"How vain, without the merit, is the name," wrote Homer. He was writing about Hector – trashing him for claiming epic accomplishments, without actually having done much. It strikes me as somewhat similar to the great number of managers and self-proclaimed lean experts who have not actually accomplished anything to speak of, but are nonetheless laying claim to the title of lean authorities.
The term 'lean' has become so thoroughly trashed that several of the leading lean thinkers I know are giving serious thought to conjuring up some new buzzword to denote what lean is really all about. The field is so completely saturated with people who have had a little bit of lean experience and proclaimed themselves authorities as a result, that it is increasingly hard for the true lean message to get through. All too often I will go into a company in trouble only to hear that (1) they are already lean so they need something else to save them, or (2) they implemented lean a few years back and it did not work for them, so they need something else. In both cases, what they did was nothing remotely close to the essence of lean – but try telling that to the manager they hired from some lean institution such as GM, Boeing or GE who is the one telling you that the troubled company is already lean. Try telling it to a CEO who has laid out hundreds of thousands of dollars to a consultant who has given them nothing but basic value stream mapping skills in return.
Big consulting firms have built extensive practices around kaizen, alone – the "Kaizen Kowboys" my friend Adam Zak calls them - and will work with clients for years doing nothing more than leading kaizen events and drawing value stream maps. When one of you tries to tell your management that lean is more than that, your urgings often fall on the deaf ears of a management that has paid a lot of money for 'expert' lean advice that assures them they can simply value stream map their way to excellence. One Evolving Excellence reader wrote to tell me that his company desperately needs one of my visits, but management is convinced that the presence of a couple of kanbans and u-shaped cells is absolute proof that they already know all there is to know about lean and have the shop floor to prove it. They are looking for another strategy since lean has not solved all of their problems.
The impetus for this post was my visit last week to Australia where the manufacturing community lags behind the US in its pursuit of lean by a considerable amount – which I believe is a great advantage for the Aussies. The managers I met are far less polluted with the "name without merit" and are more open to learning about lean in its full scope. They are willing to believe that lean requires a broad, comprehensive change in the entire scope of the business that can result only from a years long, complete transformation, largely because they have not been inundated with nonsensical advice to the contrary.
With that experience fresh in my mind I came home to an email from a reader who sent me a video about a company in Long Island called D'Addario and Company. I believe the subject of the video – a guy named Jim D'Addario who owns a very vertically integrated company making guitar strings and other peripheral products – really gets it; but the reporter sure doesn't. The millions of people who will tune into the CNN video will hear that Jim has implemented "the Toyota waste reduction strategy popularly known as lean. It relies heavily on automation." The reporter goes on to describe lean as primarily a job elimination device.
We award certificates of lean competence to folks who know little or nothing about management, have never been exposed to lean accounting or enterprise management, but have demonstrated mastery of shop floor techniques. We confer Shingo Prizes on companies roaring toward bankruptcy – then with these shining examples of what lean is all about, wonder why more companies aren't stepping up to restructuring into value streams and implementing major changes in their financial thinking and accounting systems.
With the Kaizen Kowboys running around advising people to value stream map their way to excellence, and CNN telling the world that lean is all about automation and killing jobs, it should come as no surprise that manufacturers are not running out in big numbers to launch five to ten year long overhauls of their entire business to achieve true excellence.
Maybe the lean leaders are right – we should leave the term "lean" to the CNN reporters and self-proclaimed experts who derive their expertise from failed lean initiatives, and come up with a new name.
Any suggestions?
Renaud says
Good points.
Why not “TPS” or “Taiichi Ohno system” or something else that goes back to the source?
If you want to spread a new name, better do support it with a story to tell…
Hank Roark says
This sounds like exactly the same problem the Agile software community is having: http://blog.thirstybear.co.uk/2009/06/agile-is-dead-long-live-agile.html
I don’t offer any solutions, just that it seems like a common problem. Such is often the case with revolutions.
Kathleen says
The term ‘lean’ has become so thoroughly trashed that several of the leading lean thinkers I know are giving serious thought to conjuring up some new buzzword to denote what lean is really all about. The field is so completely saturated with people who have had a little bit of lean experience and proclaimed themselves authorities as a result, that it is increasingly hard for the true lean message to get through.
I don’t disagree that the term has been diluted by those who have made half hearted attempts to implement it but I think the problem is much greater than that; the term is too generic and subject to selective interpretation. In my practice, most (yes, MOST) people think they are “lean” because they’re operating on a shoe string.
What is worse in my industry is how definitions migrate and with negative connotations. The best example is “fast fashion”. Initially this meant manufacturers like Zara, who go from concept to delivery within 3 weeks. A vertical enterprise, orders are pulled in small lots based on orders from store managers who have the discretion of autonomous purchasing decisions. Unfortunately observers confuse the product attributes of “fast fashion” with process.
An additional difficulty in apparel is the increasing focus on sustainability. Many producers think they are sustainable (lean) because they use “organic” materials. I argue over and over they are not because they’re not cutting to order and end up sitting on wasteful inventories that then depress prices. Currently, we are struggling to differentiate the two in ways that are meaningful to consumers and producers but it’s been an uphill struggle.
