Can lean help to improve tributary processes in México?

Good day, everyone. It´s been two frustrating weeks for me. And I needed to write all my experience dealing with governmental agencies, here in México.

Unfortunately, had to wait, until this experience was over, to try not to jump on conclusions that would bias my writing. I guess is hard for people in general, to wait and see. Often we desperately want to solve things right away, with little investigation. I guess this is natural, and it´s because the things we experience and see, are granted as THE TRUTH.

Anyway, I´m happy that this awful experience is over. This experience has to do with taxes and the requirements to present my anual tax declaration to the state. Yes, as its often said, you can´t skip death and taxes.

A little bit of context

In Mexico, it is required that every April, you have to declare your earnings and expenses the year before, in this case 2015. The process can be done through the website and it is supposed to be easy. Like myself there are many who hire accountants to do the trick for them. By the mexican legislation, if during that year, you pay more taxes than the regular limit imposed by the law, the excess should be returned to you within a short time frame.

Sounds cool right. So every April, most people present their anual tax declaration and hopefully their balance is positive so they can ask to be refunded. But there are rules, you should follow. Dead line is April 30th, you gotta do it through the website, and you need an RFC code; which is a code that the tax agency provides to you in order to identify you and track your operations. This RFC code is formed according to your birthday, and other data that it is supposed to be exclusively yours. The legend says, that one person cannot have 2 RFC codes, because the system would detect and won´t allow to create a new one, unless you delete the previous one through a specific procedure the agency does. The other requirement is that if you would require to be refunded by a quantity over 10,000 mxn (about 800 usd) you require an electronic signature. This signature is match with your RFC coded and your CURP code (This one is a code that the population agency provides to identify you as a mexican person, with all rights and obligations according to current legislations). Yes, this code is supposed to be unique for every person, and one person cannot have two. Sine this CURP code is formed by your birthdate and other important data that should be unique for you. Two people with the same name, should have different CURP and RFC codes. But going back to the electronic signature,  once you show your CURP and RFC, the employee puts your data into the system and the system woul tell all about your working history, your tax declarations, etc. Here is when the thing gets tricky for me.

CURP Code First.

This year the law changed, if you needed to get a refund over 800 usd you need to have an electronic signature. This signature is supposed to be super safe. The story says that not even anonymous can break it down. Its a combination of your fingerprints, eye iris and a password created by you.

April´s first week I sent all information i gather to my accountant. We have worked for years, and this was the first time something went wrong.  Sent al my bills, payments & charity donations. She already had my info so that was it. Started to getting anxious because i had no news from her for over a week. When she finally reached out, told me that this year my refund would higher than 800 usd so, would need the electronic signature. She told me this 4 days before deadline, so the next mourning when to the agency office to get the damn signature. to my surprise, the offices were clean, furniture was in good shape, personnel was nice and treated everyone with respect. The employee who had me, told me there was something funny and that I won´t be able to get the signature that day. When look for me in the system, I had 2 RFC´s codes, and 3 CURP codes. Remember when I say that a person cannot have more than 1 of these codes? Bullshit!

So, first I had to go to the population office to know what had happened with my CURP.  How could I have 3 different CURP codes. the lady who helped me didn´t have the answer but thanks to god, she was able to leave active the correct one.  One mourning lost. couldn´t do anything more that day was a wednesday. Thursday and Friday couldn't do anything else since I had a training so couldn't missed it. So decided to go on Saturday to the tax office. For people reading this in Us, Canada or even Asia, you got to know that government offices do not open on Saturday, but as the deadline was close, decided to open. Unfortunately could´t do present my tax declaration, since Saturdays they were only processing requests to get the electronic signature, so the girl who had me, passed my case with an older lady for her to explain me what the process would be in my case. Remember that at this point I still had 2 RFC codes. So the lady told me that should come back on Monday, to perform an RFC code cancelation due to a duplicity. I asked if this was common, and said that it is. But she also lecture me saying:

But it is people's responsibility to check everything is alright with with their tax situation.

