Gemba Playlist:

I was talking to my manager last week and he mentioned about “walking the line” to do process audits. We both exclaimed, “Johnny Cash”. My manager commented that he can see a post in the works and smiled. So here I am.

In today’s post, I am suggesting 10 songs to keep in mind at the Gemba, and I am calling it the “Gemba Playlist”. You can click on the song titles to open it on YouTube.

• “I Walk The Line” – Johnny Cash:

The “Man in Black” ^[1] said it right. As a Lean Leader, you have to walk the line every day. Go to the Gemba and observe, and learn. This is a great opportunity to learn, and to develop oneself and others. Walking the line allows you to develop your observation muscles to see waste. The more you walk the line, the more you can see waste. And the more you see waste, the better you can improve the process and develop oneself and others. Go and walk the line!

• “One Piece at a Time” – Johnny Cash:

One of the basic tenets of Toyota Production System is one-piece flow. The song from Johnny Cash (again) reminds us of following this. The production should follow one-piece flow – make it one piece at a time. This improves the flow, eliminates excess inventory, and improves quality. It is easier to correct the process since you get fast feedback from the next process if there is a problem. Great advice!

• “Get Rhythm” – Johnny Cash:

It appears that Johnny Cash is a Lean guy after all. His advice to Get Rhythm is an important one. You have to produce product based on takt time – a beat or cadence for the production based on customer demand. This ensures that we stay on top of producing exactly what is needed and nothing more. This brings me to the next song.

• “Any Way You Want It” – Journey:

Henry Ford is attributed to have said that “you can have any color car you want…. as long as it is black”. A Lean Leader would say, “you can have it any way you want it.” This is because of “heijunka” or production leveling. It might be more efficient to make the same color or style car again and again. However, the customer may not want a black car. Utilizing the Toyota Production System principles allows you to say – you can have the product any way you want it. Heijunka ensures that you are flexible in meeting the variety of demands imposed by the customers by making product in the right mix daily.

• “Don’t Blame the Children” – Sammy Davis Jr.:

Sammy Davis Jr. might be on to something here. A Lean Leader knows to resist placing the blame on the operator when there is a problem. You have to look at the process and see what might have happened. It is too easy to blame the operator. However, replacing the operator can still result in the same problem happening. The operator is doing what he or she thinks is rational at that time, based on all the information available. Start with the process when you are addressing a problem at the Gemba.

• “I Can Make it Better” – Luther Vandross:

This needs to be mantra of every Lean Leader – I (We) can make it better. This is the idea of kaizen. You are responsible to make things better than yesterday, no matter how small or insignificant the improvement is. The small improvements add up, and they also change the mindset. There is always a better way of doing things. The title of the song captures the essence of continuous improvement.

• “Just In Time” – The Controllers:

Just-In-Time (JIT) is one of the two pillars of the Toyota house. I have written about this many times before. JIT is the brainchild of Kiichiro Toyoda, who founded the Toyota Motor Corporation. He came up with the idea of making the right parts at the right time, and in the right amount. The essence of JIT is to make product almost on time. Kiichiro called this the first principle of improving efficiency. He believed that JIT would eliminate all the excess inventory and also avoid a shortage of parts since only the right part in the right amount will be made with proper resource utilization.

• “With a Little Help From My Friends” – The Beatles:

No list is complete without a song from The Beatles. TPS is not about Superman or any other Super Action Hero. TPS is about teamwork and working together. One of the two pillars of Toyota Way – Respect for People, is based on Teamwork. TPS is everybody working together everyday for the common betterment. Yoshio Ishizaka, a Toyota veteran stated in his wonderful book, “The Toyota Way in Sales & Marketing”, Toyota realized that the starting point and the building block for its production system was the employees.

• “Things That Make You Go Hmmmm…” – C+C Music Factory:

At the Gemba, there are always Things That Make You Go Hmmmm.Why is that operator reaching out for a tool every time? Why does this part always have a flash at this corner? Why is there a pool of oil here? Why do we have to record this information twice in different formats? Why am I entering this information when it can be accessed anytime? These things are good because they set you on the right journey – the journey to eliminate waste and improve your process.

• “Do You See What I See” (Also “Do You Hear What I Hear”) – Various:

Taiichi Ohno, the father of TPS, is said to have drawn chalk circles on the floor and have the supervisor or engineer stand inside it to observe a process. The idea was to make them see the waste that he saw. This Christmas song has three questions that are very applicable at the Gemba.

• Do you see what I see?
• Do you hear what I hear?
• Do you know what I know?

These questions are great starting points to train and develop a leader. Some sample questions might be  – Do you see the wastes that I see? Or Do you hear the abnormal sound coming from the machine? Following or shadowing a person and observing them at work is a great way to absorb his or her knowledge.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Rules of 3 and 5:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Cash

Rules of 3 and 5:

It has been a while since I have blogged about statistics. So in today’s post, I will be looking at rules of 3 and 5. These are heuristics or rules of thumb that can help us out. They are associated with sample sizes.

Rule of 3:

Let’s assume that you are looking at a binomial event (pass or fail). You took 30 samples and tested them to see how many passes or failures you get. The results yielded no failures. Then, based on the rule of 3, you can state that at 95% confidence level, the upper bound for a failure is 3/30 = 10% or the reliability is at least 90%. The rule is written as;

p = 3/n

Where p is the upper bound of failure, and n is the sample size.

