Should I be worried that management is buying software for virtual gemba walks?

Dear Gemba Coach, 

A consultant is selling us “virtual gemba walks” software to schedule gemba visits with a “leader standardized work” checklist and key indicators tracking. Management is listening. It feels wrong somehow, but anything that gets management to pay attention is a good thing, right?

Virtual? As in, we stay in the office and review indicators, or we go and see for ourselves at the gemba with a set checklist of control points? Interesting question. If I think back to working with executives, I do seem to need to convince them of:

1. Going to look for themselves where work happens;
2. Having a visual system to reveal how the process is doing;
3. Searching for the unexpected and what people are working on;
4. Using gemba walks to support people development.

The first practical hurdle is indeed setting up a schedule of gemba walks: Work with an executive assistant to make sure gemba walks are 1) in the diary and 2) regularly go and see all aspects of operations – from customer service, to engineering, to production, to supply chain, to IT.

In general, executives easily agree that it’s a good thing to visit the workplace to see how things are doing, but when it comes to scheduling a structured program of regular visits – that’s another story. It is also the first test of commitment to a lean transformation. Do they really want to improve the company’s performance, or are they looking to maintaining the status quo?

Going to the gemba to see what we’re doing wrong – and encourage “bad news first” in people, is quite an emotional experience at first, and when you’re not used to it, something of a trial. Many executives try it, and then somehow let it slip by being too busy, or by allowing rescheduling for one reason or other. Having a system to plan gemba walks in the calendar can definitely help.

The second big hurdle is letting go of the management control mentality. Our image of ourselves is that we are calm, reasonable people: We absorb new information, we digest it and reason it through, then come up with a sensible course of action. It’s all the others who are emotional irrational idiots who can’t face the facts and are stubborn in their narrow-minded beliefs and stupid in their knee-jerk reactions. As far as cognitive science can tell, we have two distinct modes of reasoning:

1. Motivated reasoning: When we’re highly invested in a project or a result, we focus on confirmation that things are going as planned and we obsess about obstacles and try to make them disappear, either by dismissing them or by forcing people to “do something.” Motivated reasoning is a strong motivator (as in: makes you move) to resolve issues and get things done but often drives you in deeper trouble by insisting on the wrong things and running roughshod over people who dissent or have a different perspective.
2. Reflective thinking: This is a looser, more curious way of considering the wider context, the meaning and implications of what we’re seeing. Lately, scientists talk about Actively Open-Minded thinking. Reflective thinking is essential to avoid making costly errors and, essentially to look up to see where you’re running. It’s easier to do with less emotional engagement in results or maintaining one’s identity, and rarely as strong a motivator as motivated reasoning.

Horseplay

The real question on the gemba is not so much “are all our systems working?” but “where are they really taking us?” Riding the horse is one thing (and sometimes just staying in the saddle is a full-time challenge) but knowing where it is going and steering it is another altogether. In business, we’re often riding the horse full tilt without a map – or a clear destination. This indeed requires Actively Open-minded Thinking.

Sure, you start by looking at how existing systems perform, but to understand where they’re going, you then need to focus on problems. The point of visual management is making this reflective thinking easier by facilitating the exploration phase. With good visual management, you can see how things work rather than have to discuss it with people, which is far more fluid cognitively. More brainpower can then be devoted to “what does that mean” as opposed to “what are they saying?”

However, looking at systems to see if they perform as expected or looking at standards to see how they’re maintained is just the entry point, stepping into the room. The real aim of the gemba walk is understanding the causes and conditions underlying non-performance so we can reflect on it: reasons and potential consequences. We need to see whether the horse is limping or running in the wrong direction while riding the horse – not an easy challenge. Then, as we look up and reflect on lean, we remind ourselves that we go to the gemba to develop people, not just to fix the system. 

