Improve your process with these two questions

In “The Leader’s Handbook,” Peter Scholtes suggests asking internal and external customers two questions:

What are you getting that you don’t need?

What do you need that you aren’t getting?

Several years ago, I asked similar questions of team members on an e-learning project that I managed. One of the things that the team clearly did not want was a detailed work breakdown report. Instead, they wanted an individualized report that indicated how much time each team member was allowed for each task in the upcoming week. As a result, I quit wasting time on reports that were not being read, and instead focused on a more useful tool that helped the team budget time spent on their tasks.

Try it yourself. Pick any ID or other process you are working on this week or, better yet, today! Now figure out who the customer is. Customers can be the team member that you hand your part of the process off to (such as when you hand a storyboard off to a programmer) or the final users of the product. They might be your manager, or your direct report. Whoever it is, ask them Sholtes’ two questions.

If you ask sincerely, you may be surprised at just how readily an answer comes. The hard part is to actually do something about it.

 

 

Rapid e-Learning Challenge: Day 3

Since my introduction to lean management began over the past year, I have come to realize how dreadfully lacking in documented standards and procedures most training and e-learning groups are (and most all administrative functions!). I’m trying to change that for my immediate work environment by establishing not just some best practices around e-learning, but also baseline processes and a structure for kaizen (continuous improvement). I have a lot of learning (and unlearning) to do.

In his book “Workplace Managment,” Taiichi Ohno, co-founder of the Toyota Production System, wrote: “…it will be difficult to establish a standard if you are trying to achieve ‘the best way.’ This is a big mistake. Document exactly what you are doing now.”

It’s easy to state the ideal way, the way it is “supposed” to be done, and call that “our process.” Think ADDIE, fellow designers. But the reality is we don’t always follow it. We usually add all sorts of other non-value-added steps. Or we do the steps out of order, which causes another kind of waste. By following the TPS way, we instead start with listing the actual steps. Then we can more accurately observe waste and work toward improvement.

My storyboarding process was supposed to look something like this:

1. Storyboard each screen on a slide in PPT
2. Find graphics
3. Develop screens

Instead, it looked more like this:

1. Storyboard a few screens
2. Look for cool graphics on-line
3. Put cool graphics on screen to see how they look
4. Change graphic to gray scale and see if it looks better
5. Storyboard another screen
6. Etc.

Can you see the extra steps there? These out-of-order, extra steps add to the time line and the cost. If I had been doing this for a client on a fixed fee basis, it would have reduced my profit margin. And if I were charging per-hour, I should be asking, “Is the customer willing to pay for this?” But that’s another post. 

 

 

Genchi Genbutsu for Instructional Designers

Genchi genbutsu is a key concept in the Toyota Production System and means “go and see for yourself.”  The idea is that instead of simply reading a report about a problem or talking about it in a conference room, you should actually go to the place where the problem is occurring and observe the situation for yourself. Practicing genchi genbutsu is the best way to truly understand a problem. 

A No-Brainer for Instructional Designers?  Well, I’m not so sure. A lot of times, we first hear about performance problems in a meeting of some sort, or perhaps by reading a proposal or report that describes why a particular training solution is necessary. Once the project starts, we might review existing training or other documentation, and maybe conduct a few expert interviews. In other words, we pretty much rely on other people describing the problem. Then we design training to “fix” the problem, although we are really quite removed from it.  Sound familiar?

Well, in lean thinking, that’s not kosher. Problem-solvers are encouraged to go to the gemba, the Japanese word for “actual place.” What if instructional designers practiced genchi genbutsu as a routine part of doing our work. Instead of just taking the word of client stakeholders and company data, we need to go to the gemba and observe the situation ourselves. This will result in better and more authentic training.

Several years ago, I was involved with developing e-learning on kitchen safety for a retail restaurant client. The instructional design team relied on company documentation and SME interviews. But it would have been better to actually go and watch a typical kitchen where the reported problems were occurring. It would have been even better to go and do the same job in the same location.

This doesn’t mean we have to do a bunch of research to validate previous research. The point is that by directly observing, you learn in a holistic way than by learning about a problem second hand. Sometimes you don’t even have to open your mouth. Just open your eyes and look.

• Designing a customer service skills course for call center employees? Go to the call center: watch them at work and listen in on their calls.
• Wondering how to improve machine worker skills? Don’t rely on a manager’s report. Go to the shop floor and watch. 

 

Here’s the bottom line for workplace learning folks: Practicing genchi genbutsu will not only help you garner keener insights, it will also help you connect to your end users (the real customer) at their level, in their language. In turn, you will develop more relevant and effective training.

Lean Thinking and Instructional Design

Several months ago I took a 40 hour workshop on leading continuous improvement and problem-solving efforts. The workshop was heavily influenced by lean thinking in general and the Toyota Production Process (TPS) in particular. I learned about lean concepts and tools such as one-piece flow, visual control (5S), leveling, and muda (waste).  The concepts I learned about and the hands-on, scientific approach to every day problem-solving were eye-opening for me and have no doubt left a big indention in me ol’ cranium.  

As you may (or may not) know, “lean” has had profoundly positive impacts within many organizations, dramatically improving efficiency and profitability. Although applied mostly in manufacturing environments, lean has also had successful results in other organizations, such as restaurants, and, perhaps most dramatically, in health care settings. So, I started thinking, if this methodology and tool set has had such an impact on other processes, what are the implications for instructional design and development?

That is one of the things keeping my mental cogs moving lately, and one of the topics I will be reaching out about to fellow instructional designers and other workplace learning types in the blogosphere. So….if you have any thoughts, ideas, or experience with applying lean thinking to instructional design, I would love to hear from you. Tell me your stories!

Looking forward….