Thus, if you used 300 samples, then you could state with 95% confidence that the process is at least 99% reliable based on p = 3/300 = 1%. Another way to express this is to say that with 95% confidence fewer than 1 in 100 units will fail under the same conditions.

This rule can be derived from using binomial distribution. The 95% confidence comes from the alpha value of 0.05. The calculated value from the rule of three formula gets more accurate with a sample size of 20 or more.

Rule of 5:

I came across the rule of 5 from Douglas Hubbard’s informative book “How to Measure Anything” ^[1]. Hubbard states the Rule of 5 as;

There is a 93.75% chance that the median of a population is between the smallest and largest values in any random sample of five from that population.

This is a really neat heuristic because you can actually tell a lot from a sample size of 5! The median is the 50^th percentile value of a population, the point where half of the population is above it and half of the population is below it. Hubbard points out the probability of picking a value above or below the median is 50% – the same as a coin toss. Thus, we can calculate that the probability of getting 5 heads in a row is 0.5^⁵ or 3.125%. This would be the same for getting 5 tails in a row. Then the probability of not getting all heads or all tails is (100 – (3.125+3.125)) or 93.75%. Thus, we can state that the chance of one value out of five being above the median and at least one value below the median is 93.75%.

Final words:

The reader has to keep in mind that both of the rules require the use of randomly selected samples. The Rule of 3 is a version of Bayes’ Success Run Theorem and Wilk’s One-sided Tolerance calculation. I invite the reader to check out my posts that sheds more light on this 1) Relationship between AQL/RQL and Reliability/Confidence , 2) Reliability/Confidence Level Calculator (with c = 0, 1….., n) and 3) Wilk’s One-sided Tolerance Spreadsheet.

When we are utilizing random samples to represent a population, we are calculating a statistic – a representation value of the parameter value. A statistic is an estimate of the parameter, the true value from a population. The higher the sample size used, the better the statistic can represent the parameter and better your estimation.

I will finish with a story based on chance and probability;

It was the finals and an undergraduate psychology major was totally hung over from the previous night. He was somewhat relieved to find that the exam was a true/false test. He had taken a basic stat course and did remember his professor once performing a coin flipping experiment. On a moment of clarity, he decided to flip a coin he had in his pocket to get the answers for each questions. The psychology professor watched the student the entire two hours as he was flipping the coin…writing the answer…flipping the coin….writing the answer, on and on. At the end of the two hours, everyone else had left the room except for this one student. The professor walks up to his desk and angrily interrupts the student, saying: “Listen, it is obvious that you did not study for this exam since you didn’t even open the question booklet. If you are just flipping a coin for your answer, why is it taking you so long?”

The stunned student looks up at the professor and replies bitterly (as he is still flipping the coin): “Shhh! I am checking my answers!”

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Kenjutsu, Ohno and Polanyi:

[1] How to Measure Anything.

Kenjutsu, Ohno and Polanyi:

Taiichi Ohno, the father of Toyota Production System, has a way with his words. I was rereading his great book, “Toyota Production System – Beyond Large-Scale Production”, and I came across the section where he talked about “In an art form, action is requried.” ^[1]

In the section Ohno talked about the progression of swordsmanship from “gekken”, to “kenjutsu” to “kendo”. Ohno wrote that during the era of brute force fighting, “gekken” was about having the strongest swordsman winning over the weaker opponent. As time progressed, it was recognized that there is a structure to the swordsmanship, and “kenjustu” was developed. Kenjutsu is translated as “art of sword”. With this, a weaker opponent could strike down the physically stronger opponent. As time went on, there was no longer a need to carry sword around, and “kendo” was developed in its place. Kendo means “the way of the sword”. The etymology is similar to “judo” which means “the gentle way”. The “-do” stands for “the way of”. “Ken” stands for “sword”. Thus, kendo stands for “the way of the sword”. Kendo utilizes a bamboo sword called a “shinai”. Kendo is a martial art and has become very well known in Japan and outside Japan.

Ohno went on to state that he believed that swordsmanship advanced the most during the era of kenjustsu. The “jutsu” part stands for “the art of”. Ohno points out that “jutsu” is created by inserting the character “require” into the character “action”. Thus, kenjutsu advanced swordsmanship the most because it required action. Ohno continues to state that “real action is what counts”. Talking about technology and actually practicing it are two different things.

This is a great lesson from Ohno and I was reminded of tacit knowledge when he talked about “requiring action”. Tacit knowledge is the brain child of Michael Polanyi, a Hungarian-British polymath ^[2]. Tacit knowledge may be loosely described as the knowledge that is hard to codify and part of which cannot be codified. Polanyi stated that “we know more than we can tell”. “Tacit knowledge” is generally contrasted against “Explicit knowledge”. Explicit knowledge is the knowledge that is present in the codified form like written procedures, manuals etc. However, it is wrong to state that Tacit and Explicit knowledge are mutually exclusive and that all Tacit knowledge can be transformed to Explicit knowledge.

