The system isn´t perfect, is that the real issue?

I`m back writing again, after a very long period of inactivity. But it has been for good, as I have been learning and fine tuning my Lean skills. Today I want to write about the Confederations Cup and the new system that it´s being used to help referees make tough decisions; the so called VAR. 

In Soccer, there are 4 referees, that basically rely on their own eyes, experience and interpretation of the rules to take the calls. Soccer is one of those sports that seem to have been away from technology for a long time. It´s no surprise that, as referees rely on their abilities to have a fair performance every game. However Soccer is the one sport that has many periods of controversy, precisely because the decisions referees often make, are completely wrong.

There are famous examples as Maradona´s "Hand of god" in 1986 World Cup, or the "Phantom Goal" that gave England its only World Cup title in 1966. Most recently Thierry Henry´s hand during the World Cup qualification in 2009, in a match between France and Ireland. Henry controled the ball with the hand (something totally forbidden in Soccer) and gave an assistance to a team mate, who scored a Goal, and because of that Goal, Ireland was out of the World Cup.

So,  as you can see, Soccer´s needed desperately for years a better technology, rules, a better system to make the game fair for both teams. NFL has Video Assistance and challenges, where teams can request referees to look again at the critical plays and this, often allows referees to take accurate decisions. NBA has a similar system and very clear rules. Soccer has integrated a similar system to try to help referees to make better decisions. This new system/technology is called VAR (Video Assistant Referee) which is basically something very similar to what the NFL has. This summer, the tournament called Confederations Cup is being played in Rusia. One year before the World Cup that will be played at that same country. In this tournament, the VAR has made its debut.  And as expected, there are complains from analysts and public in general. Why? Because in order for the referee to take a look at the VAR, the game needs to be stopped. Fans, players, coaches and tv analysts aren´t used to the this. Soccer is a sport where the only time it is stopped is when there is an injured player, somebody scores a goal or there is an external situation. So it is logical that there are many complains about this system. Perhaps, the fact that the game has been stopped for over 2 minutes, is a main contributor for the complains. The main complain is that it interrupts the game. Some said, that the promise was that it wouldn´t take more than 30 secs to review a controversial play. 

VAR system provides feedback to referees when critical plays  arise.

All this made me think about the "resistance to change" when a transformation or a new process or perhaps, a new technology is being introduced at any process. There is always people who will resist the change. Why? There are a lot of reasons. Not fully understanding why the change is needed, is one common. Because often, technology isn´t reliable and brings more troubles than solutions. Because the change is imposed and people often insn´t taken into consideration when introducing change. Because leadership isn´t commited to change and there is poor follow up on initiatives, etc. There are a lot of reasons why people seem to resist to change. In the case of Soccer, this new technology isn´t as efficient, as I believe could be. But at least, is based in a system that has proven to be efficient. The NFL, I think is an example that Soccer should persuit. And the fact that now, 2 minutes or more are needed to review a critical play, isn´t necesarily bad. My expectaton is that this system will continue to evolve to achieve that 30 seconds promise to review a play and make a decision. Or even less time. We should not forget, that everything can in fact, be improved.  And the fact that right now, this process is a bit longer, doesn´t mean it cannot go faster and be more accurate and better in the future.

I really think that a system that isn´t perfect is not a abad thing, as long as the owner recognize the flaws and would be willing to fix it. A really bad thing is when a process is launched, has many flaws and the owner doesn´t seem to be interested on improving.

Resistance to change will always exist. Or perhaps we better call it, Not understanding the change. In life as in processes will always be people who prefer the old way. I guess we can keep trying, use our minds to explain the better possible way why it is important to follow change. And what benefits can arise from the change. Usually when people gets it, they get it. Listening to the suggestions of people is always a key element to overcome fear or lack of understanding. In the end Lean is about making things better, WITH people. So, VAR creators have a great opportunity to listen, observe and improve the system for the sport´s, fans and media benefit. Only time will tale if these creators have a continuous improvement mind set or not.

The main issue is not that the VAR isn´t perfect. The issue is wether VAR creators would be able to recognize the flaws and improve the system.

Thanks for reading, would love to read your thoughts regarding Soccer, change or else.

True Crime meets Lean.

Its holiday, and I really hope you had a great time this Christmas. I hope Santa brought all your gifts and really hope that companies, as well the economy in general will get better for everybody in the world. 

