In my last post, I reflected on a couple different whys to interrogate a process – either to solve a problem or to create a process improvement. Here are a few more contextual uses of the question “Why?” that I’ve found very helpful as a manager and improvement leader:
Purpose expansion.
When asking why 5 times to solve a specific problem, we are intentionally drilling down into the problem to find a root cause. Shigeo Shingo flipped the scale with purpose expansion to encourage us to think of every end as a means to a higher purpose. For example, if 5S is a means to a higher purpose (reduced searching for tools) , then reduced searching (motion waste) must also be a means to a higher purpose:
Swapping means and ends, Shingo said, created clarity for each of the successive means as a component of the Toyota Production System. The significant human component is that people are not motivated by "Just do this to get that." A higher purpose is necessary to respect human nature.
Why not?
From Deming Prize Winner, Ryuji Fukuda, comes the question “Why not?”, a change management device based on the idea that it’s easier to articulate why a change can NOT be made. For example, I once posed the question to our field sales force, “Why not double sales?” Using Post-It notes, sales persons were asked to record ideas in silence, one fact per note. Card writing was furious:
Price too high. Lead-time too long. Defective products. Product life concerns. Apologizing to customers taking time that could have been used for selling.
Why not half?
This specific use of why-not is directed to breaking down and reducing one or more of the 7 wastes. I learned from it Hiroyuki Hirano. The question could be applied to any of the 7 wastes. Why not half as much motion? Or half as much inventory? And so on. The intent of the question was to look more granularly into contributing factors. For example, if a machine set-up took 90 minutes, then why not 45? Operators could trace the set-up steps in a linear way. How much time to gather materials? How much time to set tools? How much time for adjustments. Because each improvement reduced operators hassles, the arbitrary 50% target was often exceeded. And once a goal was achieved, the next question would be “Ok, why not half again?”
Go see. Ask why. Show respect.
From my friend and mentor, John Shook, comes a quote he heard directly from Fujio Cho during the establishment of TSSC. I think Mr. Cho’s perspective is especially important because of the radical shift it proposed in traditional management behaviors:
Like three legs of a stool, these three principles together describe a system where Kaizen means continuous process improvement powered by a visible management commitment and continuous human development. Take away one leg, and the system fails.
Which of these why’s do you use? Have I missed any. Please share an idea.
O.L.D.