Polanyi believed that all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge, including explicit knowledge. In Polanyi’s words;

                “While tacit knowledge can be possessed by itself, explicit knowledge must rely on being tacitly understood and applied. Hence all knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge. A wholly explicit knowledge is unthinkable.”

While it might be possible to codify some parts of tacit knowledge, not all tacit knowledge can be codified. Some of the examples that Polanyi gave were riding a bicycle and facial recognition. It is not easy to explain in written form how to ride a bicycle or how to recognize a person through facial recognition. With the advancement in Machine Learning, both these activities can now be performed by AI (Artificial Intelligence). However, even the AI has to perform the action and learn from errors to be somewhat successful in it. The tacit portion of the knowledge still requires action. One of the ways to teach facial recognition to AI is to give a large amount of pictures with proper identification to allow the AI to learn from the correct data first. Based on this, the AI will start performing facial recognition tasks, and every wrong answer gets corrected which adds to the learning. Once the supervised learning is complete, a new dataset with unidentified pictures are given, and the accuracy rate determined. Every attempt at recognizing a picture is a lesson that reinforces the facial recognition knowledge.

Polanyi’s theory of knowledge was based on his objections against the prevalent “objectivism” in the scientific method. Objectivism is the belief that all knowledge is posteriori (after the fact) and is derived only based on the perception of the results with senses. Thus, the knowledge is based on quantitative measures using only perception. Polanyi’s objection to this was objectivism ignored the role of the observer or the experimenter. Polanyi thought that discovery must be arrived at by the tacit powers of the mind and its content. The role of the knower is very important in the formation of knowledge. Polanyi’s ideas of tacit knowing were derived from Gestalt psychology and the part-whole perception model which requires coherence between focal and subsidiary awareness. A face is able to be recognized because of all the particularities of the face (relative position of nose, lips, eyes etc, size of the eyes, color of the eyes etc.) combined into a coherent image through subsidiary and focal awareness. There is lot more to tacit knowledge that cannot be contained in this post. I encourage the readers to read upon Michael Polanyi for more. There is a lot more to tacit knowledge than what can be written down here (no pun intended).

The tacit knowledge can only be acquired by carefully observing the expert, and performing the functions under his or her watchful eyes. In other words, tacit knowledge requires action. Even the expert may not be aware of all parts of the tacit knowledge. The tacit knowledge can be acquired only through “close interaction and buildup of shared understanding and trust”. Polanyi has said that “all knowing is personal knowing”. Explicit knowledge can be stored in hardware (computer, books discs etc.) Explicit knowledge can be thus “transferred”. This is not possible for tacit knowledge. Some Knowledge Management practitioners have argued that all tacit knowledge can be transformed to explicit knowledge. An example is the SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi ^[3]. I do not believe this is possible since I believe that tacit knowledge can be acquired only through action and personal interaction with the experts.

I will finish off with a story I read from Harry Collins’ book, Tacit and Explicit Knowledge ^[4].

A guy walked into a pub that he has never been to before and sat down for a few drinks. He was puzzled by the action of the locals at the bar. Every now and then one of them would shout out a number and everybody would break out into laughter. This continued for a while, and the guy was very curious about it. He went to the pub owner and quizzed him about the strange actions. The pub owner explained to him that the locals have been coming here for so long and that they have been telling the same jokes over and over that they started assigning them numbers. So now, all they have to do is just call out the number and everybody would know the joke. Armed with this information, the new guy started calling out numbers and each time he was met with silence. The pub owner felt sorry for him, and explained to him “It’s not the joke my friend, it’s how you tell it.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Shisa Kanko, a Different Kind of Checklist:

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Toyota-Production-System-Beyond-Large-Scale/dp/0915299143

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECI_model_of_knowledge_dimensions

[4] https://www.amazon.com/Tacit-Explicit-Knowledge-Harry-Collins/dp/022600421X/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=

Shisa Kanko, a Different Kind of Checklist:

Regular readers of my blog know that I am a keen Japanophile. I love learning new things about the cultural nuances of Japan. In today’s post I will be looking at “Shisa Kanko” translated as “point with finger and call”.

Perhaps, like many others, when I was the last one to leave my house, I always questioned myself whether I closed the garage door. A mental trick I came up with was to talk to myself aloud as I pressed on the Garage Remote, “I am pressing on the remote”, and as the door closed I would remark again to myself, “look, the garage door is closing”. This action of talking it aloud created a physical and memory record that I could refer to later and recall that I did close the garage door.

Shisa Kanko is a similar process of “checking off” that an action was completed. Shisa Kanko is the process of pointing to something and calling out what happened. This could be a visual indicator for the status of an operation and calling out the status. This idea is said to have originated by a steam-train engineer of the name Yasoichi Hori. Hori started to lose his eye sight and thus began to call out the status signal to the fireman riding with hm. This was an attempt by Hori to not go through a wrong signal by mistake. The fireman would then repeat the status signal back to him and confirm it. This practice was deemed important and was implemented as a practice for railway staff. The practice of Shisa Kanko was published in the Japanese railway manual in 1913.  You can read about the proper way to point and call at the old website of JICOSH (Japanese International Center for Occupational Safety and Health) ^[1].

