Comments on: Lean: Someone has Poisoned the Waterhole!

By: Tripp (Blog Owner)

Tripp (Blog Owner) — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:55:33 +0000

Mark-

You mean . . . like . . . being self-promotional writing a link to the forum I am a senior advisor for?

The problem with your standard is that you allow white papers, pictures of clean hospital rooms (which is hilarious), links, games . . . except for me. Now that is a standard we can believe in.

No wonder the nurses are walking out.

By: Mark Graban

Mark Graban — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:13:35 +0000

Tripp, you are playing the victim here.

LEI has a policy about removing posts that are blatantly self-promotional. I think that’s what you ran into.

You’re free to come to http://www.lean.org/FuseTalk/Forum/ and say whatever you like, as long as it isn’t simply “Come read my whitepaper.”

Give it a try… you won’t be censored.

By: Tripp Babbitt

Tripp Babbitt — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:54:21 +0000

Ralph-

Beware the toolheads. Any improvement effort that does not require managers to change thinking is destined for short-term or long-term failure. Improvement comes from a change in thinking about the design and management of work. Look back on Deming’s 14 points or System of Profound Knowledge; or read John Seddon’s Freedom from Command and Control.

Regards, Tripp

By: Ralph Harkins

Ralph Harkins — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:18:45 +0000

I have been given the opportunity to participate in a class for project managers called “Beginning your LSS journey”. What kind of critical thinking should I be applying as I listen?

By: Catus Lee

Catus Lee — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:13:06 +0000

The blog commenting system is a tool to facilitate idea exchange, enhance understanding, and allow interactive intellectual development. But a tool is a tool is a tool… The commenting tool alone is either good or bad. It is the context in which it is used and how people use it that create the outcome. Here, I can see a living proof of what Tripp is trying to say. My experience taught me some great lessons that I would like to share here. We live in our own realities which may not align. What “system”, “lean”, or even “love” mean to me can safely be assumed be different to yours. Why bother to have a heated discussion on different realities? I’ve had very heated debates with people over “reengineering”, ‘TQM”, and even “Systems Thinking”. Then I realized that they are merely words and concepts. These “things” will not stand up and walk to me and do the work. It is we people who make these concepts work. With different interpretation of the concepts (even among gurus), we get different actions and different results. I like to engage in discussions that promote mutual growth. Hope we all gain some insights from the discussion.

By: Tripp (Blog Owner)

Tripp (Blog Owner) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:12:25 +0000

There you go Mark. As I said earlier, I am in the process of moving my blog to WordPress. Comments have taken a back seat. As the defender of all things “lean” you must understand that my poss is based on my experience. If you took a minute and looked around you, you might discover the same things I have found. It does seem strange to me that Steven Spear and even you can criticize lean, but not the systems thinking crowd. This makes us bad people and you have to put on the cape to save the day . . . which is more tiresome to me. I do not believe copying TPS is the way and that manufacturing tools transfer very well. I am thankful that John Seddon opened my eyes to better thinking. BTW, LEI doesn’t always post my comments . . . so much for trying to engage in discussion.

By: Mark Graban

Mark Graban — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:11:35 +0000

Your Systems Thinking Review buddies characterize my comment as “irate.” Funny how you can read tone and emotion into my comments. I guess when John Seddon is angry all the time, others seem angry too? I’m trying to defend your mischaracterizations and overgeneralizations, such as “lean doesn’t work in services” or “all lean people are toolheads.” And you don’t post all of my comments. So much for trying to engage in discussion.

By: Mark Graban

Mark Graban — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:11:10 +0000

It’s “poka yoke.” Ohno’s term “Baka Yoke” fell out of favor, since it means “idiot proofing” – not keeping with the “respect for humanity” principle. You want to call it a “tool,” fine. I disagree. If all of these bad things happen because command-and-control managers in service industries use poka yoke to control workers, why throw that blame at LEI. Yes, it’s all Jim Womack’s fault. Your schtick would be less tiresome (yes, why do I read this?) if you had just ONE positive example of how “systems thinking” has led to benefit to a hospital. I’ve asked a few times and you never provide an example. You just complain about others. How does that help anyone? I guess I’m reading and feel compelled to provide balance to what I think are your wildly overgeneralizing bad characterizations of what you think “lean” is.

By: Tripp (Blog Owner)

Tripp (Blog Owner) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:10:24 +0000

Hello Mark- You have a choice to read or not read. So, if it is tiresome to you . . . door #2 may be a viable option. Anything that promotes the codification of method is dangerous. Poke Yoka ( or if we go back to Ohno’s work Baka Yoka) is a tool for error prevention and mistake proofing. Poka Yoka is great for preventing errors on the production line, but the worker still controls the work. Lean application in service has shown that these decisions are made to force the worker to do something and does not keep them in control. I won’t talk about what happens with variety of demand and this thinking since you don’t like to hear it. Ohno didn’t codify method, someone else did, can you guess who?

By: Mark Graban

Mark Graban — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:09:42 +0000

All you do is criticize. I find that trait tiresome. You think “mistake proofing” is a tool? You are sorely misguided. It’s a mindset and, gasp, a “way of thinking,” but you have a monopoly on proper thinking, don’t you?