So, It is my fault then, for you not having the systems to prevent this. As the lady said, I came back this past Friday and this time could do it. In one hour I was able to cancel my duplicated RFC code and get my brand new electronic signature. My accountant was able to present my tax declaration 1 week after deadline.  I just hope, the SAT would be able to get my money back with little delay in one week or two, otherwise...

What lessons can be seen here at a personal level?

Of course the first lesson is that I need to learn how to do it myself. It is supposed to be very easy. The tax declaration is done through a website, filling a form filling the blanks and there you go. Next year won't be a delay, because my account had my tax at her desk for 2 weeks to find in the last minute that I need something else.

How can the SAT office lean to further improve processes and attention?

• The first one is of course, improve the security to avoid one person having 2 different RFC codes. When I finally got my electronic signature, the guy who had me, told me that they should have notice back in 2008  when I got my CIEC code. During the investigation, I found that I had another RFC code since 2005. So, I guess the guy at that time, didn´t check properly. But should´t be a man´s decision to follow a process. Processes should have controls in place to avoid this kind of mistakes.

• Second, I found the duplicated codes where requested by a company I worked for in 2005. But as you remember from reading the top of this story, those codes are supposed to be unique and you cannot get a CURP or a RFC code for your mom. The interested person should get the codes for her/him. How is it possible that a company got those codes for me? Again, system failure. The system should be able to tell you if a person already has a code or not.

• Although I´m sure the SAT office did the best to help people to get their tax declaration, there´s definitely room for improvement. To start, from the 3 times i went to the local office, people was treated in batches (see VSM).    

Fig. 1 VSM Tax declaration with E - signature process. Only 3.94% of Value Added.

• Wouldn´t it be better to establish one piece flow, and avoid having people early in the mourning  being moved from  in batches from one office to the next one and reduce/eliminate transportation? Even better, why not allowing people do their own registration?

• Third, the electronic signature is electronic, but you cannot get it through the web. You gotta go to the office to have your information (birth date, your city  and then they take your fingerprints, iris and signature. Would´t it be better if people performs the first part of the process themselves at home? I mean, is just getting your data in the system; registration. And as this story illustrates, looks like there is not much of a difference if the data is placed in the system by me or by a SAT employee. As the system isn´t error proofed, the probability of an error is basically the same. This way, people would only attend the office to get the picture, signature digitalised and eyes scanned.

• Another one, there is the possibility of getting an appointment though phone or internet. And it depends on the process you will follow (VSM to be followed). However although most of time this works properly and helps customers to go through the processes faster, does not work when its Tax time.  I´m saying that isn´t working since, when i look for an appointment, there wasn´t room. Why not opening the range and provide more time so people can present their tax declaration on time.  

• Finally, do not lecture people.  In the case of Mexico, workers must wait for companies to deliver their tax payment certificate, so each and every one of the workers can present the tax declaration based on that information. If the companies do not deliver on time those certificates, you cannot blame the workers for doing late their declaration.

If you put any people in a bad, weak and fragile, process, without error proofing, or strong controls to diminish mistakes and error, the results will be bad, undesired ones. Such as presenting late the tax declaration.

As usual, thanks for reading this stuff. I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue. 

Workers who work hard are the best ones. Is that so?

Dr. Edwards Deming was an exceptional person. I first heard about him in late 90´s when I was in University. I found and I still find his thoughts and teachings, way forward his time. A Lean thinker and an Innovator. Unfortunately most companies, and professionals, event College professors, acknowledge his famous 14 points, along with his PDSA cycle (PDCA) cycle. What is often missed, is his extraordinary philosophy that lead to a country out of the ashes. I think his Red Bead Experiment his a great proof on what he taught about managers, systems and the way work was done back on his days (and probably today).

His controversial thoughts on Individual Performance Review aren´t as well known or understood as other aspects of his legacy and they might be the most important lessons from all his work.  They are as relevant today as they were 20 or 30 years ago.

The quote:

We need to work smarter not harder.

Sadly, today in 2016, there are a few managers that still think that, a worker who sweat, runs, and finishes exhausted at the end of her/his shift, are the best ones. Those who try to work, run, move, sweat less, but still meet her/his targets are the bad apples that will contaminate others, into seeking working less. I don´t blame those managers, cause I used to think the same way. Years back, around 2005 I used to think that way. 