This activity involves pointing at target objects by stretching your arm and stating out loud, “Such and such is OK” at important points in the work in order to proceed with work safely and correctly.

Pointing and calling are methods for raising the consciousness level of workers and confirming that conditions are regular and clear, increasing the accuracy and safety of work. This method for ensuring safety is based on the philosophy of respecting human life and can be achieved only with the full participation of the workforce in practice activities across the whole of the workplace.

It is said that implementing the practice of Shisa Kanko can reduce mistakes by about 85% percent ^[2]. Shisa Kanko is a form of a checklist in some regards. By pointing and calling out, it is similar to the action of checking off on a checklist – “yup, this is done.” The physical and audible actions ensure that an important signal or action is not omitted. This is also an indicator to those around and provides an indication that an action was completed or the status of an operation. An example is the railway staff scanning to ensure that the tracks are free of debris before the train takes off. Instead of just scanning the tracks, the operator will point towards the track, making a sweeping action with the eyes following the hand. Once confirmed, the operator will announce that the track is clear.

Just like a checklist, the absence of Shisa Kanko will not always result in mistakes. However, the presence of Shisa Kanko will always aid in preventing mistakes. Thus it is a positive enabling constraint.

I will finish this post with a lesson from Buddha on learning to meditate;

Meditation can be a really hard skill to master and requires a lot of practice. Buddha’s advice is to make note of what is going on with your breath, similar to Shisa Kanko. Buddha’s lesson for mediation is “Anapanasati”. In Pali language “Ana” means “inhalation”, “pana” means “exhalation” and “sati” means “mindfulness”. Buddha is teaching us to be mindful of our breath going in (saying internally “in”), and going out (saying internally “out”). This practice of mindfulness, acknowledging the status of our breath, will allow us to be in control and in focus.

Buddha teaches about Anapanasati in the Anapanasati Sutta:

Breathing in long, he discerns, ‘I am breathing in long’; or breathing out long, he discerns, ‘I am breathing out long.’ Or breathing in short, he discerns, ‘I am breathing in short’; or breathing out short, he discerns, ‘I am breathing out short.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.’ He trains himself, ‘I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.‘

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Concept of Constraints in Facing Problems:

[1] http://www.jniosh.go.jp/icpro/jicosh-old/english/zero-sai/eng/

[2] http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2008/10/21/reference/jr-gestures/#.WVujaemQzIU

Concept of Constraints in Facing Problems:

In today’s post, I will be looking at the concept of constraints in facing problems. Please note that I did not state “solving problems”. This is because not all problems are solvable. There are certain problems, referred to as “wicked problems” or complex problems that are not solvable. These problems have different approaches and none of the approaches can solve the problems completely. Some of the alternatives are better than the others, but at the same time they may have their own unintended consequences. Some examples of this are global warming and poverty.

My post is related to the Manufacturing world. Generally in the manufacturing world, most of the problems are solvable. These problems have a clear cause and effect relationships. They can be solved by using the best practice or a good practice. The best practice is used for obvious problems, when the cause and effect relationship is very clear, and there is truly one real solution. A good practice is employed where the cause and effect relationship is evident only with the help of subject-matter-experts. These are called “complicated problems”. There are also complex problems where the cause and effect relationships are not evident. These may be understood only after-the-fact. An example for this is launching a new product and ensuring a successful launch. Most of the time, the failures are studied and the reasons for the failure are “determined” after the fact.

The first step in tackling these problems is to understand what type of problem it is. Sometimes, the method to solve a problem is prescribed before the problem is understood. Some of the methods assume that the problem has a linear cause and effect relationship. An example is 5 why. 5 why assumes that there is a linear relationship between cause and effect. This is evident in the question – “why did x happen?”  This works fine for the obvious problems. This may not work that well for complicated problems and never for a complex problem. One key thing to understand is that the problems can be composite problems, some aspects may be obvious while some aspects may be complicated. Using a prescribed method can be ineffective in these cases.

The concept of constraints is tightly related to the concept of variety. The best resource for this is Ross Ashby’s “An Introduction to Cybernetics” ^[1]. Ashby defined variety as the number of distinct elements in a set of distinguishable elements or as the logarithm to base 2 of the number of distinct elements. Thus, we can say that the variety of genders is 2 (male or female) or as 1 bit (based on the logarithm calculation). Ashby defined constraint as a relation between two sets. Constraint only exists when one set’s variety is lower than the other set’s variety. Ashby gives the axample of a school that only admits boys. Compared to the set of gender (boys and girls), the school’s variety is less (only boys). Thus the school has a constraint imposed on itself.

