Process – Page 3 – understand-culture

Craftsmanship

America history is made up of waves of immigration, the earliest ones bringing with them and maintaining the deep European tradition of craftsmanship. That focus on how the work is done – imbedded in what later became processes and procedures – gave way, however, to Taylorism, mechanization, mass production, and eventually to the outsourcing of manufacturing to low-wage countries.

That tradition – the European medieval guilds – craftsmanship, caring about how the work is done – is being reintroduced to the United States via its current reindustrialization. German companies, for example, are not only increasing manufacturing capacity in the U.S., they are importing their methods for training skilled workers. European, more precisely, German craftsmanship is returning to America.

Importance of price: No business culture gladly admits that price is a critical success factor. The U.S. business and consumer sectors are both strongly influenced by price. Americans buy and sell more on price than on craftsmanship.

Skeptical of deductive thinking

Americans are inherently skeptical of theory, theoretical thinking, and deductive approaches. They are empirical. For Americans „seeing is believing.“ Experience is real, factual, hard data. Experence informs. Americans prefer to build their processes from the bottom up, from „how the work is actually done.“

Process improvement: Americans asked to improve a process will imbed themselves in the inner workings of the team and the processes they use. They observe what does and does not work, what increases or decreases value, what is worth doing. They will then propose improvements, discuss these with the users of the process, then test, implement, improve upon. American process improvement is specific and experience based. It is not general and theory based.

Broad vs. Narrow: Americans distinguish between a narrow and broad process pragmatically. If the concrete actions to be taken are insufficiently spelled out in a process or a procedure, that process or procedure is not narrow enough. They are, in other words, too broad. If, on the other hand, a process or procedure demands too many deliverables, it is too narrow, focussed, inflexible.

Too many deliverables means too much time and too many man-hours are necessary without resulting in any clear value-added for the end-customer. Americans differentiate stringently between valuable and invaluable processes and steps in a process. Processes and procedures can be balanced or imbalanced. Balanced ones lead to a value-added ratio between work and results. Unbalanced processes and procedures are inefficient, costly, slow and cumbersome. They destroy value.

Empirical

Inductive: Latin inducere, from in + ducere to lead. To induce means to: move by persuasion or influence; call forth, effect; cause the formation of. Inductive reasoning begins with observing particulars.

Should the particulars indicate a pattern, a conclusion might be drawn or inferred. The particular is the starting point. To infer means: to derive as a conclusion from facts or premise; guess, surmise; involve as a normal outcome of thought; point out, indicate, suggest, hint.

Deductive: Latin deducere, to lead away, from de- + ducere to lead. To deduce means to: infer from a general principle; trace the course of. Deductive reasoning draws a conclusion about particulars based on general or universal premises. The general is the starting point. A premise is something assumed or taken for granted, presupposed, believed.

Empirical: Originating in or based on observation or experience; relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory; capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. Latin empiricus, from Greek empeirikos, doctor relying on experience alone, from empeiria experience.

Process procedure

Process: Progress, advance; something going on; a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result; a series of actions or operations conducing to an end; the whole course of proceedings in a legal action. Middle English proces, from Anglo-French procés, from Latin processus.

Procedure: A particular way of accomplishing something or of acting; a series of steps followed in a regular definite order; a set of instructions for a computer that has a name by which it can be called into action; a traditional or established way of doing things. French procédure.

Process or procedure: Americans define a procedure simply as a subset of a process. A procedure describes how one executes a specific task within a process. Again, the what and the how are spelled out clearly. American procedures typically have the following elements: purpose and application, individual steps, parties responsible, and the documentation, so that the individual actions taken can be accessed at a later time.

Americans draw a clear line between a process and a procedure. A process describes broadly what an organization, group, small team or individual team member needs to do. A procedure describes not only a specific task within that overall process, but also how that task is to be executed.

An American procedure can be formulated broadly or narrowly. A broad formulation allows for some interpretation and creativity in executing a procedure. A narrow procedure description seeks to avoid interpretation. One should stick to the procedure strictly.

Inductive reasoning

Jennifer leaves for school at 7:00 a.m. Jennifer is always on time. Jennifer assumes, then, that she will always be on time if she leaves at 7:00 a.m.

Every windstorm in this area comes from the north. I can see a big cloud of dust caused by a windstorm in the distance; so, a new windstorm is coming from the north.

Bob is showing a big diamond ring to his friend Larry. Bob has told Larry that he is going to marry Joan. Bob has bought the diamond ring to give to Joan.

The chair in the living room is red. The chair in the dining room is red. The chair in the bedroom is red. All chairs in the house are red.