I remember that at one production meeting, I said:

We need to tell them  (the workers) what to do, they just need to do it.

How wrong I was. I see clearly now, but at that time this was a common thought for me. And even for others. I remember that when saying that infamous phrase others nodded with their heads, approving my statement.

But fast forward to 2016, this kind of thought is still really common everywhere. As another proof, I saw a LinkedIn job post that caught my attention. It was from a trendy company. At the end of the job´s details there where enlisted all benefits this position was offering. One caught my eye, saying.  Unlimited vacation days: Work hard and take time when you need it. Even though the benefit sounded great, immediately saw the wrong word on that phrase. Work smart and take time when you need it would have been a better statement.

There is no mystery that we all want to be comfortable at work. There are so many articles and studies with scientific evidence that tells you that, when a worker has the right conditions, his performance will increase automatically. You can read some here, here and here. I remember that during my days at Ford, we had the manufacturing standards. Those standards meant to ensure that the technician would have the right resources available and the right conditions in place, to ensure that will comply with cycle time, meeting safety, quality, and cost expectations. Those standards included, number of walks from the workstation to the rack of materials, light in the workstation, workload (work content) in the station. I remember that in one chat with my manager of that time, He told me that he was involved on the meetings to discussed flow of materials, layout, etc. And one key consideration was that there shouldn´t be a point on the floor where the bathroom was more than 65 ft away. During these meetings, the committee involved in the discussion, found that often the 2 elements the worker hated the most were:

• Having to go to the bathroom in the middle of the cycle time.
• Sweating because of heat.   

The way to control the first one, was to place bathrooms closer to the workstations to avoid stress on the worker because he wanted to go there but the line couldn´t be stopped. This way a worker could go, and the team leader could support during his absence for brief periods of time. 

The second condition, the committee thought about air conditioned, but unfortunately, as the plant was old, couldn´t support the installation of an AC system, plus the cost was way over the budget. Again, damn cost – benefit analysis. Will write on a different post about that.

The thing is that they tried to provide the best conditions they could, for their workers. They were sure and they knew their efforts would payoff later. 

However, even though ergonomics and work conditions have been recognized in the recent years, we still have managers who look at you when you leave the office early. Some others classify people as lazy when they just try to do things easier. Now, we have to recognize that too often the path from our current conditions and practices to an easier work environment, process or practices isn’t easy at all. Cultural and mindset changes may be involved, and this isn´t easy to achieve. Many of our current managers, bosses, directors haven´t been exposed to different ways of thinking. Many of them recall and practice the original management style they learned at the beginning of their careers. I cannot blame them. After all, they have reach managerial positions with this style and it is very difficult to change their ways. However, we must think that if we do not recognize the undisputable facts that conditions, have on the productivity, on processes (industrial, administrative, services, etc.) other companies will, and in fact have, taking a competitive advantage over us.

Deming used to think that the majority of problems were due to poor managerial practices. Most of times it is true. It is management responsibility to provide the best conditions for workers to perform. That includes not only physical conditions, but create openness, team work and creative environments where workers can help with ideas, suggestions and experimentation. Recently read a phrase attributed to Taichi Ohno, that stated:

In Toyota we hire people to think.

In order to do so, management must create and environment where workers are allowed to think,

proposed and experiment. But at the same time, managers must be willing to listen, coach, provide , challenge and respect people´s opinions and ideas. That is the second pillar on the TPS system.

And that´s why is often missed from many companies who think or try to implement Lean practices.

Thanks for reading, hope to see your thoughts at the bottom.    

6 months to get a Rolls Royce?????

Its been a while since I wrote my last post. But today read something that really caught my eye. LikedIn is a source of information like no other. Unfortunately, there is a lot of information that isn´t true and many people claim to have the true about many things. LEAN is no exception.  I wonder why there is that so many people doesn´t get what LEAN is and think they know the TPS, just because they read about it in some magazine or because they have read a book or two about it. Today somebody posted the following quote:

When things do not occur on time, remember that it takes 6 months to build a Rolls Royce and 13 Hours a Toyota.

