Coke Freestyle VMS

coke_freestyle_menu

coke_freestyle_screen

My family and I went into a California Tortilla the other night to grab a quick dinner. Off to the side I notice a long line of people waiting to fill their soda cups.  It used to be, when you went out for fast food, the people behind the counter would ask you what you wanted and they would hand it to you.  Now, at this location, it appeared it could take as long to get our drinks (in a separate line) as it would to get our food.  Though I appreciate this California Tortilla location wanting to empower the consumer by giving us 100+ choices of our favorite mixture of soda-pop, most people in line appeared paralyzed by the amount of combinations and permutations.  When I went into a different California Tortilla, I noticed an old-school fountain machine.  There was no line and I saw two people filling their soda cups at the same time.  It made me question the value the additional choices offered, especially when all I want is water.

So, I guess my question is, should there be fewer options or a better feedback tool for consumers to respond to?  When doing a little research on this post, I found a poster of a freestyle "menu" at Taco Mac.  I believe the use of this VMS (Visual Management System) could keep the lines short at the California Tortilla location.  But, I don't know.  Are there shorter (or no) lines at the Atlanta Taco Macs?  To shorten the lines at California Tortilla, I would propose they get the menus and hang a poster near the machine.  I think people would be more apt to decide what they wanted before they stand in front of this machine with 100+ choice presented to them.  I think it would cut down on people browsing the menu, while there is a line behind them.  My goal?  I want the cut down lead time and cycle time as much as possible.  Not sure what those are?  I found a great definition by Corey Ladas.

Lead time clock starts when the request is made and ends at delivery. Cycle time clock starts when work begins on the request and ends when the item is ready for delivery. Cycle time is a more mechanical measure of process capability. Lead time is what the customer sees.

Lead time depends on cycle time, but also depends on your willingness to keep a backlog, the customer’s patience, and the customer’s readiness for delivery.

Another way to think about it is: cycle time measures the completion rate, lead time measures the arrival rate. A producer has limited strategies to influence lead time. One is pricing (managing the arrival rate), another is managing cycle time (completing work faster/slower than the arrival rate).

I know you usually don't think of Agile or Lean when talking about fish tacos, burritos and soda-pop, but I had to get this off my chest.

Looking for Lean in Inefficient Processes

This morning, I wrote a physical check and placed it into a physical envelope. I hand-wrote the addresses on the envelope and even put a physical stamp on it.  I will mail it, when I take my semiweekly trip to the mailbox.  This is the first time I can remember doing this in a few years.  The party recieving my payment is forcing me to follow this inefficient business process of mailing a physical payment to them.  All I can think is how this used to be the norm and now how ridiculously inefficient it appears. When objectively judging the efficiency of this process, I started by first measuring two things, the Work-in-Process (WIP) and the Average Completion Rate (ACR).

Little's Law

This law provides an equation for relating Lead Time, Work-in-Process (WIP) and Average Completion Rate (ACR) to any process. The law states: Lead Time = WIP (units) / ACR (units per time period).  The idea is to have the lowest lead time as possible.  Lower lead times means less waste.

Am I the only geek out there who does this?  Where do you see inefficient processes that could benefit from a more lean approach?

The Gemba Walk

As part of a recent engagement I went to assess and coach a group of Agile teams out in Iowa.  Each morning, we would arrive before the daily stand-ups.  Each morning we walked around, listened in on conversations and got updates from the teams.  We quietly studied their large team boards and then how they interacted with the boards and one another. I would describe this daily stroll as our Gemba Walk.  Gemba is a Japanese term meaning "the real place." In business, it refers to the place where value is created; in our case the gemba was the west side of the building on the 5th floor where the teams were located.

Gemba Walk

In lean manufacturing, the idea of gemba is that the problems are visible, and the best improvement ideas will come from going to the gemba. The gemba walk, much like Management By Walking Around (MBWA), is an activity that takes management to those doing the actual value delivery, to look for waste and opportunities to practice gemba kaizen, or practical shopfloor improvement.  If you are in management and you want to make a real difference, get out of your office and go on a gemba walk.

If you are on a project team, do your managers go on a daily gemba walk?

HT: Wikipedia

When a Standard is a Distraction

I stopped off to get some gas and found myself spending way too much time analyzing the user interface, trying to figure out how to pump my gas.  I don't want to sound so negative but gas pumps rank right up there with Adobe products, when it comes to non-intuitive UI.  At first glance, the UI was comprised of two areas.  One, there was a monochrome screen with four button on either side.  I've seen this layout at other gas pumps so I was ready for visual queues to come from that.  The other area was a 16 button keypad.  Fortunately, there was a slot for me to insert my credit card, otherwise, I think I would have just driven to another gas station.  The problem started 10 seconds after I inserted my credit card.  It actually took roughly 10 seconds for each action to be registered on the screen, leaving me feeling frustrated throughout the process.