A great resource for this is Dave Snowden and his excellent Cynefin framework ^[2]. Snowden says that ontology precedes epistemology or in other words data precedes framework. The fundamental properties of the problem must be understood before choosing a “tool” to address the problem. Prescribing a standard tool to use in all situations is constraining oneself and this will lead to ineffective attempts at finding a solution. When the leader says we need to use lean or six sigma, this is an attempt to add constraints by removing variety. Toyota’s methodologies referred to as Toyota Production System, was developed for their problems. They identified the problems and then proceeded to find ways to address them. They did not have a framework to go by. They created the framework based on decades of experience and tweaking. Thus blindly copying their methodologies are applying constraints on yourself that may be unnecessary. As the size or scope of a project increases, it tends to increase the complexity of the project. Thus enterprise wide applications of “prescribed solutions” are not generally effective since the cause-effect relationships cannot be completely predicted leading to unintended consequences, inefficiency and ineffectiveness. On the other hand, Ashby advises to take note of any existing constraints in a system, and to take advantage of the constraints to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

A leader should thus first understand the problem to determine the approach to proceed. Sometimes, one may have to use a composite of tools. One needs to be open for modifications by having a closed loop(s) with a feedback mechanism so that the approach can be modified as needed. It is also advisable to use heuristics like genchi genbutsu since they are general guidelines or rules of thumb. This does not pose a constraint. Once a methodology is chosen, then a constraint is being applied since the available number of tools to use (variety) has now diminished.  This thinking in terms of constraints prevents the urge to treat everything as a nail when your preferred tool is a hammer.

I will finish with a great story from the great Zen master Huangbo Xiyun;

Huangbo once addressed the assembly of gathered Zen students and said; “You are all partakers of brewer’s grain. If you go on studying Zen like that, you will never finish it. Do you know that in all the land of T’ang there is no Zen teacher?”
Then a monk came forward and said, “But surely there are those who teach disciples and preside over the assemblies. What about that?”
Huangbo said, “I do not say that there is no Zen, but that there is no Zen teacher…”

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Jidoka, the Governing Principle for Built-in-Quality:

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Cybernetics-W-Ross-Ashby/dp/1614277656

[2] http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/part-two-origins-of-cynefin/

Jidoka, the Governing Principle for Built-in-Quality:

Harold Dodge said – “You cannot inspect quality into a product; it must be built into it.”^[1] This is something that has stuck with me ever since I entered the work force. This means that quality must be viewed as an intrinsic attribute of a manufacturing process. The idea of quality being part of the process cannot be brought out by talking to the employees or with slogans or short lived programs. In order to have quality be a part of the process, it has to be a part of the process intrinsically!

I came across the concept of James Watts’ centrifugal governor. This is essentially a feedback system that controls the speed of an engine at a desired state. This is shown in the picture above. As the speed increases, it causes the “flyballs” to move away from each other due to the centrifugal force and this cause the arms to go up, which controls the valve to reduce the fuel intake. This is beautifully explained by Stafford Beer in his 1966 book, “Decision and Control” ^[2]. He states that with the centrifugal governor, the system is brought under control in the very act of going out of control. The regulation is intrinsic (it is part of the system).

When you think about it, Jidoka in TPS is doing exactly that. Jidoka is the governing principle in TPS to ensure built-in-quality. Jidoka was introduced as a concept by Sakichi Toyoda with his automatic loom that stopped when a thread was broken. Jidoka was explained by Toyota as autonomation or automation with human touch. In Toyota’s little green book, The Toyota Production System – Leaner Manufacturing for a Greener Planet, Jidoka is explained as;

Jidoka is a humanistic approach to configuring the human-machine interface. It liberates operators from the tyranny of the machine and leaves them free to concentrate on tasks that enable them to exercise skill and judgment.

Jidoka ensures that the machines are able to detect any abnormality and automatically stop whenever they occur. This concept of stopping production when there is an abnormality was implemented on the production lines with the use of andon cords. When an operator identifies a problem that cannot be solved within the allotted time, the operator can pull on the andon cord to stop the production line, thus making the problem immediately visible. This is a “human jidoka”. This prevents defective items from progressing down the assembly line causing larger issues and wasting time. It also leads to identifying opportunities for improvement with the product and/or the process as well as a valuable time to provide coaching for the employee.

The concept of Jidoka is an effort to make built-in-quality intrinsic to the manufacturing process. Allowing the operator to stop the entire production line is an act of giving autonomy to the operator. The quality is not being pushed top-down, but allowed to emerge bottom-up. This is an example of what Toyota calls as “Good Thinking leading to Good Products”.

In a similar vein, I wanted to draw comparisons to Zen. In Zen, there is a concept of “monkey mind”. This is the racing mind that does not allow one to sit down and meditate. Many different thoughts and emotions go through the mind when one is trying to have a quiet mind. Buddha taught disciples to focus on the breath as way to calm down the monkey mind. This is a really hard thing to do and requires a lot of practice. When the mind drifts off, it needs to be brought back. The Zen teachers teach us that the source of control is also the mind, the very same thing that causes the focus to be lost. Meditation is the art of coming back to the focus again and again. My favorite story on this is from the great teacher Yunmen Wenyan.

 Yunmen was asked by his student, “How can I control my mind to not lose focus when I am trying to meditate?”

Yunmen replied, “The coin that is lost in the river can only be found in the same river.”

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Learning to See:

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Out-Crisis-Press-Edwards-Deming-ebook/dp/B00653KTES/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1497211354&sr=1-1&keywords=9780262297189

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Decision-Control-Operational-Management-Cybernetics/dp/0471948381

Learning to See:

Today’s post is not based on LEI’s book “Learning to See” ^[1] but on the delightful book “Art in Focus” by Gene. A. Mittler (1986 edition) ^[2]. In Mittler’s words, the purpose of the book is to help you acquire knowledge and understanding you will need to make and support your own personal decisions about works of art. The name of the first chapter is “Learning to See”.  The book begins with the Taoist quote;

To look is one thing.

