The Book Publishing Process is Broken

The publishing model is about as broken as can be. They add value in editing (but that can easily be separated from them - I believe many just use independent editors anyway). I suppose they can help with marketing. A few decades ago marketing and distribution were barriers to alternative solutions. I can't really see much need for traditional publishers anymore myself. If I felt like writing a book I would just do it myself, pay an editor, publish and "distribute" it myself. If I went with paper at all (I probably would if I thought I could sell much, just because, it wouldn't seem real if it was just electrons), I would just use some print on demand shop to deal with all the logistics. I can imagine the bookstore process may also be pretty broken so getting copies into stores may be a challenge (if it wasn't worth the hassle, I wouldn't, if it was, I would outsource that hassle to someone).

I couldn't believe how broken the publishing process was decades ago, when hearing my father and his author friends talk about it. And they haven't done much to improve. Publishers and those responsible for the closing process on home loans have done about the worst jobs of improving of any groups I can think of.

comment on: Of Blogs and Books (or from Solo to Silo)

Related: Problems with Management and Business Books -

Causes of the Health Care Crisis

Root Cause of Health Care Crisis? by Pascal Dennis

Costs are exploding -- and crowding out other critical expenditures like education, R & D and infrastructure. Health care outcomes are disappointing. Miracles occur within the silos, catastrophe across them.

What's the root cause of this sorry state of affairs?

I don't think there is 1 reason why the health care system is so bad in the USA. If I had to pick the most important reason it is the legal infrastructure. The system is designed (with legal constraints) to favor entrenched interests instead of customers and stakeholders.

It is true other rich countries also have massive room for improvement. But the USA stands far below all other rich countries. The costs in the USA are about double the average rich country. And the heath care outcomes are mediocre. And the economic and personal outcomes are extremely bad. Tying health insurance to an employer is an extremely bad idea - that is rare among rich countries (I am not sure if the USA is unique in this bad practice, or not).

I have many posts on the problems on USA health care and how to improve the health care system in the USA.

It is possible to try and find the common reasons for health care failures in the USA and other rich countries but the USA is really in its own class of badness.

Related: Can We Expect the Health Care System in the USA to Become Less Damaging to the Economy? - USA Spends Record $2.5 Trillion, $8,086 per person 17.6% of GDP on Health Care in 2009

Discrimination and Data

A Discriminatory Conundrum

The total American workforce has remained relatively constant over the last ten years – roughly 131M employees. The number of EEOC claims over the last ten years has increased by roughly 25% to almost 100K a year.

I would think these suits increase when there is a bad employment marketplace, but I don't have any data on that it just seems logical. When times are good all sorts of people get good jobs. When times get bad, jobs are hard to find, promotions are hard to find, people get demoted, bosses have to cut budgets and people. People are also very stressed out and it isn't surprising to me that lots of bad outcomes come from that including people feeling slighted, people getting into escalating cycles of bad words and actions, and more lawsuits.

In addition to the macro-effects of the economy data has quite a bit of variation. Often lawsuits over class differences get data that shows difference in result and claims this shows discrimination. While if we showed the same data for the first letter of the grade school the person attended, or eye color, or the state the person's Mother was born in we would see lots of variation in data that people would see as worthy of payment for the discriminated against class (though in those cases no-one would actually believe it). xkcd took a comic look at data analysis recently.

I am skeptical of short term variation having much meaning with this data. I would want to see it charted over time and then analyzed for having an indication it wasn't just random variation of a stable system.

If the data doesn't indication a special cause (for the variation in the data) that tells you that special cause problem solving is not the best way to improve. In that case you still want to improve but you improve using common cause problem solving techniques. This particular dataset would undoubtedly (at least in my opinion) benefit from stratifying the data to identify segments where it is more of an issue. My guess is that there would be wide variation but the data analysis would show if this is true or not.

Should We Set a Goal for the Number of Kaizen Events

Does Setting a Goal for Number of Kaizens Violate "Kaizen Spirit"?

is it reasonable to set a target or goal for the # of kaizen ideas submitted and implemented?
is a goal sometimes necessary to get the ball rolling?
are goals and targets almost always dysfunctional?

I don't see any value in setting goals for the number of kaizen events. It is typical MBA spreadsheet management thinking that has really no value in this instance. There are some times MBA spreadsheet management has limited, but actual, value (many alternatives would be better - but they still have some value).