The first text to appear on the screen was In Payment Card. I complied and 10 seconds later the text Debit Card or Credit Card? appeared. I expected the choices to align to one of the 8 white buttons flanking the screen. I then looked at the keypad. Nope, no Debit or Credit keys, which I've seen on other gas pumps.  Just before cancelling the purchase, I noticed two unassuming grey buttons to the right of the receipt dispenser. They were labeled Outside Debit and Outside Credit. I grumbled to myself and selected the Outside Credit button. Ten seconds later (I'm not kidding) Enter Zip Code appeared on the screen.  I typed in my zip code via the keypad.  I waited a solid 10 seconds before Press Enter If OK or Clear appeared. I located and press an Enter OK button on the keypad. The text Authorizing then displayed for an additional 10 seconds. Just as I thought it would tell me to select my grade of gas, Would you like to print a receipt? appeared.  I located and selected the Yes Receipt button on the key pad.  The screen then took an additional 10 seconds to state please see cashier inside for receipt. I stood there dumbfounded (for an additional 10 seconds) when the screen then changed, stating Select your Grade.

Here comes the comparison.  Simple processes like buying your gas should not be this painful.  The same goes for your business processes.  Don't put so much emphasis on things that you're not going to need.  They become wasteful distractions.  In the case of the gas pump, the most important steps of the process were hard to locate and navigate.  I wasted a lot of time just trying to figure out how to do the next step, when I already knew what I needed to do.  On the gas pump, the two unassuming buttons were critical to move forward in the process but weren't even in my line of sight.  You need to think about this when customizing your business processes.  Standards (and processes) are good, as long as they provide value, either by increasing quality or lowering risk.

Waste In Software Projects

This evening I attending the monthly Agile Leadership Network event. I noticed a very familiar slide on Waste In Software Projects. It looks familiar because I have it in my training deck as well! Yes, my Introduction to Agile class has a slide that credits the Standish Group Study reported at XP2002 by Jim Johnson, Chairman.  In reviewing software systems, Jim Johnston, Chairman of the Standish Group, determined that in systems defined and delivered using a traditional / waterfall style approach almost half of all features developed and paid for are never used.  The question this evening was, for the 45% of the features that were never used, what was the cost incurred?  Well, I can tell you it's probably a lot more than 45% of the budget!  What if the features that were never used were actually the most costly as well? The rule we should learn here is we should eliminate the waste at the source, before it makes it all the way to the Production environment.  If a feature or product is never used, it's waste. But, since XP2002, have we learned our lessons?     Are we still delivering features that customers will never use?  I figured I would create a quick Google Doc that would collect some data. After giving it some thought, I decided to remove the link to the Google Doc.  The collection of data was just a distraction from the actual blog post.  Thank you to those to participated.

Reading about Process Improvement

Over the weekend, I found myself trying to read a physical book about systems analysis while listening to a book on operational process improvement.  I'm not going to go into the physical book because I am so impressed with the audio book.  I guess it wouldn't matter if it was physical, digital, or audio.  It's just a really really good book! It's titled: The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement by Eliyahu M. Goldratt (yes, if someone clicks on that link and buys a book, I would get credit)

Though the story reads like fiction, in its introduction of characters and story, it does an amazing job of introducing concepts to the reader.  The main character manages a production plant, where everything is always behind schedule and things are looking pretty bad. (Sound like any projects you know?)  The production plant is doing so poorly, the company has given the main character an ultimatum.   With a threat of closure, the plant has three months to turn operations from being unprofitable and chronically late on deliveries to being profitable and successful.  In the book, we are introduced to the Socratic method. Throughout the book, a character poses questions to another or a member of a team, which in turn causes them to talk amongst themselves to come up with a solution to their problem.

Because the book revolves around manufacturing and not application development or project management, there are a few dotted lines that need to be drawn.  But, overall, it really got my wheels spinning.  It doesn't matter if you're using Kanban or if you're in any type of management position, I would recommend this book.

One quote really stuck with me

Intuitive conclusions (common sense) are commonly masked by common practice

Process Improvement

The following lists some of the ways that processes can be improved.

