To Shingo or not to Shingo…

By Kevin Meyer

My post about a week ago that took the Shingo Prize to task for awarding a version of the Prize to Callaway Golf, which has since chased cheap labor to Mexico, created a bit of a stir.  I received several public comments and a far larger number of private comments from people both supporting and questioning my position. 

I personally know many of the people at Shingo and have a tremendous amount of respect for them both as individuals and as lean leaders.  Much of what I know I learned from them. Because of this I feel the need to both recognize and address some of their comments.  First, snippets of a few of them.

Robert Miller, Executive Director of the Shingo Prize, had several points:

90% of the
organizations that study the Shingo model for improvement do so with no
intentions of challenging for recognition. Those who do, do it
primarily as a way to publicly recognize the many associates within
their organizations that contribute to their success.

Your
illustration is an excellent example of exactly why we raised the bar so
dramatically for "The Shingo Prize". A Bronze medallion is essentially
the equivalent of what used to be a Shingo Prize but now is the
validation that many of the associates are doing a good job of using
lean tools for continuous improvement. this first level of recognition
does not indicate that the leadership team of the plant, or the
corporate headquarters, who most likely make these kinds of decisions,
are fully aligned nor have they built deep cultures based on principles
of operational excellence.

Paul Todd of the Shingo Prize Board of Examiners wrote:

There is
no requirement that a certain number of awards be given each year, and
in fact the toughening of the criteria was done with the knowledge that
it would result in potentially fewer winners.

My long-time friend Norman Bodek, one of the founders of the Prize and recognized for being pivotal in bringing lean back to the U.S., provided considerable history of the Prize as well as the following:

Kevin, the purpose of the prize is to stimulate American organizations to strive for continuous improvement. The prize is a wonderful catalyst to get a company’s employees focused on improvement activities. It excites people just like any competitive sport, and like any sport we reward the winner not
the ideal of what could be possible.

Callaway did not win the Shingo Prize but the Shingo Medallion indicating that they had made substantial improvements and deserved some recognition but has, as yet, not attained the highest level. And the Shingo Prize does increase, almost yearly, the criteria for winning the Prize.

The Shingo Prize, like Lexus, always strives for perfection but problems unfortunately can always come unexpectedly. I like another motto, “You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” And you don’t condemn the Shingo Prize when the winners fail to adhere to the basic principles that won them the prize in the first place. Kevin, a few prizewinners disappointed us but look at the other hundreds of winners who over the years used the prize to make them more competitive.

By the way, regular readers know I often rant on the oft-forgotten "respect for people" pillar of lean.  That comes directly from listening to Norman speak, and I remember one of his lines as if I had just heard it: "Where is knowledge and creativity on a balance sheet??? Where???"  Now you know who to blame when I repeat that over, and over, and over!  Perhaps no one has shaped my understanding of lean more than Norman.

Finally, Brandon Ruggles wrote:

I would
recommend going to the gemba on this one. Read the criteria for the
prize, take an examiner course, and you could even apply to be an
examiner so you can see how the decision is made for prize winners.
Without going to the gemba the credibility of this post is minimized.

All excellent comments.  First off I personally know that Robert Miller is correct in that I have also used the Shingo Prize model when developing a transformation strategy for previous organizations, with no intention of actually applying for the Prize. 

Norman Bodek also makes an excellent point that I shouldn't condemn the Shingo Prize just because of a couple of bad apples.  The same reason why we shouldn't stop holding the Nobel Peace Prize in high regard after a couple of recent choices.

To Brandon's point I have reviewed the criteria, starting back in 2005 when I wrote the first post, again in 2008 when I revisited the issue, and once more last week.  There have been some good changes, especially the focus on results, the concept of principles, and the set of principles that deals with respect for people.  I have long believed that a lack of focus on respect for people, the second pillar of lean, is the reason most lean transformations fail.

But there are also some areas that bother me.

The concept of Bronze and Silver Medallions as the (per Robert Miller's description) "validation that many of the associates are doing a good job of using
lean tools for continuous improvement. This first level of recognition
does not indicate that the leadership team of the plant, or the
corporate headquarters, who most likely make these kinds of decisions,
are fully aligned" appears to fly in the face of the Shingo Prize model itself.  Here are a couple of the statements from the model that created my concern:

A Shingo Prize organization will have deeply embedded the principles of operational excellence throughout its leadership and in most aspects of its business processes: product/service development, customer relations, operations, supply, and management support processes.

One of the keys to implementation is to
balance all of these principles, rather than picking
one or two with a narrow focus. The genius
behind ‘The Toyota Way’ has been their ability to
knit together a complete set of tools and concepts
that fit with their guiding principles and a propensity
for continuous improvement that consistently
improves the fit. The tendency to disassemble these
tools and concepts into Six Sigma, TQM, TPM, JIT,
etc., has resulted in a haphazard tools-driven attempt
to copy, and delayed understanding of what
is really required to become operationally excellent.

The Shingo Prize model is correct: operational excellence must be embedded throughout the leadership of an organization, and "tools-driven attempts" almost always fail.  Too many organizations focus on implementing tools without identifying and understanding the problem that requires a certain tool in order to be solved.  The ability to root cause a problem and find appropriate tools, align those tools and systems within a hoshin approach to long-term continuous improvement and strategy, and then marshall the knowledge and creativity of people to execute and achieve real results, is leadership. And the Shingo Prize model correctly asks for humble leadership.

Tools alone fail.  Lean without committed, knowledgeable, courageous leadership fails.  Lean without respect for people fails.

Recognizing and rewarding a great implementation of tools when they are not supported by leadership is almost asking for failure.  And perhaps that's what happened at Callaway Golf.

I understand and respect the desire of the Shingo Prize to want to reward organizations that are "on the path"…  but I believe that is dangerous and diminishes the value of the Prize.  As does a proliferation of sub-awards and regional awards. 

The Shingo Prize was called "the Nobel Prize of manufacturing" by Business Week back in 2000 I believe.  Perhaps the Nobel is a model to be re-emulated: there are just six of them each year, representing only the very top achievement in each category.  There are no "almost a Nobel" prizes or medallions, no "good chemistry lab procedure even though the results weren't there," no "sorry your boss didn't support you but good effort," and no "Sub-Saharan Peace Prize" awards.

The Shingo Prize model is good, and good in that it continues to evolve and focus on people and results.  The top prize winners are becoming better and better, although my gut still questions why they'd bother devoting scarce resources to go for a Prize.  But the rationale for diluting the value of the Prize with regional awards and medallions that could actually promote behaviors that fly in the face of the Prize model should be revisited.  Let's go back to the best organization and the best research.  Period.