Goals can be useful to set the scope of solution you are aiming for but in general are a bad idea. This example would be a horrible one, because fixating on the number of kaizen events is silly. No value, only loss - that isn't the prescription for a wise management choice.

Focusing on number of kaizen events seems likely to drive the counterproductive behavior.

should we merely "substitute leadership" as Dr. Deming suggested?
how do we foster intrinsic motivation for kaizen?

This is hard. It involves large scale, deep cultural and management changes. Read the posts from Lean Daily, and the great management books and adopt ideas you learn...

I think this quote summarizes the reality behind setting arbitrary numerical kaizen targets. "managers will try anything easy that doesn’t work before they will try anything hard that does work" - Jim Womack

Horrible Management at Airlines in the USA

It is actually laughable how obvious the problems with USA airline management are. Just go fly the cheap airlines in Asia: Firefly, Tiger Air (AirAsia I haven't flown but am not sure is a good comparison, though many people like it)... Even Malaysia Air offers some very cheap short haul flights. Then you have airlines like Singapore Air which is like professional athletes being compared to primary school athletes (that the American managers are - United, Delta, US Air...).

I flew on a 30 minutes flight (something like $20), with full food service in Malaysia. A week later I fly on American from NYC to Washington DC and due to the "short" flight time and about 5 minutes of the seat belt sign being lit due to turbulence the beverage service was canceled for our "safety." The failure of the executives of American airlines is staggering. I really can't imagine how USSR style management circa 1980 could be much worse. Yet somehow none of them bother to just give up, stop their MBA lead idiocy and just hire a bunch of people that know how to run airlines from southeast Asia. They all just want the answer to be in their spreadsheets not their utter failure of management.

Singapore Airlines has amazingly attentive flight attendants. That is the system in place. It is not a personal issue. It is a management issue. Yes their on some in the west who don't want to serve others, it might be an American airline has hired a few wrong people for the job. But mainly I think they have utterly destroyed flight attendants will with their horrible management systems that create day after day of angry customers and no way to fix the issues as a flight attendant.

I believe you take most flight attendants in the USA and put them in the Singapore Air system they will be great. It might also be a few are just not cut out for being a flight attendant (I have not question the horrible job managers have done has lead them to drive away good employees and therefore make some bad hiring decisions because they can't get the people that should be in the jobs to work for their horrible system). My guess is take most of the Singapore Air flight attendants and put them in the American system and they would quit. But if they stayed, after a year they would likely be not much different than their co-workers - unable to make the poor systems provide good results for customers, extremely frustrated...

It really is staggering how American airlines have decades of horrible management yet their are obvious examples of how to do it right a plane flight away and they can't get out of their own way to adopt decent management practices.

Reaction to: Bangkok Airways and the Power of People

Most of the Asian airlines I flew had the typical chaos boarding of USA airlines but done much more effectively. I still think they would be much better off adopting a Southwest Airlines style (Southwest Air is unique but you can do something similar even with assigned seats). One kind of did. They had you go in different lines after they checked your boarding pass - quite an affective strategy I believe (they could put first class, people needing more time... arrange people in sections of rows)...

Related: Airline Quality - CEO Flight Attendant - Southwest Not Delta or United - United Breaks Guitars

Does a Good Lean System Need Six Sigma

With a good Lean system in place, do we still need Six Sigma? (the broken link was removed)

There is no Lean Team, but everyone in the organization thinks Lean. Employee satisfaction surveys show steady growth in satisfaction; profitability is increasing; cost are decreasing; less work pressure... The one problem still exist is ensuring JIT delivery from the suppliers network.

Can Six Sigma help the organization to accelerate or further improve this situation?

Good six sigma efforts (even 15 years ago) and lean share many of the same tools and principles that come from earlier TQM and such like efforts. There are some tools that are primarily associated with six sigma (like design of experiments). But those tools far precede "six sigma" even in their application in business. And those tools could certainly be useful in most lean organizations. There is no reason they couldn't just adopt those management tools.

Given that just in time was developed and made popular by Toyota and Deming long before the term six sigma was coined it certainly can be done expertly without six sigma tools. Six sigma tools can certainly help in my opinion, though.

