Response to: Do We Really Need Estimates?
I think it is a question of addressing the purpose those see for estimates. If they just say "lots of people do it, so we should" then your answer is fine in my opinion.
If they say they need some way of deciding if doing that work is wise or something that is going to be so difficult that it isn't worth it then a different answer is needed. If they talk about scheduling then other explanations make sense to me - talking about the issues with fixed estimates etc. but giving them alternatives of fixed schedule with variable features (if there is a business need to deliver on some date)., etc.
Related: Agile Story Point Estimation (2012) - Assigning Story Points to Bug Fixes (2011)
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Monday, January 11, 2016
Don't Use Targets as a Management Tool
comments on: Deconstructing Deming XI B – Eliminate numerical goals for management
I agree with the comments that targets are unwise. There is one sense in which I think the idea of (but not actual) targets can be useful and that is in setting the scope.
If we want to find an improvement that is immense (versus small continual improvement) that can set the expectation of how we approach improvement, including an understanding that we are going to have to really make big changes in how things are done.
I have written more about this, here:
Deming on Targets
Basically I don't see that scoping "target" as really a target but it is similar so if you want to see it that way, then in that sense I can see a "target" as useful.
Related: Innovation at Toyota - Targets Distorting the System - Righter Incentivization
I agree with the comments that targets are unwise. There is one sense in which I think the idea of (but not actual) targets can be useful and that is in setting the scope.
If we want to find an improvement that is immense (versus small continual improvement) that can set the expectation of how we approach improvement, including an understanding that we are going to have to really make big changes in how things are done.
I have written more about this, here:
Deming on Targets
Basically I don't see that scoping "target" as really a target but it is similar so if you want to see it that way, then in that sense I can see a "target" as useful.
Related: Innovation at Toyota - Targets Distorting the System - Righter Incentivization
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Comments Blog
The most popular posts on this blog (10 May 2010 through today - the data I have doesn't let me just look at data for 2015):
Breakdown of popular posts by year: 2014 - 2, 2013 - 3, 2012 - 2, 2011 - 1, 2006 - 3, 2005 - 1.
I started this blog over 10 years ago. After I figured out that I thought blogging would work for me I created a self hosted blog (the Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog) and moved the content to that blog. But I kept up the post here since web pages should live forever. For several years (about 2005 to 2011), I posted occasionally to this blog, sometimes the posts were comments made on other blogs.
In 2011 I started to use this blog a bit more consistently to collect the management and leadership related comments I made on other blogs here (when they seemed to say something useful or interesting that were worth posting on this blog - often things I wanted to be able to find later).
Related: Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Comments Blog (2014 edition) - 10 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Blog in 2014 - 20 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Blog in 2015 - 10 Most Popular Post on The W. Edwards Deming Institute Blog (2015)
- Profit = Market Price - Actual Cost or Price = Cost + Desired Profit (2012)
- Mistake Proofing and Mistake Making Less Easy (2013)
- Performance without Appraisal (2005) - which was my 100th post
- Cease Mass Inspection for Quality (2006)
- 14 Plus Potentially 14 More Years for Copyrights Has Become 120 Years (2013)
- Sustaining Management Improvement Through Personnel Changes (2014)
- Causes of the Health Care Crisis (2011)
- Global Manufacturing Data by Country (2006)
- Data Must be Understood to Intelligently Use Evidence Based Thinking (2014)
- Deming and Toyota (2006)
- The Failure of Hero Worship Thinking at JC Penney (2013)
- Customer Focus is Central to Lean Thinking (2012)
Breakdown of popular posts by year: 2014 - 2, 2013 - 3, 2012 - 2, 2011 - 1, 2006 - 3, 2005 - 1.
I started this blog over 10 years ago. After I figured out that I thought blogging would work for me I created a self hosted blog (the Curious Cat Management Improvement Blog) and moved the content to that blog. But I kept up the post here since web pages should live forever. For several years (about 2005 to 2011), I posted occasionally to this blog, sometimes the posts were comments made on other blogs.
In 2011 I started to use this blog a bit more consistently to collect the management and leadership related comments I made on other blogs here (when they seemed to say something useful or interesting that were worth posting on this blog - often things I wanted to be able to find later).
Related: Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Comments Blog (2014 edition) - 10 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Blog in 2014 - 20 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Blog in 2015 - 10 Most Popular Post on The W. Edwards Deming Institute Blog (2015)
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
The Importance of a Work Culture That Values and Supports Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is tremendously important. I have come to think it might be the most important precursor to management improvement (evidence based management, continual improvement...).
One of the big issues is for people to understand thinking critically about ideas isn't an insult to whoever came up with the idea being discussed. This isn't something I would have thought of as important until seeing so many cases where people are not comfortable discussing ideas (and weaknesses in those ideas) in the workplace.