To see what you look at is another.

To understand what you see is a third.

To learn from what you understand is still something else:

To act on what you learn is all that matters.

I started reading this book by happenstance. I flipped through the book and found many interesting sections that were quite descriptive of what I had learned in Toyota Production System(TPS). In TPS, we are asked to go to the gemba and observe the production floor so that we can “learn to see” waste and take action. To my delight, Mittler talks about a “search strategy” that he uses for gaining observation from works of art, that is very well applicable for us. His strategy includes (paraphrased);

1. Description: Through which you try to find out what is going on,
2. Analysis: Through which you discover how the work is organized or put together
3. Interpretation: Through which you try to determine the information communicated
4. Judgment: Through which you make your own decision based on your interpretation

In chapter 2, Mittler continues;

Art objects are unique arrangements of the obvious and the not so obvious. In order to understand any art object, you must be willing to go beyond the obvious and examine the not so obvious as well.

In order to accomplish understanding the obvious and not so obvious, Mittler talks about the elements and principles of art. The elements are what make up the art. The six elements of art, as noted by Mittler are;

1. Color
2. Value (Non-color)
3. Line
4. Texture
5. Shape/Form
6. Space

The principles are on the other hand used to organize the elements together so that “the organized whole” is brought out. The seven principles of art, as noted by Mittler are;

1. Balance
2. Emphasis
3. Harmony
4. Variety
5. Gradation
6. Movement/Rhythm
7. Proportion

Both the elements and the principles utilized in the art brings out “the Unity of the Work”. The Unity refers to the total effect of a work of art.

In a similar fashion, we could state that the elements at the gemba are the 6Ms (Man, Method, Machine, Measurement, Material and Mother Nature/Environment). The principles might be Just-in-Time, Jidoka, Heijunka, Standardized Work, Respect for People and Kaizen. Mittler notes that a skillful blend of elements and principles results in a unified design, a design in which all the parts hold together to produce the best possible effect. In a similar fashion, paraphrasing Taiichi Ohno ^[3], one can state that a skillful blend of elements and principles results in a total manufacturing technology that reaches the whole business organization and results in cost reductions and profit increases.

It is interesting to think that observing the activities in gemba to understand what gemba is saying, can be like observing a painting to understand the ideas communicated by the artist. It paints a pretty picture! I will finish with a Zen story related by William Scott Wilson, The One Taste of Truth: Zen and the Art of Drinking Tea, 2012 ^[4];

When the old warrior Hosokawa Shigeyuki (1434–1511) retired as daimyo or territorial lord of Sanuki Province, he became a Zen priest. One day he invited a visiting scholar-monk, Osen Kaisan (1429–93), to see a landscape-painting he himself had brushed in ink on a recent trip to Kumano and other scenic spots on the Kii Peninsula. When the scroll was opened, there was nothing but a long, blank sheet of paper. The monk Osen, struck by the emptiness of the “painting,” exclaimed:

Your brush is as tall as Mount Sumeru,
Black ink large enough to exhaust the great earth;
The white paper as vast as the Void that swallows up all illusions.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Respect and Yokai:

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Stream-Mapping-Eliminate/dp/0966784308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496073986&sr=8-1&keywords=learning+to+see

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Art-Focus-Gene-Mittler/dp/002662270X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496074133&sr=8-1&keywords=art+in+focus+1986

[3] Toyota Production System – Beyond Large-Scale Production Page 71.

[4] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AWTM1K6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Respect and Yokai:

In today’s post I am looking at Respect and Yokai. “Yokai” is a catch-all word in Japanese which refers to supernatural beings. I have written several posts regarding respect for people ^[1]. Respect for people is an important concept in the Toyota Production System, and it goes beyond the superficial “let’s be nice to people”. As a Japanophile, I was very enthralled by the “Yokai” culture. One of the things I learned about yokai was the connection between respect and yokai. Yokai originated from Japanese folklore. Later on, yokai was used to represent creatures that originated from material things like an umbrella or a lantern. Yokai are generally mischievous and can be good or bad. Yokai filled the gap to explain the unexplainable or mysterious events. For example, “Tenjoname”, a yokai who likes to lick the ceilings can be used to explain the stains on the ceilings. The word “tenjoname” literally means “to lick the ceiling”. Tenjoname has a long tongue that can reach all the way up to the ceiling, and he comes out when there is nobody around and licks ceilings in buildings and this leaves stains on them.

The respect part in this post comes from the belief in the Japanese culture to use everything to its fullest value. If you have a lantern, and you throw it away to buy a new lantern, the discarded lantern can turn into a yokai, generally called as tsukumogami, and come back for “revenge” or “payback”. I found this to be a fascinating thought. One needs to respect one’s belongings. I can relate to this concept – as a kid, I was scolded by my parents if I left books on the floor. Leaving books on the floor can lead to one inadvertently stepping on them. Books represented wisdom and learning, and a lack of respect for books meant that I will not be able to learn from them.