I wouldn't weigh the benefit of any tools or methods or principles based on what category people places them in but instead I would build a management system based on the need of the organization. My preference is for Deming methods which form the foundation of lean and I also am a big fan of design of experiments (which most Deming and lean efforts do not use).

My father taught me design of experiments and Deming methods as a child and both have always made a great deal of sense to me. He wrote with George Box and Stu Hunter, what is seen by many as the premier design of experiments textbook, Statistics for Experimenters and he taught management improvement based on Deming's ideas, statistics, successful evidence based management principles... for decades.

These tools and methods all can be used together. A blog post of mine from 2005 on lean, six sigma, Deming, operational excellence and other management ideas.

Speaking Up and Taking the Risk

Not speaking the truth to power (the broken link was removed)

For the future. Be very, very, very, very, very cautious about sharing honest opinions with a boss unless you have a good relationship and the boss has proven that he or she actually wants the truth and handles it well. In my experience some bosses want it, some never want it, and some want it in some areas but not others. When in doubt, mumble."

I give my honest opinion almost all the time. It does definitely get you in trouble. It also can help you and help the organization a great deal. I have become more willing to not bother wasting my time with "power" that has no interest in actually improving things.

I am not interested in working in a place where we are not pushing toward evidence based management and seeking real situational awareness not avoidance and burying heads in the sand.

Related: The Lazy Unreasonable Man - The Importance of Management Improvement - Performance without Appraisal

One way I have always looked at it is you will be targeted if you speak up. So if you want to avoid that just be like most others and don't speak up. But if you can make things better by speaking up you will gain allies. This isn't perfect though and it counts on people being smart enough to notice that you are helping them even if occasionally you force them to look at things they would rather avoid.

At one time I could tell after a while that a boss of mine didn't really want to know how they could improve. So they asked me, I told them they didn't really want to know. They said, yes they did. So I told them. They then moved into a new job and told the new boss watch out for this John Hunter, he will be far too critical and not accept how things have to be done, he is a troublemaker.

The new boss called me in and talked to me about the kinds of problems that she saw and some reports of what I had been saying should be done. She asked me some more questions about what could be done to improve things. Then see decided to have me report directly to her 2 days a week to work on getting the organization to change. The organization obviously was failing and they needed change and the huge resistance to change was something she thought required people that were not going to just go along with what had been done and attempt to resist all change.

I took several lessons from this. One my judgement was right, trust what you see in the actions of a boss, not just their words. If you are mostly worried about protecting your job just say what you can tell your boss wants to hear. If however, you are willing to stand up for your beliefs and think you can provide good value you can take the risk and try and improve the organization.

Even if your boss tries to sabotage you it may not work. This is very risky - it was pretty unlikely the new boss would have been so open to new ideas. But she was brought in from the outside specifically because of the continued poor performance fostered by the culture of pretending everything is basically good and blaming employees for failures instead of improving the system... I have always felt free to take risks and if the boss didn't like it then I could look elsewhere. This isn't the best strategy if you are most concerned with keeping your job - it can easily create problems.

Google's Fight to Keep Talent

Google and Pay Raises: Turns Out, She's a Lot Like You.... (the broken link was removed)

Google attempted to do what your company either 1) has done, or 2) would do if you had the means:

1. You would try and buy your way out of a retention problem by giving everyone an across the board raise. Turnover is hard to figure out and stop. Sometimes you just have to throw money at everyone and hope that the turnover stops. It rarely does.

Google is managing people, just like every other organization, so you would expect lots of stuff would be the same. I don't actually recall other companies giving everybody a 10% raise (Google probably has more money than your company). I agree, that this is not likely to do much to turnover.

The possible impact in Google's favor is forcing others to pay so much that they can't afford to do so, and shrink or even go bankrupt. Especially small organizations. Yes they will use options, but salary is also part of the requirement.

I think also, anyone taking away that Google's other moves don't matter is making a huge mistake. Google's moves to create a great culture, let people work with other great people is helping Google. The draws of leaving for so many great people are high. If Google were to be less proactive in other areas the problems retaining people would be much harder. Some people seem to take the idea that people are leaving Google as a condemnation of their tactics. I think that is the wrong thing to take away.

Related: Google's Answer to Filling Jobs Is an Algorithm - Google's Innovative Use of Economics