This quote intended to make a metaphor to promote patience and perseverance. Implicity meaning that a Rolls Royce offered a better quality and just because Toyota is faster when building cars,  that would mean lower quality. 

Anyone who has serious understanding about TPS and Toyota, so called "LEAN", would see this is false. For Toyota to be faster and the greatest manufacturer in the world, took years, in fact, decades to learn, experiment and develop a great management system. Shaped of principles and values that guide the path they follow. Standardisation is one main part of TPS, and anyone involved in standardisation can see, that this is clearly, patience, learning and experimentation. 

My first thought when reading this quote was:

Seriously?? 6 months!!!

I don´t think I could spend that quantity of money and wait 6 months for a car.

Lean & Six Sigma

Later today I found another post arguing that in order to succeed you needed in your processes practice Lean & 6 Sigma. The post stated more less the following:

Lean is useful to achieve speed and reduce waste, Six Sigma is for reducing variation in your processes. You can achieve superior results without Lean or without 6 Sigma.

The phrase clearly stated that both methodologies were needed. And surprisingly the quote had more than 100 "likes" and comments approving and supporting the quote. 

I wonder why ideas like this get so popular and people believe they are right. Clearly LEAN looks for stability, quality, flow, and respect for people. Is sad that people do not take time to really understand, analyse, learn what LEAN is and the benefits it can bring. 

Just for the record, I looked in JD powers 2015 Initial Quality Study (IQS) for the best car in the in the Large Premium Segment, and guess who got the best rank? 

Of course Lexus (Toyota Luxury brand) beating Porsche, Audi, BMW, and Mercedes. Toyota do not use 6 Sigma. And of course, I do not imply that 6 sigma is useless. I believe 6 Sigma is powerful, but I don't think is the only way to get superior results. Both can live together, as long as we understand when to use each and not to be obsessed about DMAIC and try to force it for every problem. 

I would love to read what you have to say, please leave a comment. Thanks for reading.  

Uber moves aren´t LEAN, ISO and how helpful really is & my thoughts on mexican workers.

This time there was so much going on, so wanted to write about 3 different topics cause I think, using Lean thinking, might be less of a problem and more an opportunity.  First there´s Uber and the controversial move that caused many drivers feel uncomfortable with the company. Then we will be discussing a little bit about how helpful really is ISO and finally a few thoughts on Mexican workers and Lean.

First Uber

This week many drivers said they were unhappy with the controversial decision the company took to lower the fare. This past week the company lower the rate in Mexico City (don´t know if they did this in all countries) but at least in Mexico city the minimum fare was reduced from $40.00 mexican pesos to $35.00, about 1.9 usd.  But this is the fare the customer pays for the service, while the commission charged for the drivers remained at 20%. The issue, the drivers say is that their costs are the same and in some cases higher, but as the price is lower and the commission they have to give to Uber is the same, of course the gain for drivers will be less. So they made a demonstration last friday, demanding going back to the same minimum fare of $40.00 to keep attractive being an Uber driver. They also claim that they weren´t consulted, nor told with time about this decision. They received an email, the night before the new fare was available. They also say that communication with Uber is difficult, since they communicate with the company only through e mail, and sometimes the response is too slow. I haven´t been able to see Uber comments on this regard, and they haven't said if they will go back to the $40.00. In the mean time the customer is happy, but customers may start being affected since some drivers, are requesting other drivers to stop working at night, which is the moment were Uber demand is higher, specially on weekends. Some people has said that if drivers do not want to work under those conditions, should leave the company. I believe a true Lean company, listen to the workers. They are engaged and they are part of the solutions and strategies of the company. I also understand that drivers working for Uber, aren't really Uber workers. But they share the problems, they are part of a great solution of transportation in the city and they, drivers, also share the profit that comes from every ride. A lean leader, could have informed a bit earlier to drivers, to let them know, what problem was the company trying to solve, and maybe, asking for some ideas. The communication, without knowing the whole story, is key and is critical. I think that there must be some true in driver´s statements claiming that communication is slow and inefficient. In a Lean environment workers are allowed to speak up, to point problems and provide solutions. Workers know better since they are the ones executing the operations and interacting with problems. In Uber's case they are the one's with instant feedback and interaction with customers, they should know a little about ways to improve. Since we don't have the company's side of the story I'm going to leave it here saying that if this is all true, the way Uber acted is everything but Lean.