Tonight I want to talk about podcasts. I´m kind of addicted to podcasts. I have been subscribed to Gemba Academy and Mark Graban´s podcasts for a while now. They are really great, so if you haven´t listen to them, I urge you to do it. You will get insights related to Lean and different other topics, such as Customer Service, leadership, continuous improvement and one of the most important, that I have been able to know other authors, speakers and leaders who work everyday to spread the knowledge and principles around Lean, and also to correct the misconceptions around it.  

Podcast: a program (such as a music or news program) that is like
radio  or television show but that is downloaded over the Internet.

Thanks to that and that I read the New Yorker, I came across with Serial. The famous podcast that during its first season, told the story of Adnan Syed, who was charged on the murder of his ex-girlfriend and locked for the last 17 years. The people who know me on a personal level, knows that I am true crime fan. And also a fan of series. So if you haven´t heard it, and you like the topic, listen to it. It is very good and the quality on the production is something that deserves a try. This is relevant because I found, recently a new podcast; Accused.  This podcast, in the tradition of Serial, tells the story of Elizabeth Andes, who´s case remains unsolved. Well at least that is what the journalist Amber Hunt says about this case. Elevator speech is; Elizabeth Andes was murdered, the police charged the boyfriend as the killer, but two different juries found him not guilty and he walked.

Accused: Podcast about the Elizabeth Andes case. A jumping to
conclusions case that has remained unsolved for 37 years.

So, what do this horrible story has to do with Lean? A lot in my opinion. Police was convinced the boyfriend was guilty, they even got a confession, but still, the boyfriend walked away. In the podcast, the Cincinatti Enquirer digs deep to try to know the truth. And what is noticeable is that despite the amount of evidence, the many suspects that weren´t investigated, the Police is still convinced that they charged the right guy, but they say that:

The justice system, just didn't work. 

This is the main reason why the police hasn't investigated further, and why this case is still unsolved and open, even though the police says they had the right guy. Through the episodes, is clear that police didn't like the fact that someone suggests that they may have Accused the wrong guy. Over and over we hear that they got the right guy, they don´t believe anybody else did it. And made me reflect why it is so hard for humans to accept the possibility of making an error. 

Basically  this story, is about jumping to conclusions before making a proper analysis: the result is that the case has remained unsolved for 37 years. Does that sound familiar? Jumping right away to conclusions? Pointing fingers to someone who was later determined to be innocent? This is very similar to business. I realize that we don´t like to be told that we committed a mistake. I believe it is because we have been taught that being wrong is bad. That we should avoid being wrong and that too often being wrong may bring undesired consequences. We are, basically taught to fear making mistakes. Being wrong is in fact, one of the best ways to learn and develop skills such as resilience, discipline and careful observation. PDSA is  based on trying different solutions, and observe the effect those solutions have on a given problem. Learning from each experiment and re-think the approach to the problem, until the issue is either solve or the solution is improved. Toyota kata are a series of routines that allow controlled experiments to be conducted in order to solver a situation or specific problem and, learn from them. So basically, encouraging, in a controlled way, failure and learning about our the plan, what´s preventing from achieving the results, and what to do next. Which I find powerful, because in the end, we are learning more from the situation we try to modify. 

Toyota Kata Process.
Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mrother/Materials_to_Download.html

I think that´s why  babies do a lot of disasters. They throw things, paint walls, and basically create a big mess every time they can. Through this experiments, they learn, and absorb knowledge about the world and the situations around them. If this is a natural manner to learn? Why isn´t failure encouraged? Why taught kids that failing is wrong? Of course, nobody wants to fail. However, if we fail in a controlled way, is actually something really good. Just ask Toyota. 

I guess changing our beliefs, and the things we have been taught since kids, isn´t easy. But we must start at some point. And recognizing that we may have made a mistake, is a very good start. And of course, take actions to either confirm our mistake and take a new route, or be sure that we did it right the first time. In both cases great learning can be found. What have we done correctly to achieve the desired result? and of course, What have we done incorrectly and what needs to be done now in order to achieve the desired results? 

Of course, to do this, we require methods and systems that allow experimentation on a continuous basis. But also, experiment without harming our customers. Here is when Lean can help to create those systems. And at the same time, change the way failure and mistakes are perceived.  It may not be easy, but sure can be done. Probably in the case described in Accused, may not be right away, but  I´m confident that new techniques, technologies and methods will help to bring light to the situation soon. In the mean time, Lean thinkers should take lessons learned, reflect, and at the same time hear our podcasts this holidays. 

Hopefully this new year, won´t commit the same mistakes we did last year. I truly hope that this 2017 would be a better year for all!

Merry Christmas and thanks for reading. I would love to read your thoughts about this topic. Please leave a comment and read you next time.