Japan has limited natural resources and thus the concept of using things to its full value is a very important concept in Japanese culture. In this regard, one can see how being wasteful can extend to the idea of yokai. Being wasteful is bad, and disrespectful to the environment and your neighbors. In my eyes, this also extends to respect for people. In Japanese culture, it is said that at the end of life an item is “discarded” with respect. One may even go to a shrine to pay respect to the item before discarding it. The respect is not only for the item, but also for the numerous people who had a hand in creating that item. In today’s world of use-and-discard and buying the latest tech gadget, yokai reminds us to respect the planet and others.

I will finish by discussing my favorite yokai – kappa. “Kappa” is a yokai that is associated with water bodies like ponds or rivers. Kappa is depicted as a humanoid form generally the size of a child, with webbed feet and hands. Sometimes they are depicted as monkey-like or like frog-like. They have a saucer-like indentation on the head that has water in it. This is the source of their power and losing the water from its head can make them powerless. Even though they are small, they are very strong. Kappa was often used by elders to warn children to stay away from the river or pond.

The most interesting characteristic of kappa is that they are very polite. Thus, the way to capture or defeat a kappa is to bow your head down as a show of respect. The kappa will have to then bow their head back, and this will empty the water in their head thus making them powerless. Thus kappa is most likely the only evil being in any culture that can be defeated with respect and politeness.

Always keep on learning…

If you enjoyed this post, you can read more here.

In case you missed it, my last post was Kant and Respect for Humanity:

[1] https://harishsnotebook.wordpress.com/?s=respect+for+people

Kant and Respect for Humanity:

In today’s post, I will be looking at the concept of Respect of Humanity from a “Kantian philosophy standpoint”. “Respect for Humanity” is one of the two pillars of the “Toyota Way”. Yoshio Ishizaka defined Toyota Way as – Toyota’s implicit knowledge put in statutory form in 2001 ^[1]. I have written about Respect for People many times in this blog before ^[2].

Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) is a giant in modern philosophy. Kant wrote about the Categorical Imperative in his 1785 book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals ^[3]. Kant defined the Categorical Imperative as a universal moral law or principle that must be followed at all times, no matter what the circumstance or what our natural inclinations or desires are. Our focus is on Kant’s second formulation of the Categorical Imperative;

“Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means.’’

Kant viewed humans as rational beings and accordingly rational beings cannot be treated merely (solely) as a means to ends, but as ends themselves.  A rational person will not subject himself to be treated as a mere means to an end, thus it is only rational to treat others the same way, in a universal manner. This thinking is applicable to oneself as well. One of the examples that Kant gave to explain this concept, is of a man who does not try to develop his natural talent. The man in the example is content with where he is, and in Kant’s eyes this means that the man is not respecting himself. Kant said, “it is not enough that the action does not conflict with humanity in our person as end in itself; it must also harmonize with it (humanity).”

Kant used the term “menschlichkeit”, a German word to explain his ideas regarding humanity. He viewed humanity as possessing a “rational nature” ^[3]. Humanity, through which we have the rational capacities to set ends, use means to them, and organize them into a whole. And as a rational being, at the heart of this is the capacity for autonomy or the ability to self-govern. The word “autonomy” from Greek means autos = self, nomos = law. This ability for self-governing, morally forces us to view each other with respect.

The concept of Respect for People does not begin or end with “being nice” to others. From a Kantian standpoint, respect is about morality. Morality is not about consequences – what others would think about me, but about intentions – it is rational to be respectful to others. Kant does not have a problem with using a person as a means to an end. For example, when an operator comes to work, he is being used to produce a product (means to an end). Kant’s problem is when a person is used as a “mere means” to an end. If the operator is seen only as a pair of hands, and if his or her input is not valued, then he or she is being used as a “mere means”. This adds a dimensionality to the relationship with the operator. It goes both ways, from the manager to the operator and the operator to the manager. The operator in turn should not view the job as a mere paycheck.

From a Kantian perspective, Respect for People means to ensure that everybody is capable of being valuable. There are opportunities for development of talent, and in Kant’s words, a chance to harmonize with humanity. How does one increase the worth of an employee? You can increase their worth by developing the employee to understand the value in his work. You can increase their worth by training him to look for gaps between the ideal state and the current state. By understanding this gap, you can further develop him to take countermeasures and corrective actions to move closer to the ideal state. Ideally, the employee would now be able to train the employees underneath him. The employee is now at a stage to be making decisions and implementing improvements on his own. In other words, he is empowered.

Final Words:

Kant was ahead of his time with his thinking. Kant spent his entire life in his hometown (Königsberg, the then capital of Prussia), and is said to have never set his foot outside a 100 mile radius from his house. Most of his famous works came later in his life. He famously said that David Hume, the great Scottish philosopher, woke him up from his dogmatic slumber.  As I was reading upon Kant as part of my personal journey through philosophy, I came upon his Categorical Imperative and it struck me how much the second formulation aligned itself well with the Respect of Humanity theme of the Toyota Way.

There are many play-on-words with Kant’s name. One of my favorite memes is below:

I will finish with an anecdote about Kant.