How the work is done

Germans are results-driven. The strength of their economy underscores this. For Germans work results and work processes are synonymous, inseparable, integrally linked with each other. Germans focus on the details of how the work is done.

Processes are, therefore, results. They are how the work is done. If something does not function properly, if a product has an imperfection, the Germans analyze rigorously how the work was completed.

All problems, product deficits, signs of diminished quality are from the German perspective a failure in work processes. If something new has been developed, Germans not look first at its benefits for the user, but how it is made. How something is done, processes, craftsmanship, approach is always the focus of Germans.

William Edwards Deming

William Edwards Deming (1900-1993) was an American statistician and physicist, as well as a pioneer in the field of quality management. In the 1940’s he developed the process-oriented perspective of business activities, which were later introduced into various tutorials on quality management.

However, for many years Deming’s discoveries received very little attention in the U.S. Not so in Japan. There his insights were of great interest to leading industry managers. Why? The explanation given is that in the U.S. a maximization of production volume was the primary focus of industry following the worldwide reduction of production capacity following WWII.

This was possible to do without problem in the un-damaged USA. War-torn Japan, however, had limited resources for production, which pulled the optimization of processes into the foreground.

Deming’s story is initially a comparison between the U.S. and Japan. Yet the reasons why Japan’s industries became so process-oriented surely provide insight as to how Germany became to be so process-focused as well.

Listen to the first 3.5 minutes of Steve Jobs:

Astronaut checklists

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is well-known for its excessive use of checklists. Over the history of this organization, checklists could be found placed all over its spacecraft, and covered everything from launch operations to spacewalk procedures and even to unlikely sudden multiple system failures. In fact, astronauts used so many checklists that Apollo 11 astronaut Michael Collins called his crew’s mission checklists the “fourth crew member.”

For the first few missions of a particular program (Apollo, Gemini, etc.) the astronauts have always been far less familiar with the checklists and standard procedures than the astronauts for later missions. This is because it was more likely that something unexpected would happen during the earlier missions, and the astronauts might need to “think on their feet” in order to stay alive.

In fact, it was somewhat common for the astronauts to modify their checklists “on the fly,” although they only did so reluctantly. Collins spoke about this reluctance during his post-flight briefing, saying “I don’t enjoy making changes to procedures. It seems like the crew only does that when they feel there’s some good need for it.”

Examples of NASA Checklist deviations:

Gemini 3 – the first manned Gemini mission, which had the primary goal of testing the new Gemini spacecraft. The astronauts deviated from the post landing checklist to accommodate for extra smoke from the thrusters.

Gemini 4 – the second manned Gemini mission, which included the first spacewalk by astronaut Edward H. White. Following White’s spacewalk the hatch initially failed to open, and the astronaut inside the capsule had to deviate from standard procedure in order help White to return to the spacecraft.

Mercury 9 – the last manned Mercury mission, in which the astronaut Gordon Cooper would remain in space for one full day. Electrical problems led to the failure of several systems, and as a result, Cooper prepared a revised checklist to finish his mission.

For Americans, checklists are guidelines more than fixed rules, and often are not taken very seriously. For example, NASA checklists are also places of amusement – for the Apollo 12 mission, the backup crew managed to sneak playboy pictures into the checklists which were attached to the wrists of the moonwalkers’ space suits.

The Fractal Factory

In 1995 Hans-Jürgen Warnecke, Head of the Fraunhofer Insititute in Munich from 1993 until 2002, published the anthology Aufbruch zum Fraktalen Unternehmen: Praxisbeispiele für neues Denken und Handeln – loosely translated as Breaking out into the Fractal Company: Concrete Examples of New Thinking and Acting.

Warnecke instantly became known in the production world both in Europe and internationally. The book takes a deeper look at manufacturing processes addressing questions such as: On what principle are production processes based? How does change best occur in material flow processes? How can the quality of processes be improved?

Prof. Thomas Bauernhansl from the Institute of Industrial Manufacturing at the University of Stuttgart underscores the ongoing importance of Warnecke’s work:

“The concept of the fractal factory, which Hans-Jürgen Warnecke proposed in the 1990s, remains highly relevant and meaningful today for manufacturing companies. The visionary power of his organizational model can be seen at work in agile and flexible production structures.”

Klaus-Hardy Mühleck, considered one of the top experts among CIOs, stresses time and again the influences of Warnecke on his work.

Adam Smith and the division of labor

Adam Smith’s understanding of a process – in the sense of division of labor – can be read in his famous statement about how a pin is producted:

”One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head: to make the head requires two or three distinct operations: to put it on is a particular business, to whiten the pins is another … and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which in some manufactories are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometime perform two or three of them.”