How helpful does ISO really is?

This part of the post is also, totally my opinion in a subject that has been questioned, really since I started my professional life, 11 years ago. This last weeks, my company (Is not really my company, but the company I work for) wen´t through an on site audit to certify that it complies to ISO 9001:2008. That made me reflect on the fact that many people do not think ISO is worth it or help to make their jobs easier.

That of course, we know is a symptom with three possible root causes or a combination of the three. The first is that ISO doesn´t really help organisations to ensure a higher operational execution. The second is that the systems companies have are really complicated  and ISO is only exposing how inefficient and bureocratic they are. The third is just a missinterpretation on the requirements the norm demands. I believe is a combination of the three. Which one contributes the most, is hard to say. But I have work long enough in environments where ISO is implemented and where other systems co-exists and I think it is outdated. The key reason for having a system, and we all know it is critical to have the right system in place, is to deliver superior and consistent results. I think ISO main focus of standardisation is right. But as many have said, is not and end, is a mean to a superior vision or goal. Although standardisation is necessary and helps to execute processes in a consistent manner, it should´t be and excuse nor an obstacle for people to work in a standard way. Think about the way ISO looks how to control formats, the codification of formats and how things should be handled if we want to change a procedure or improve a process. The process is often long, involving many steps in order to have everything in conformance with the norm. I think this is because many companies, when going through ISO, create processes that are inefficient and in some cases really long. This has to do more with the company and the coach, interpreting the norm, helping and guiding the implementation. ISO is a norm, and like any other, is subject to personal interpretation at some points. The key for it to be really beneficial, I think is to keep two things in mind: the customer and that if implementing something bugs people, is an excuse or an obstacle to do things safer, easier, better, faster and cheaper, then is not really helpful and in my opinion should never be implemented in the company. If we can balance and practice ISO in an easy smooth manner, the benefits can be high. Specially on the standardisation process and to have written processes so other can learn new tasks and help to train others. 

Finally mexicans workers & Lean.

Many believe that Mexican workers are lazy, and look for ways to work less. As the famous BBC program Top Gear stated a few years ago, when criticised the Mexican Car Mastreta MXT. When talking about Lean, Mexican managers and workers always think:

Lean is Japanese, it´s easy for them, they are very disciplined, we are not. 

I believe that Mexican workers are curious and can be engaged at high levels. They are natural problem solvers and they like the quick, easy, simple solutions. I believe this caracteristics fit very well within a Lean culture. Mexican workers like to solve problems. They are curious and they like to learn new things. A Lean company allows workers to learn new things, allow experimentation and engagement. Mexican workers can speak up loud. This is also essential in a Lean culture. When a problem appears, workers must be encourage to point the problem and look for a solution. Managers must be ready to act quickly and engage workers in the solution, otherwise Mexican workers will loose interest and would be even harder to engage them again. Mexican workers, are like elephants; they never forget. There´s also another thing were workers in Mexico aren´t as good at it: planning and standardisation. We like to take hands on, to solve problems quick. There´s nothing wrong about it, but if solving a problem do not involve planning, the results could be disastrous, and as said before, Mexicans tend to loose interest real quick.

Mexican workers inspecting cars at a VW plant in Mexico.

Also, standardisation doesn´t come natural. For us is difficult to follow a procedure. I said it before, we are curious and like experimentation. While this could be useful in problem solving, may not be as helpful when executing a process. Since variation introduced by the workers will often make it difficult for managers to understand why the process is behaving the way it is. Fortunately, I have found that leadership is the best way to avoid this obstacles and turn this weaknesses into strengths. Simply by talking to workers, asking for their ideas and opinions and respond quickly and objective to their demands. Sounds easy, but it´s harder. Specially if the company doesn´t have a culture of "Respect for People" it becomes really hard to engage workers and having them to understand that they are as important as anybody in the company and that their work is appreciated. Without that, workers just go to work for their pay check, with no other interest. Not very different to workers in other countries right?

Glad you went through this. Please leave a comment or share with someone who might be interested. 