Comments prompted by: thinking critically
Related: A Good Management Culture Encourages the Debate of Ideas - Respect for People Doesn’t Mean Avoiding Any Hint of Criticism - Dangers of Forgetting the Proxy Nature of Data
One of the big issues is for people to understand thinking critically about ideas isn't an insult to whoever came up with the idea being discussed. This isn't something I would have thought of as important until seeing so many cases where people are not comfortable discussing ideas (and weaknesses in those ideas) in the workplace.
Comments prompted by: thinking critically
Related: A Good Management Culture Encourages the Debate of Ideas - Respect for People Doesn’t Mean Avoiding Any Hint of Criticism - Dangers of Forgetting the Proxy Nature of Data
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Quality Digest: How to Create a Culture of Continuous Improvement
Quality Digest published my article: How to Create a Culture of Continuous Improvement
Related: Change and the Management System - John Hunter online - Lowering Expectations Isn't Showing Respect
Related: Change and the Management System - John Hunter online - Lowering Expectations Isn't Showing Respect
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Root Cause - Addressing Systemic Causes Not Symptoms
Comment on Just Ask Why Five Times? Effective Problem Solving for #Lean or #LeanStartup Doesn’t Start or End There
> Would you agree that complex systems rarely have a single root cause?
Yes. And also "root cause" is a neat concept but in reality it is not usually "true" but an a sensible acceptance of a cause that is systemic enough and addressable enough to consider "root." It isn't that there is this "true root cause" that created the current problem. There is a way to look at the issue and find a deeper cause that will allow you to address it and improve the future performance of the system.
Depending on how you look at the problem there can be many different "root causes" that are sensible from their different perspectives. The important thing is by aiming to fix root/systemic problems you will not just treat the current symptom you are dealing with today but eliminate future problems from occurring. If you are doing that, you are doing well.
If you start noticing that you are addressing problems that could have been addressed in previous attempts to address root causes, you can exploring whether going further in each attempt makes sense. It isn't as simple as this but if you notice you addressed a systemic problem at the "branch" level effectively for example. So if you had 3 fixes that did stop future problems on each of the branches but on the fourth fix you looked and said hey all 4 of these connect to this larger branch (or tree trunk - which is connected to a real "root") I would say asking if you should have addressed the "next why" may well make sense.
Related: Root Cause, Interactions, Robustness and Design of Experiments - Address the Root Cause Instead of Finding the Person to Blame - Poor Results Should be Addressed by Improving the System Not Blaming Individuals - Firing Workers Isn’t Fixing Problems - Examine the System, Don't Look to Blame a Person - Why Do You Ask Why?
> Would you agree that complex systems rarely have a single root cause?
Yes. And also "root cause" is a neat concept but in reality it is not usually "true" but an a sensible acceptance of a cause that is systemic enough and addressable enough to consider "root." It isn't that there is this "true root cause" that created the current problem. There is a way to look at the issue and find a deeper cause that will allow you to address it and improve the future performance of the system.
Depending on how you look at the problem there can be many different "root causes" that are sensible from their different perspectives. The important thing is by aiming to fix root/systemic problems you will not just treat the current symptom you are dealing with today but eliminate future problems from occurring. If you are doing that, you are doing well.
If you start noticing that you are addressing problems that could have been addressed in previous attempts to address root causes, you can exploring whether going further in each attempt makes sense. It isn't as simple as this but if you notice you addressed a systemic problem at the "branch" level effectively for example. So if you had 3 fixes that did stop future problems on each of the branches but on the fourth fix you looked and said hey all 4 of these connect to this larger branch (or tree trunk - which is connected to a real "root") I would say asking if you should have addressed the "next why" may well make sense.
Related: Root Cause, Interactions, Robustness and Design of Experiments - Address the Root Cause Instead of Finding the Person to Blame - Poor Results Should be Addressed by Improving the System Not Blaming Individuals - Firing Workers Isn’t Fixing Problems - Examine the System, Don't Look to Blame a Person - Why Do You Ask Why?
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
How Badly Are Companies Treating You?
Comment on: How well does your organization treat clients or customers?
No I don't agree; maybe I just have the lousy sample of companies I interact with. Truthfully I don't deal with companies that treat me poorly unless I don't have a choice - but that is not uncommon at at (ISP, airlines, electric company, mortgage company...).
The survey results don't surprise me, given how out of touch executives and managers are about what their customers must put up with.
I intentionally pick companies that are good, but for example with a mortgage it is then sold and I am forced to deal with a bad company...
I am thrilled when a company treats me well (because my expectations have been so beaten down that just not being treated as a huge bother is a rare), but it is rare. Trader Joe's does consistently. My credit union does. In general restaurants do.
