James Dyson and Failure

I've posted regarding failure and problem-solving before. I came across this by James Dyson on Wired.com, arguably one of the more famous inventors of our time and his thoughts on failure.

Too often we're afraid to fail. Whether because of embarrassment, cost, or safety issues. However, it is one of the best ways to learn. Very few of us can manage to solve problems entirely in theory and place them into practice flawlessly.

Breaks versus Interruptions

It is a good idea to take a break when working on a problem for a variety of reasons.

• Overcoming mental blocks.
• Getting a fresh perspective on a problem
• Incubation
  

However, interruptions destroy the momentum you've built up. Some of the more obvious forms of interruptions.

• Instant messages
• E-mail notifications
• Co-workers
• Phone calls

To remain productive you must take breaks rather than experience interruptions. The fundamental difference is that you decide when to take a break. Other people decide when to interrupt you.

If you're a manager, make sure the people that work for you are free of interruptions. Perhaps designate certain time periods where people can be off the grid, focusing on the difficult problems. Then other times when interaction is encouraged. Both are important and so you need to make time for both.

If you're not a manager, perhaps block off time in your calendar, turn off the instant messaging and E-mail notifications so that you can't be bothered.

I wonder if anyone has ever studied the workplace and the amount of interruptions that modern day workers encounter and the effect on productivity. Although we're more productive today because of technological advances, we may now be turning the corner where we are becoming less productive due to the inability to focus on problems.

The importance of measurement.

I was in recent discussion about quality and a couple of good points were made.

• You cannot improve what you do not measure.
• You cannot manage what you do not measure.

Measurement helps to visualize problems and gives us perspective. Whenever you implement a solution, be sure to include measurements so you can evaluate whether the solution is truly effective. Ideally it is a measurement you were doing before you implemented the solution so you can quantify the improvement, but at the very least, include some measurements so that future improvements can be quantified. Sometimes it will take a couple of attempts to arrive at the optimum solution.

Being Good Enough

This month, Wired magazine has an article about products that are good enough to do the job but not great. The point of the article is that this is how these products can creep up on the leaders in the field until eventually the are capable of surpassing them.

The same applies to problem solutions. Often we are perfectionists, trying to anticipate every possible angle before implementing the solution. Sometimes this can delay implementation of a solution and result in lost opportunities. Often (except when safety is involved) getting a partial solution in place quickly is more important than addressing all the issues beforehand. You can then evaluate what the weaknesses are under operation and utilize an iterative process to optimize the system. Your supporting structures (management of change, document creation, document control, etc.) need to be efficient enough so that they aren't a drag on the process.

If your support functions are more taxing to complete than the solution itself then something is wrong. Often Quality organizations become enamored with lots of checks and balances and the whole process gets bogged down. Often these people aren't users of the process but only enforcers. If you start thinking to yourself that you know how to do something but don't want to cut through all the red tape to get it implemented, then something is seriously wrong. Both because good ideas may not get implemented and because people are tempted to take shortcuts without submitting the ideas to the proper review process. This can lead to unintended consequences.

Even our best laid plans can go awry. One needs to balance the desire for a "right the first time" solution with the inevitable refining process that occurs anytime you try something new. Continuous improvement works best when it is continuous. If it proceeds in fits and starts, then often it won't re-start.

Looking for Trouble

One way to evaluate someone is how well they look for trouble. No, I'm not talking about whether they are a miscreant painting graffiti on trains. Rather it is whether they find inefficiencies and fix them or (even better) whether they can anticipate future problems.

As one develops expertise in an area, you hopefully progress through the following stages:

1. Procedure follower
2. Procedure interpreter
3. Problem solver
4. Problem definer

Early on, you just don't know enough about a subject. You simply go about following procedures and making sure you do them as written. Hopefully you quickly progress to someone who can interpret procedures. You don't have to be shown every little step and can instead be given general instructions. "Go to the store and pick up a gallon of milk" is much different than,

1. Get you coat and car keys.
2. Get in the car.
3. Start the car.
4. At the end of the driveway, turn right...

You get the drift.

Next you are at the level where you solve problems. You don't just follow procedures, but you are able to notice that the refrigerator doesn't contain any milk and you know what to do (or can develop a plan) about it.

Finally you reach a problem definer. A problem definer looks at the big picture and recognizes changes elsewhere that will lead to problems in your area of concern. i.e. You realize that your 8-year-old is now 15 and can drink a gallon of milk every other day. Your former custom of buying milk once a week isn't going to work and you are going have change your mode of operation to avoid the situation of opening the refrigerator and not finding any milk on a regular basis.

How well do you look for trouble? Does it creep up on you unexpectedly? Are you continually having the same problem? If so, you should examine yourself. You are probably just a problem solver. You need to look at your problems from a broader, more diverse perspective to determine if you are missing something.

Be a problem definer!

Dueling Kaizens

My last post about types of solutions brought to mind an experience we had with Kaizen events.

The first Kaizen event tackled a quality issue with one of our analyses and implemented a rather complex solution, which while providing more accurate results, led to a much more complicated maintenance. The second Kaizen event focused on the maintenance complexity and ended up undoing the work of the first team to make the maintenance quicker and simpler. Two Kaizen events ended up with a net zero change in the analysis. Needless to say, this was discouraging as well as a waste of money.

How did this happen? The Kaizen teams were made up mostly of those outside the group and one technician from the lab. Neither team had any members in common. The teams also did not have anybody who understood the overall problem and therefore focused on the one aspect they were challenged with. They were successful at the details but not in the overall problem.

Ultimately the lab chemists and technicians looked at the problem together and realized that the issue was not with the analysis itself, but with the environment the analysis was being done in. Improving the conditions under which the analysis was being performed, ended up solving both issues.

The advantage of bringing those unfamiliar with the process into a problem solving situation is that they have a beginner's mind. The disadvantage is that they don't have a full understanding of the situation. Although their input is valuable, they can't be allowed to dominate the process over those more familiar with the problem.

Kaizen and Innovation

Problem solutions can be realized in three ways,

• studying a problem and developing a solution
• small incremental improvements which will ultimately lead to a solution (Kaizen)
• a major break-through (Innovation)

The first is the most common way scientists and engineers tackle technical problems they face. The problem is analyzed, potential solutions are developed, tested and measured to see if they are effective, and ultimately implemented and monitored to insure continuing success. (DMAIC)

The other two approaches have their place in any successful organization and they should be cultivated by management.

The advantage of Kaizen is that it can be done by anybody in the organization. It many cases it is most effective when those actually doing the work are suggesting and making the changes with the help of engineers or those who have the bigger picture in mind.

Innovation is more of a serendipitous event. There is no formula or process you can follow to have innovation. However you can strive to develop an environment that is fertile for innovation to occur. I'll comment more about this in a later post.

What is your area of strength? Are you the problem solver, continuous improvment person, or an innovator? As individuals, we have a tendency to fall into one or the other area primarily. However you shouldn't neglect the others. If you are a problem solver, take some time to look for minor improvements or do something creative occasionally.

An organization should strive to have a balance of all three. Too many organizations emphasize one at the expense of the others. Innovators may never have a chance to be heard, get frustrated and leave; or perhaps the organization is full of wildly creative people but nothing ever gets off the ground because there aren't people to implement and grind out the solution.

Look at both yourself and your organization. If you are in management, does your organization have all three going on? If you are an individual contributor, are you trying to develop skills in those areas where you are weaker?