Searching within... Toyota Kata

This time, I`m writing about some of the lessons that I have found within the magnificent book, Toyota Kata by Mike Rother. You can get a direct access here and understand into dept what Toyota Kata is and how you can develop the scientific thinking behind this great book. Today`s post is also related to other great book I`m reading; The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt. I will proceed to explain how this two books relate each other, and why I think they are both right.

Chapter 4 in Toyota Kata is about knowing yourself. It is a chapter in which Mike Rother explains clearly the evolution of one piece flow. Through his research it is explained that the very first company that tried to achieve a flow of one piece at a time: which is a key concept in LEAN, was Ford Motor Company. In this chapter it is explained the evolution from the T model assembly line,  from static bays where all materials and workers walked to the body and started assembling the parts to the idea of one infinite conveyor transporting raw materials all the way until the car was completed. The solution the engineers at that time used was... open holes on the walls of the building to connect all different processes to achieve a better flow. We have to remember that at that time, the T model was assembled in one building with different levels. Where processes took place at different levels and as the processes continued, down the building, final line, located at ground level (you can see a drawing of the building in the book to get the idea of what was like to build a car in the 1910´s). 

Highland Park Michigan.

All this story I`m using is to illustrate the statement done at the end of the previous chapter in that book. There Rother explains the way the cost/benefit analysis is used at Toyota, and concludes that :

We should´t spend much time benchmarking. We are the benchmark.

Is obvious. This statement is clear, if we know that Kata is basically a thinking model of; first, define What our current condition is? Then, Where do we want to be next? and finally What are the obstacles preventing from getting to the desired condition? All this thinking implies analysing ourselves, or our companies. 

Benchmarking ourselves. 

I have written a few about my days at Ford. I remember that during the first months, as the plant was being prepared for the launch of Fiesta, we had to read a lot about Toyota, and then do some training about tools such as FMEA, 8D`s, SPC, etc. The vision, was to create the best manufacturing system on the world, and of course, our model was Toyota. We read the Toyota Way, the Toyota Way Fieldbook, we learned about kitting, one piece flow, standard work and also about the Toyota Way of Lead; Learning to Lead at Toyota  which is a HBR article. This article had a major impact in myself, as also did Toyota Way and all the things I learned there. I also remember that one of the early presentations I saw, was about Toyota Yaris, a B segment Vehicle that at that time was the Best in Class, and as we were preparing ourselves to launch Fiesta, Toyota was the automaker to emulate. During my years there, I was able to participate in many Benchmarks, but in the end, they brought little value, since in order to make a big change in our vehicles, a major development was needed. And often cost/benefit analysis showed major changes didn´t make sense. To my surprise, I didn´t know that it was Ford the very first who tried to achieve the ideal state of flow. The highland park story, mentioned above was unknown to me, and I`m sure it is the same for many of the colleagues working at Ford. The Paradox is that Ford was trying to be like Toyota, studying the Lean methods and principles, and I believe that similar conclusions could be achieved by examining its own story. 

The Happiness Hypothesis

This Book from Jonathan Heidt is written on the idea of testing ancient philosophy with modern science and studies. The main idea the book examines, or at least one of the main ideas the book studies, is the one that says that happiness comes from within and that we are a product of our own mind. One of the conclusions that I remember is that both statements are right. In order to be happy, to find joy, must find purpose and realize that our life has a meaning. But also that our environment has the right conditions to produce happiness in us. The book states that there are certain conditions that help people to feel happier, for example, being married. I think  that is better explained as Jon said to me: 

The secret is... to be embedded, connected.... happiness comes from between.

So, what about it?

Going back to Kata. The conclusion I have for this post is to think about the times we have tried to use a tool or to implement a practice from a competitor or from other industry. Sometimes after conducting some benchmark, we have concluded that the specific solution may not apply to us, because of many constraints in our environment. Does that mean that we should stop doing benchmarks? No. I believe is important to know whats going on with our competitors, or with other great companies. But I believe that in order to be efficient, to improve faster and to become lean, we must identify our current condition, where do we want to be, and then, analyze, what constraints prevent us from getting there. This is key, cause knowing ourselves, will lead to more efficient solutions. Solutions that will work within our environments and will fit our needs. And more important, will be difficult to copy, cause they have been tailored for us. I think this is one of many secrets Toyota has taught us. Do you notice another paradox here?