Kant was a firm believer in rules. He had set a rule for himself to not smoke more than one pipe a day. Smoking was Kant’s time to think and reflect. As time went on, Kant wanted to spend more time smoking. However, he did not want to break his own rule. His way out was to get a larger pipe. It is said that as time went on, the size of the bowls of his pipes grew in size considerably.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Process Validation and the Problem of Induction:

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Toyota-Way-Sales-Marketing/dp/1926537084/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1494183905&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Toyota+Way+in+Sales+and+Marketing

[2] https://harishsnotebook.wordpress.com/?s=respect+for+people

[3] https://www.amazon.com/Groundwork-Metaphysics-Morals-Immanuel-Kant/dp/0300094868

Process Validation and the Problem of Induction:

From “The Simpsons”

Marge: I smell beer. Did you go to Moe’s?

Homer: Every time I have beer on my breath, you assume I’ve been drinking.^[1]

In today’s post, I will be looking at process validation and the problem of induction.  I have looked at process validation through another philosophical angle by using the lesson of the Ship of Theseus ^[4] in an earlier post.

US FDA defines process validation ^[2] as;

“The collection and evaluation of data, from the process design stage through commercial production, which establishes scientific evidence that a process is capable of consistently delivering quality product.”

My emphases on FDA’s definition are the two words – “capability” and “consistency”. One of the misconceptions about process validation is that once the process is validated, then it achieves almost an immaculate status. One of the horror stories I have heard from my friends in the Medical Devices field is that the manufacturer stopped inspecting the product since the process was validated. The problem with validation is the problem of induction. Induction is a process in philosophy – a means to obtain knowledge by looking for patterns from observations and coming to a conclusion. For example, the swans that I have seen so far are white, thus I conclude that ALL swans are white. This is a famous example to show the problem of induction because black swans do exist. However, the data I collected showed that all of the swans in my sample were white. My process of collection and evaluation of the data appears capable and the output consistent.

The misconception that the manufacturer had in the example above was the assumption that the process is going to remain the same and thus the output also will remain the same. This is the assumption that the future and present are going to resemble the past. This type of thinking is termed the assumption of “uniformity of nature” in philosophy. This problem of induction was first thoroughly questioned and looked at by the great Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776). He was an empiricist who believed that knowledge should be based on one’s sense based experience.

One way of looking at process validation is to view the validation as a means to develop a process where it is optimized such that it can withstand the variations of the inputs. Validation is strictly based on the inputs at the time of validation. The 6 inputs – man, machine, method, materials, inspection process and the environment, all can suffer variation as time goes on. These variations reveal the problem of induction – the results are not going to stay the same. There is no uniformity of nature. The uniformities observed in the past are not going to hold for the present and future as well.

In general, when we are doing induction, we should try to meet five conditions;

1. Use a large sample size that is statistically valid
2. Make observations under different and extreme circumstances
3. Ensure that none of the observations/data points contradict
4. Try to make predictions based on your model
5. Look for ways and test your model to fail

The use of statistics is considered as a must for process validation. The use of a statistically valid sample size ensures that we make meaningful inferences from the data. The use of different and extreme circumstances is the gist of operational qualification or OQ. OQ is the second qualification phase of process validation. Above all, we should understand how the model works. This helps us to predict how the process works and thus any contradicting data point must be evaluated. This helps us to listen to the process when it is talking. We should keep looking for ways to see where it fails in order to understand the boundary conditions. Ultimately, the more you try to make your model to fail, the better and more refined it becomes.

The FDA’s guidance on process validation ^[2] and the GHTF (Global Harmonized Task Force) ^[3] guidance on process validation both try to address the problem of induction through “Continued Process Verification” and “Maintaining a State of Validation”. We should continue monitoring the process to ensure that it remains in a state of validation. Anytime any of the inputs are changed, or if the outputs show a trend of decline, we should evaluate the possibility of revalidation as a remedy for the problem of induction. This brings into mind the quote “Trust but verify”. It is said that Ronald Reagan got this quote from Suzanne Massie, a Russian writer. The original quote is “Doveryai, no proveryai”.

I will finish off with a story from the great Indian epic Mahabharata, which points to the lack of uniformity in nature.

Once a beggar asked for some help from Yudhishthir, the eldest of the Pandavas. Yudhishthir told him to come on the next day. The beggar went away. At the time of this conversation, Yudhishthir’s younger brother Bhima was present. He took one big drum and started walking towards the city, beating the drum furiously. Yudhishthir was surprised.

He asked the reason for this. Bhima told him:
“I want to declare that our revered Yudhishthir has won the battle against time (Kaala). You told that beggar to come the next day. How do you know that you will be there tomorrow? How do you know that beggar would still be alive tomorrow? Even if you both are alive, you might not be in a position to give anything. Or, the beggar might not even need anything tomorrow. How did you know that you both can even meet tomorrow? You are the first person in this world who has won the time. I want to tell the people of Indraprastha about this.”

Yudhishthir got the message behind this talk and called that beggar right away to give the necessary help.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was If a Lion Could Talk:

[1] The Simpsons – Season 27; Episode 575; Every Man’s Dream

[2] https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm070336.pdf

[3] https://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/04d-0001-bkg0001-10-sg3_n99-10_edition2.pdf

[4] https://harishsnotebook.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/ship-of-theseus-and-process-validation/

[5] Non-uniformity of Nature Clock drawing by Annie Jose