Step 4: Solution Planning and Implementation To implement a solution, I needed to reverse the primary root cause of my time problem: accept- ing facilitation assignments on the basis of un- tested assumptions. I decided to formulate a new basis for accepting assignments:

Accept only those facilitation requests that come from the divisional TQM directors or se- nior managers, up to a target of 4.5 hours/week average.

That is, from now on I would accept a facili- tation assignment not on the basis of my own as- sumptions but in response to an actual explicit request. Routing the request through the TQM directors also had an impact on other root causes. It helped break the mold of my image as a pri- mary resource for facilitation. It also signaled to other role senders (see figure 4, previous page) that there was a new mechanism for them to get a good response within their own divisions.

10 Divisional TQM directors are line managers who are assigned the role of facilitating divisional senior management’s efforts to implement TQM methods. They hold this role either full time or simultaneous with their line assignment.

Summer 1993 11

Step 5. Evaluation I collected data over four more weeks, encom- passing the same number of hours as my first sample in Step 2 (figure 3, page 8). The data is displayed in a Pareto (figure 5, below).

While I improved relative to my theme (“Re- duce time spent facilitating by 50 percent”), I had not succeeded uniformly in the ancillary im- provements I had targeted: I did not spend much more time reading. Although the time I spent in QIT work exceeded my target, it was eclipsed by administrative work. Ironically, I had failed to predict the amount of time necessary to complete a project that was the bulk of the administrative category. My time spent communicating dropped with no apparent change in my work process. And learning activity as a whole dropped a little because of nonrecurring training in the first data

Time Spent by Category 11/5 – 12/1, 124 hours total

Figure 5

collection period. For a before/after comparison refer to figure

6 (next page), in which I have displayed only the critical categories of time spent for both before and after data sets. It is instructive that my per-

sonal 7-Steps effort helped me achieve a robust enough improvement to exceed the targeted time for QIT work in spite of changing work require- ments.

Step 6. Standardization Based on the success of the pilot period, I deter- mined to maintain my new guideline for accept- ing facilitation assignments. To standardize I needed to communicate the new process to my manager, to my co-workers, and to the divisional TQM directors–the critical players.

I also decided to monitor myself by using a

12 Summer 1993

Figure 6

Run Chart of Time Spent

Figure 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Goal: Facil ≤ 3.4 hours/week avg. (act. = 3.86) Comm ≤ 3.0 hours/week avg. (act.= 2.11) QIT ≥ 4.5 hours/week avg. (act.= 3.9) R/R ≥ 2.0 hours/week avg. (act.= 3.37)

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Hours

beginning week of 2/28/93

QIT

Comm

Facil.

R/R

Weeks

Summer 1993 13

run chart of time spent in facilitating, QIT, read- ing/research (R/R) and communicating to hold the gains. An example of the run chart is shown (figure 7, facing page). I track the time I spend in communication, because just tracking it seems to create the awareness I need to control this activ- ity. I track the time I spend facilitating to ensure that I remain at my target level and that my solu- tion continues to work. I track the time I spend in reading/research, because this is the one area where I am below my goal. I track the time I spend in QIT work because I need to be sure I remain at or above my goal.

Step 7. Reflection I have captured the strengths and weaknesses of this improvement effort below (figure 8).

Some General Observations I have found that working on improving my effi- ciency has been a longer, harder, and less clear- cut process than I expected. Yet I already knew that any problem solving that forces you to get a clear picture of a process (in this case my own way of prioritizing time) inevitably proves hard for the individual or team pursuing improve- ment. So I don’t know why I was surprised.

I have learned that data must be gathered

Reflection on Personal PDCA Strengths/Weaknesses

Step Strengths Weaknesses 1 Used a well-defined and data-driven

method to ensure that I was working on a real problem and seeing the problem as objectively as possible.

Did not jump up to ask what is the purpose of my work as a first step.

Did not determine my products, customers, and their needs until far into data collection.

2 Kept very accurate information. Did not keep records that would allow me to disaggregate information (e.g., what proportion of my time in learning activities was reading/research).

3 Surfaced my assumptions about my role which were powerful drivers and hitherto invisible to me.

Discussed my assumptions about my role with those I identified as “role senders”.

Unloaded “baggage” of wrong assumptions, creating a more realistic foundation for work relationships.

Did not collect any data from my manager to verify my assumptions about how I had crafted my role.

4 Used simple solution that addressed the root cause directly.

5 Tracked equivalent number of hours for before-and-after comparison.

Was unable to compare time spent in reading/research activity though this data was collected in pilot.

6 Came to enjoy the objective view of what I spend my time doing that record- keeping gives me; am not likely to give it up.

Did not make a formal change in how I would proceed with accepting facilitation assignments with all of my customers, only the primary ones.

7 Developed an in-depth case of my personal change effort.

Will work on improving time spent on reading/research as the next turn of personal PDCA wheel.

Took longer than expected documenting this change effort because of lack of a good model format.

Figure 8

painstakingly and studied with as few precon- ceived assumptions as possible. Where there are assumptions, these need to be tested, as I did when I finally began to see that my time spent fa- cilitating was largely determined by my own as- sumptions about my role. Failure to test assumptions may prevent you from understand- ing the data. Thus, I spent three weeks staring at how my hours were spent without understanding what I was looking at.

I had three last thoughts about this improve- ment work. The first is that I will have to con- tinue collecting data about my allocation of time so as to improve it. This was an illumination for me. Perhaps it should have been obvious, but now that I have a clear understanding of how I spend time, I continue to see avenues for im-

proving the way I use it. This will require a dedi- cated effort. The second thought is that the re- flection step is necessary and must be a part of developing any lasting understanding. In my case, only when I write my observations and in- sights down for (or as if for) others to understand does it become clear what I have really experi- enced. This perception is similar to the notion that “in order really to learn a thing, you must teach it”. The last thought is that the value of

14 Summer 1993

analysis and planning for improvement is not that things work out as predicted but that I am more prepared to cope with change and still achieve my most important objective: to spend my time in a way that adds value for my custom- ers.

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Teradyne Corporation for the in- vitation to participate as a fellow CQM member in the very inspiring course that started me down the road of “personal PDCA”. I also want to thank Jeff Mayersohn and Deborah Melone at BBN and Ted Walls at the CQM for helping me make my very subjective experience more reader friendly.

Jo u

rn al

O n

-L in

e

The Center for Quality of Management Journal is a forum for disseminating the experience of organizations learning to implement modern management practices. It seeks to capture experiences and ideas that may be useful to others working to create customer-driven, continuously improving organizations.

The CQM Journal is refereed. However, it is not an academic publication. Experiences and ideas will be published if they seem likely to be useful to others seeking to improve their organizations.

Send to:

The Center for Quality of Management Journal Editorial Department One Alewife Center, Suite 450 Cambridge, MA 02140 Tel. 617-873-8950 Fax 617-873-8980 E-mail: [email protected]

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.