Thank´s for reading. Would love to read your comments below.  

Elevator in the bakery... Lean bakery?

Happy new year.

2016 has started and is exciting to see, what new challenges brings. 

This is a warm up post. Today I take a simple example from a local bakery to write about the importance of providing the right conditions so workers are able to perform better. An elevator inside a bakery, receives my attention and makes me remember a warehouse that needs to look at this small bakery. 

Is great to have you reading this. I'm sure many of you still have days off so probably have extra time to surf the web and read interesting stuff. For guys like me, everything starts again tomorrow. But before my routine starts again, wanted to post a reflection about a bakery I visited today. Just a small post to warm up, the year ahead. 

Local Bakery. 

It was my son's birthday and wanted to buy a nice chocolate cake. I was able to find one at good price and when I was heading to pay, I noticed a big industrial elevator right behind the cashier. Well, it wasn't behind, it was in an angle with enough space to be used. I noticed all kinds of visual aids, as well as safety rules to operate the elevator. This elevator, was obviously an industrial one. It didn't look cheap. Certainly was expensive, but immediately remember one warehouse I know that needs to have one of those. Remember that management, at that warehouse didn't consider a priority to install an elevator or any lifting device to help the workers to place or pick parts from upper levels. Of course an elevator would have helped to move things easier, safer, better, and faster. But as the budget  didn't allow, this suggestion wasn't even considered. 

So, the fact that a bakery considered installing one at this store tells me a lot about management. Obvioulsy, a bakery needs to move a lot of raw materials to prepare bread, cakes, etc. every day. So, for me, considering an elevator means that management understands the hard work it takes to move all materials to the upper level, or bring them down stairs. Of course, ergonomic issues start appearing when you continuously have to move things around to get things done. So, it is sad that a warehouse, in other industry, doesn't consider providing the right conditions for the workers a priority. Having the right conditions often means fewer risks (safer environment), the opportunity to do things better, faster and without stress for people. Besides, we should consider that in the case of the bakery, the core business is to make cakes, not to carry heavy sacks upstairs. 

Industrial elevator.

By this, I do not mean that the warehouse I´m referring to, needs to invest a huge amount of money installing an elevator. There are other options that can be considered, to help the people move materials from or to the upper levels. Providing the right conditions, doesn´t have to be expensive. But even if it is expensive, the pay off will be unmeasurable. Because people will realize that management really cares about them. And the ROI can be easily calculated considering delays, damages to parts, and the impact on productivity.

I don´t know if this bakery, really think the way I do, about providing the right conditions for people, or if they even know lean or kaizen. I don´t know if this thinking extends to other practices or processes they handle. But I would like to think they do. After all is just the third day of the new year, and this year seems promising. 

Hopefully that warehouse gets better conditions so people can perform better. 

Thanks for reading. Stay tuned. 

Common mistakes when implementing. Mexican government is no exception.

Today I write about the new controversial regulations to control traffic and drivers that Mexico city´s government is trying to implement. I also describe and link this attempt to control traffic and to change driver´s culture in Mexico, to common mistakes done by companies when trying to implement something; a new process, a new tool, a new software, etc. The lessons Mexican government is teaching, I believe, are, invaluable.  

Recently there's been a lot of controversy in Mexico, due to changes done to the traffic regulations. Among the restrictions are that drivers cannot use their cellphones while driving, drivers mustn't invade the crosswalks, the use of the horn, etc. In reality, many of this restrictions have been there forever, but the controversy is on the fines. Some of them have gone insane (from my point of view) considering that Mexico has a deep corruption problem. Some fines are as high as $117.00 Usd. For those reading from the US or Canada or Asia, take those $117.00 and multiply by 17 and will get an idea what a fine feels like in Mexico.