Steve Cummins says
“Any suggestions?” How about common sense manufacturing? Or is that too obvious?
Keep up the good work.
Dave Velzy says
I’m afraid that you face the reality of amateur versus professional.
Think sports.
Many play basketball, few can compete with the best. It’s still basketball.
New buzzword? Just trade basketball for baseball.
You still have the same reality.
Not everyone can perform at the same level.
Why? Their own imagination and culture get in the way as much as education training and innate talent.
Forget a new buzzword, learn to be the best coach you can be. Do good where you can.
Kevin says
I was about to agree until I read Dave’s comment above, and he makes a good point. There will always be differences in ability.
So then the problem becomes how to discern the difference and make the difference a competitive asset. In sports you can generally link received (negotiated?) compensation with ability (or can you?), but in business there’s usually no correlation. Let alone a real appreciation for getting what you pay for. Tangible results? Anyone can claim results, results can’t be easily verified, short term results sound great but the true measure of long term results is next to impossible to show let alone quantify.
I fear there is no real solution except Darwinism… on the part of the leaders that look for, identify, and hire lean guys. Great leaders will know to recognize they don’t know everything and need help, and be able to look past the fluff and see real talent, and accept the blunt reality and long term hard work that will come with it.
Jason Morin says
Jon Miller at Gemba Panta Rei offered “Scientifc Management 2.0” as an alternative to Lean.
http://www.gembapantarei.com/2009/11/scientific_management_20.html
Mark Welch says
Amen, Bill.
Shayne Roberts says
No buzzwords here, but I use this quote from Jon Miller every chance I get in our organization: “It would be alot easier if we could stop calling it LEAN and understand that it’s all about serving others, developing people and solving problems.”
Jim Fernandez says
I am a Lean Manager. One of the things that contributes to this problem is that people inside and outside of our company put pressure on us to show Lean results. Company owners, customers, consultants that we have hired and other companies who are benchmarking, want to know what Lean successes we have had. When they ask a question like that it’s very hard to respond honestly. How can I respond with “oh, we have actually had more failures than successes, but we are learning and getting better at Lean”. What they are asking is “just show me your accomplishments not your failures”. So consequently we show successful Lean activities when we have only begun to scratch the surface. Everyone and everything, including the owners and managers, put pressure on us to show lean successes.
And it’s so easy to slip into the human frailty of making things seem larger than they are.
No one has ever asked us to show them our failures and what we have learned from them. Now that question would result in some real transfer of Lean knowledge.
If you want to save the Lean image, start a Lean Failure Institute. Give awards out for the most Lean failures and the most lessons learned from those failures.
Mark Stover says
A new name? Call it what it is: common sense. So, I agree with Steve, but offer that it is really about management. Common Sense Management won’t work though (another damn TLA – three letter acronym)because “CSM” is also corrupted. Shoot, we need a secret handshake…
Jim Fernandez says
Something just struck me as ironic. It’s interesting that you would post this on December 7th, Pearl Harbor day. (Methinks all of the Lean bulkhead hatches are open.) LOL
Bob Emiliani says
Call it what it is: progressive management.
But whatever the name, history has shown us that the management practice will be compromised by those who seek shortcuts – which is almost everyone.
Warwick Carter says
I agree with the sentiment, but finding a new name appears to be more rebranding than repairing the problem.
In Australia, You pointed out that much of what was presented had been developed in the past 10 years. Tying this in to Dave’s comment – there are vast differences between the thought leaders and the rest of the pack. This gap gives those of us in the pack something to strive toward, as well as a roadmap of other peoples experiences to augment our own learnings. Perhaps part of the solution is increasing our own expectations of what is acceptable from ourselves as Lean practitioners?
A harder problem is educating those executives that consider that they’ve ‘done Lean’. These leaders have possibly ‘done’ Six Sigma, TQM, Teams, Business Rengineering as well – probably with similar results. If boards, shareholders and employers took a step back, and demanded value above promises then we may be in with a chance. I’m not sure how to drive that sort of change, but it would be nice to see
Steve Harper says
Deming and Ohno faired no better when it really had no name. A new name won’t change the difficulty in framing the effort required, nor expedite the delayed rewards for focusing on the system and the thinking rather than tools. I think true lean is closer to a religion than anything else – you just have to believe. So until we get a holiday in December named after some great lean event, we face an uphill battle, no matter what you call it.
Shawn says
After leaving GM only to find out just how much I didn’t now about lean practices I wholeheartedly agree with you that the name has become just another term in a crowded marketplace.
From my experience implementing lean long after leaving GM I’ve found one consistent success strategy – don’t give it a name.
What we’re striving for is a better way of managing. True lean companies don’t succeed because they have the best continuous improvement department, rather they typically have no continuous improvement department at all.
If you’re answering questions on what savings lean has provided your company you’re already DOA. It’s the vehicle by which departments improve, not the improvement itself.
Graham Rankin says
How about leaRn, where the R also stands for ‘Real’?