What I have found is that if the executives are paid more than $1,000,000 the company probably treats me very poorly. I don't think is a cause, but I do think it is correlated. The executives seem to always have room to pay themselves huge salaries but are loath to provide the customers someone that answers the phone or email without wasting tons of the customers time.
Upon my return to the USA after 4 years overseas the biggest annoyance has been dealing with these companies I am forced to deal with that treat me with complete distain. They see no problem wasting my time or forcing me to follow some idiotic processes that make life easy for them.
Related: Customers Get Dissed and Tell (2008) - Is Poor Service the Industry Standard (HP in 2006)? - Don’t Ignore Customer Complaints (2014) - Customer Service is Important (2006)
Our reader poll today asks: How well does your organization treat clients or customers?
– Extremely well — we take great care of them: 35.17%
– Very well — we treat them better than most other companies: 34.88%
– Well — we do a decent job but could improve a bit: 25%
– Not well — we could treat them much better: 3.49%
– Poorly — I’m surprised we even still have customers: 1.45%
...
Do you agree
No I don't agree; maybe I just have the lousy sample of companies I interact with. Truthfully I don't deal with companies that treat me poorly unless I don't have a choice - but that is not uncommon at at (ISP, airlines, electric company, mortgage company...).
The survey results don't surprise me, given how out of touch executives and managers are about what their customers must put up with.
I intentionally pick companies that are good, but for example with a mortgage it is then sold and I am forced to deal with a bad company...
I am thrilled when a company treats me well (because my expectations have been so beaten down that just not being treated as a huge bother is a rare), but it is rare. Trader Joe's does consistently. My credit union does. In general restaurants do.
What I have found is that if the executives are paid more than $1,000,000 the company probably treats me very poorly. I don't think is a cause, but I do think it is correlated. The executives seem to always have room to pay themselves huge salaries but are loath to provide the customers someone that answers the phone or email without wasting tons of the customers time.
Upon my return to the USA after 4 years overseas the biggest annoyance has been dealing with these companies I am forced to deal with that treat me with complete distain. They see no problem wasting my time or forcing me to follow some idiotic processes that make life easy for them.
Related: Customers Get Dissed and Tell (2008) - Is Poor Service the Industry Standard (HP in 2006)? - Don’t Ignore Customer Complaints (2014) - Customer Service is Important (2006)
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
Spend More Time Doing What You Do Well
Comment on: Is it Better to Work on Strengths or Weaknesses?
As you say to the extent your weaknesses are things you have to do spending time improving them usually makes sense. I think often the most productive thing is to spend time working on the system to maximize the use of people's strengths and minimize the use of their weaknesses. This often has a big impact without much effort.
And when you do that it is often the magnitude of strengths that makes a big difference. So you can avoid dealing with much of the weaknesses in the team and focus most effort on the strengths. And when you do that my getting even better at x allows the improvement not to just be x * 1.1 but (x * 1.1) + (y * 1.3) + (z * 1.4) - (if say I am now 30% "better" than y at the task and 40% better than z. Obviously it doesn't work so cleanly in the real world but that concept that you can get way more improvement normally by adjusting the way work is done than just by having everyone get less bad at the stuff they really should avoid doing most of the time.
You do also have to pay attention to the long term, so if someone wants to move into supervision but has some weaknesses they need to address and strengths to improve working on that makes sense.
Related: Take Advantage of the Strengths Each Person Brings to Work - Helping Employees Improve
- Many Good Employees Want to Continue to Do Their Current Job Well - Lessons for Managers from Wisconsin and Duke Basketball
As you say to the extent your weaknesses are things you have to do spending time improving them usually makes sense. I think often the most productive thing is to spend time working on the system to maximize the use of people's strengths and minimize the use of their weaknesses. This often has a big impact without much effort.
And when you do that it is often the magnitude of strengths that makes a big difference. So you can avoid dealing with much of the weaknesses in the team and focus most effort on the strengths. And when you do that my getting even better at x allows the improvement not to just be x * 1.1 but (x * 1.1) + (y * 1.3) + (z * 1.4) - (if say I am now 30% "better" than y at the task and 40% better than z. Obviously it doesn't work so cleanly in the real world but that concept that you can get way more improvement normally by adjusting the way work is done than just by having everyone get less bad at the stuff they really should avoid doing most of the time.
You do also have to pay attention to the long term, so if someone wants to move into supervision but has some weaknesses they need to address and strengths to improve working on that makes sense.
Related: Take Advantage of the Strengths Each Person Brings to Work - Helping Employees Improve
- Many Good Employees Want to Continue to Do Their Current Job Well - Lessons for Managers from Wisconsin and Duke Basketball
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)