Oct 30, 2021

The Children and the Donuts

Researchers placed young children in a room and gave each of them a doughnut, and a promise:" We'll be back in 30 minutes. If you don't eat your donut, we'll give you another donut." The researchers observed the children and followed their life for the next 40 years.

Some children didn't touch their donut, and waited for the researchers to come back. They led safe lives with moderate success.

Some children ate their donuts before the researchers even finished explaining. They became visionaries who refused to be bound by rules. Some became criminals.

Some children ate their donuts after 15 minutes of waiting.  They led happy lives.

Some children offered to buy other kids donuts. They became consumers.

Some offered their donuts to other kids. They became social workers.

Some children sold their donut to other kids. They became small business entrepreneurs.

Some children ate other children's donuts but not their own. They became politicians.

Some children took donuts from those who didn't want donuts and gave them to those who really wanted the donuts. They became socialists.

Some children sold their donut to other kids, and argued with the researchers that they are still entitled to another donut since they literally didn't eat their donuts. They became defense lawyers.

Some children bought donuts from other kids, and argued that *they* are the ones entitled to the future donuts, since the future donuts are contingent on who owned the donuts. They became derivatives traders.

Some children observed the researchers and tried to figure out what they were researching. They became sociologists and joined the team of researchers for the next 40 years.

Some children analysed their donut instead of eating them. They became scientists.

Some children ate their donut and claimed another child ate it. They also became politicians.

Some children wrote about the event. They became writers.

Some children forgot about eating the donut and wondered why the hole made donuts more fun. They becme philosophers.

PDCA Shouldn't Always Lead to Improvement

 PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act), and its alternative PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act), are popular quality improvement frameworks. The truth is, they shouldn't always lead to improvement. If every single PDCA cycle you implement leads to improvement, I'd suggest you take a deeper look. Maybe you're not doing PDCA properly.

Briefly, PDCA is about the following 4 steps:

  • P - Plan an improvement experiment. Plan how to test if this proposed improvement really brings about an improvement.
  • D - Do the experiment.
  • C - Check / Study the results of the experiment.
  • A - Act on the results of the study. Implement the change or perform another cycle. 

The 3rd step in PDCA, Check, requires you to check the results of what you did in the 'Do' step. The output of performing Check can result in one of the following conclusions:

  •  The proposed improvement works, let's implement it.
  • The proposed improvement actually makes things worse, let's not implement it.
  • The proposed improvement is not an improvement, or not enough of an improvement, let's not implement it.
The point of C (or S) is to serve as a control gate so we don't implement changes that are not worthwhile improvements.

Sep 29, 2021

Problem Solving

So many different techniques being peddled on how to solve problems.

How did we get so prolific at creating problems without any training at all?

Often, people don't go about creating problems for others, but merely solving their own problems. Their solution inadvertently creates problems for others (and sometimes for the person who came up with the solution as well).

So, if a persons has the problem of failing business revenues and solves that problem by coming up with new products, then the other businesses may experience loss of revenue and all the problems that bring.

Sep 14, 2021

Mind the Gap

 Mind the Gaps. Or, why systems fail to deliver.

The sponsor and the stakeholders describe the problem situation to the professionals whose job is to solve the problem. Their description does not describe the problem properly.  They may present relatively minor problems as serious ones, they may forget some aspects, they may disguise some problems, they may have solutions in mind and describe problems in terms of the solutions. They may even be innocently unaware of the real problems. 

The actual problem is different from the one they described.  The first gap: The real problem state P, and the described problem state P'

The system developers conceptualise solutions for P'. The chosen conceptual solution S may seem to address P' but conceptual incongruencies remain hidden,  That is,  S may solve some aspects of P' but not as much as thought.  The second gap.  S vs S'.

The builders build T, the implementation of S.  T is never perfect and falls short of the expectations of S.  What is delivered is T'.  The 3rd gap.

T' is operated not as ideally as it should.  It becomes T''.  The 4th gap.

In the end, we have solution T" being used to solve problem P, whilst also delivering its own new set of problems p(T''), producing a new problem situation P(T'').

Aug 10, 2021

Risk-Managed Men

Manage your risks or your risks will manage you.

Do risk management or be risk-managed men. 

(Get it? "risk-managed men", rhymes with "risk management". No?)

Jun 20, 2021

Bruce Lee is a Lean Guru

"Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless, add what is essentially your own" - Bruce Lee

"Useful" = value

"Useless" = waste

"Your own" = don't just copy the TPS.



Apr 6, 2021

No Stupid Questions, Stupid

 Playing with the order of the words:

No stupid questions.

No questions, stupid.

Stupid! No questions!

Stupid questions,  no.

Questions, stupid? No?

Questions? No? Stupid.

Mar 4, 2021

Training

The essence of training is acquiring or improving skills.  If you undergo training, and no change occurs in how you do the things you were trained at, then the training did not matter.

If you had a certain way of planning projects, and underwent training on how to plan projects more correctly, then you went back to your way (which was not as good), then the training did not matter. Sometimes the reason you went back to the old way was not due to yourself. Perhaps the organisation you work in prefers the old way, and resists the new way (a very common situation), then you face incongruity. You know what you're doing is not as effective as the new way, but you 'have no choice'. It takes a lot of effort to try and change an organisations. If you tried, you may end up alienating people, or making enemies. There is also the risk that your execution of the new way won't be as effective as the old way. This is a real risk, because after all, you are just a beginner in the new way.