• Reduce work-in-process (WIP) inventory to reduce lead time
• Add additional resources to increase capacity of the bottleneck
• Improve the efficiency of the bottleneck activity to increase process capacity
• Move work away from bottleneck resources where possible to increase process capacity
• Increase availability of bottleneck resources to increase process capacity
• Minimize non-value adding activities to decrease cost and reduce lead time

Like the drawing? Get it free from Pictofigo

Intro to Value Stream Mapping

I'm in the process of doing a Current State Value Stream Mapping (VSM) for the PMO. The big questions are, based on the current state, are there areas we can improve? Can we eliminate any waste (or increase efficiencies) from our current processes? The answer to both questions is YES.  Everyone should be reviewing there processes on a regular basis, giving themselves opportunities to become more profitable.  Though I'm advising a Federal Government project, the American people still deserve the most bangs for their bucks. Today is the last day for one of my projects.  It is done.  Now is the time to see what worked and what did not.  We now need to do a retrospective and see if we learned any lessons from the last go-around. I will give the vendor credit on this particular project. This small cross-functional team did a better job than others, in part, because we had a daily 15 minute status meeting. (otNay allowedway otay entionmay Agileway). One of the other program teams wastes so much time because they only communicate once a week in a 3 hour meeting.  I hope my VSM will change that.

For those new to Value Stream Mapping, I included a 5 minute video that does a pretty good job of explaining its value.  See how a process that took 140+ days to complete was shortened down to just 30 days.

If you don't have your current process documented, you need to do it!  As the saying goes, "What cannot be measured cannot be improved".  Don't be complacent and accept the waste.  Times are tough and we need to think lean!

Like the drawing? Get it free at Pictofigo

Mura Muri Muda

I had the wonderful opportunity to meet and listen to Jeff Sutherland a few days ago. For those who do not know who Jeff is, he and Ken Schwaber created Scrum.  It was really quite amazing to listen to him speak.  The topic of the talk was Using Scrum to avoid bad CMMI implementations.

Scrum and CMMI are often at odds with each other. What does each approach bring to the table? Scrum promotes the idea of focusing on the most important product issues first and supports frequent communication. CMMI brings a structure that promotes consistency and discipline to avoid waste and rework. So, why should we try to combine both approaches? Is this combination a good idea?

This post isn't going to go into detail about the entire talk. Rather, there were three words Jeff said that had me scrambling for my pen. "Muri, Mura, Muda".

The Toyota Production System identifies three types of waste (Muri, Mura, Muda).

Muri (無理, “unreasonable”) is a Japanese term for overburden, unreasonableness or absurdity.

Mura (斑 or ムラ) is traditional general Japanese term for unevenness, inconsistency in physical matter or human spiritual condition.  Waste reduction is an effective way to increase profitability.

Muda (無駄) is a traditional Japanese term for an activity that is wasteful and doesn't add value or is unproductive.

With commercial organizations, I consistently see two primary goals:  [1] Make Money and [2] Save Money

But as you drill down into an organization, these two goals are not as obvious.  So, to address this, I rewrite the two goals as:  [1] Deliver Value and [2] Eliminate Waste

When we reach this point, muri, mura, muda come into play.  In your day-to-day activities, are there areas you can make more efficient or improve?  Do you really need to go to that meeting or can someone just email you an agenda before and minutes after?  In your project lifecycle, do you really need a 10-step process workflow or can you achieve the same goal with just 5 steps?

Here is a practical exercise:  Make a list of activities you have to do this week.  Ask yourself why you need to do each of those activities. Do they map back to the core mission of your company?  Should any of these activities be postponed until the goal is clarified?  Should you just NOT do one of them?

I have a daily meeting at 10:00.  Why?  I fill find out what the team did yesterday, what they are doing today, and what impediments they have.  My job is to help facilitate their activities and remove roadblocks.  This 15 minute meeting is a keeper.

I have an invite to the Finance Working Group meeting on Monday. Why? Hmmm.  That's a good questions!  The meeting is scheduled for 1hr.  I know that it traditionally lasts 2-3hrs.  No invoice was attached in the meeting invite.  That leads me to believe they are going to review 500 pages as a group.  Though it's necessary to review the invoice, this is a very inefficient way of doing it.  I will send a request for a copy of the invoice to review when I can.  I will decline the meeting invite.

Of those activities on your list, highlight which ones just don't sit well with you.  Really listen to your gut. Are any items on your list an activity that does not directly translate into providing value?  Are any items on your list going to somehow cut into your personal life?  Are any items on your list literally a waste of time, money, or energy!?  If you can scratch any one of these items off your list, you are on the road to Kaizen (改善) (English: Continuous Improvement).

Before you accept that next task or meeting invite, ask yourself if there is a better way.

HT: Wikipedia

Like the drawing?  You can download it free at Pictofigo