The main problem the government is trying to solve, is the way mexicans drive. Drivers here do not respect pedestrians nor cyclists. We don`t even respect other drivers and because of the way Mexico City is planned, it becomes a chaos driving here. Mobility is a problem. So the government thought that hardening fines would help to modify our behaviour as drivers. Some people think that this is only a way to collect money from citizens. But as this isn't a political blog, won´t go there. Instead will analyze briefly what mistakes has committed the government when implementing changes and increasing the fines.

Lack of communication

Is true that in successful organizations, communication is a top priority. Successful organizations make sure changes are communicated to all members at all levels. To help to understand why the change is needed and how it will be conducted. In our case, the communication from the government has been simple but not yet effective. Since modifications haven´t been explained in detailed and the reason why hardening regulations is ambiguous. The government says it is to avoid accidents and reduce mortality. How ever they haven´t shared any data so we can really see a before - after difference or improvement.

Lack of Clarity

These recent days, drivers have been extra cautious and people resist to adopt the new regulations. In great part because they do not understand what the government wants to solve by improving this regulations, but also, because most of the new regulations aren´t clear to us; the citizens, nor the police men who are supposed to apply the fines. As Karen Martin often explains, lack of clarity will often bring resistance to change. 

Lack of visual management

One of the most controversial regulations, are the speed regulations. It is supposed to fixed the speed according to the type of avenue. Primary avenues, allow a maximum of 80 kmh, while secondary avenues allow only 50 kmh. Small streets, like those in the neighbourhoods, allow a max. of 35 kmh. The problem is that nobody explains what is a primary avenue or a secondary.

In Mexico City is very common to witness images like this
where cars, trucks and cyclists move together in  dangerous
ways. Wrong culture in the streets.

And unfortunately there aren't enough signs or visual aids in the streets so drivers can see clearly what´s the maximum speed allowed. This is a critical missing tool, since it is very common to drive long distances without a single sign on the maximum speed. Other common place are intersections. There are a lot of intersections without crosswalks, or with no clear identification on the street´s directions.  Visual management in industrial environments usually gives feedback to the worker, to see if he/she is falling behind, if there is enough material, if more material is needed, or where scrap or reworks or defects should be placed and when it becomes necessary to take care of them. I have always thought that streets should clearly give feedback to people. Providing information about speed, places where it is correct to cross, walk or drive. 

Common place in Mexico city. The first light is green and
a few meters later is red. Lack of standardisation and visual
management.

When and where is necessary to stop and promote flow of people. Other major problem are green and/or red lights, since the city doesn´t have a synchronised network to allow flow. Is really common that in the same avenue, one light is red, and one block before is green. This is basic to protect pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. And also necessary to promote mobility (flow).

No Poka yokes

With a chaotic environment like the one I described before, is clear that streets and avenues need better planning.  If we sum the lack of standardisation and visual management, plus the wrong practices and poor culture when driving, we have as a result a city where is really a nightmare driving. That´s why have streets that do not allow law breakage is fundamental. Consider the factors iIhave described before and will clearly see why it doesn´t just work having lines painted on the floor and call it bikeway (see below´s picture). To really protect citizens, a little bit more infrastructure is required; poka yokes that do not allow cars to trespass the limits. Probably in Norway couple of lines painted on the floor work, but definetely do not work here in México. 

Most of the bikeways do not have anything to protect cyclists against
cars invading the lane. 

No going to gemba.

Finally, this example gives the government the opportunity to go out to the streets and see for themselves if the new regulations are actually protecting people from having accidents while promoting flow. Also the opportunity to learn and adapt rules and laws according to the reality, that we, as citizens, are facing. Of course, as many failed implementations, leaders do not take the opportunity to go to the source and validate their proposals. I have seen many leaders (including myself) thinking that proposals, or ideas, or rules implemented would work perfectly on the real world, when in reality they are not. This is in a way, arrogance, because we, sometimes think that our solutions work perfectly and there´s no need to improve or adapt any aspect of our proposal. Lean is powerful, because allow humility inherent in seeing, learning and experimenting to determined if our solution is the best. 

Hopefully our government would take a step out of the office and see for themselves. Most important, hopefully, by watching and learning, would take appropriate countermeasures to allow moving in this city would be more pleasent and safe.

Thanks for reading, I would love to read your thoughts. Please leave a comment below.