You’re at the gemba, in the digital department of your company, where developers are showing you their new mobile app that has an 87% approval rate. Or you’re looking at the new machine that you’ve installed on the shop floor that has 97% right first time and 82% OEE. What then? Everyone’s explaining that, considering the circumstances, these results are really good – which is probably true. And that not to worry, they’re working hard on an action plan to make sure that things improve. Probably true as well. The gemba challenge is not to get sucked into these discussions but try to understand why 13% of users don’t approve the app, or why the machine makes 3,000 wrong parts per million. And then look up and ask oneself: is the app satisfying customers? Or one more thing that convinces them we’re hopeless? Was the machine the right investment? Or should we have fixed the problems in the previous process?

Yes, having set control points are useful, but they’re a starting point, not an endpoint. Going to the gemba with a rigid list of control points fully switches on motivated reasoning.

Then, as we look up and reflect on lean, we remind ourselves that we go to the gemba to develop people, not just to fix the system. What does that even mean? The first mental shift is hard enough:

Convince ourselves that everything is going as planned > look into issues and ask ourselves where this is all leading

The second shift is to wonder how the people in charge of the processes themselves see where they are going and what problems they’re working on:

Convince ourselves that everything is going as planned > look into issues and ask ourselves where this is all leading > understand how people see their situation and what they intend to do about it

A key feature of motivated reasoning is that it narrows down complex situations to the few things we can control. Because of the very complexity of operations, people that work in a process naturally pick one element – delivery on time, people cost, productivity, quality (rarely) and then optimize that, adjusting all other aspects of the job to keep that one variable steady. The tricky part is that this one variable that makes them run is largely hidden by, first, the multitude of conflicting indicators they’re asked to track and, second, their own thinking about what really matters to get ahead in this job.

In this respect, kaizen circles or problem-solving boards are very helpful because, as with visual management, you can look directly at the problems or improvements people are picking for themselves rather than have long, convoluted and contentious discussions about it. If asked about anything, people naturally react in either defend or demonstrate mode:

• Defend: I don’t see why you ask, it’s all there, we’re doing everything right – no problem.
• Demonstrate: Look at this, I’ll prove to you that we’re working hard at making this work – there you go.

Giddy Up

For humans, defend/demonstrate is the fight/flight response to being put on the spot, particularly by someone powerful. In defend mode, they fight for their corner and stand up for their team. In demonstrate mode, they flee from the questioning in showing that they’re diligent workers who do what they’re asked. Neither of these spontaneous responses is conducive to reflective thinking, which is why having visual boards that reveal what people are working on and how they’re looking at the issue is so valuable.

At this stage, on the gemba, leaders’ motivated thinking kicks in again. Leaders quickly see that what the teams are doing won’t get them where they’d hope to go (teams are grappling with local problems, not necessarily the strategic programs leaders want to see progress on). Leaders will then try to steer the team to more “interesting” problems and, essentially, to convince them of the importance of strategic initiatives as well as their daily work.

There is nothing wrong with that and, indeed, one of the key functions of gemba walks is to align all the company on its strategic vision – who better than the leader to explain where she wants to take the company and why? But that is not developing people. Although unavoidable, it’s yet another form of forcing them to solve problems so that our strategic vision gets realized (I’m not dismissing this as an essential way of getting things done – just not a developmental path). If we ever get to this stage, we’re ready for the fourth big leap: discuss priorities with local leaders so they understand which problems they should be tackling.

Convince ourselves that everything is going as planned à look into issues and ask ourselves where this is all leading à understand how people see their situation and what they intend to do about it à discuss the challenges and direction of the company so that local leaders look up, understand better where they’re heading and change their priorities for problem solving.

For each manager we’re trying to develop we should be asking the hard questions:

These simple questions are really challenging. If we look at them in reflective mode, they can be very uncomfortable:

• Why are they busy solving this problem right now? What is happening in the market or in their work environment we don’t know about or don’t understand that makes them have to face this – as it doesn’t seem to be so important in our set of a priori beliefs. Are we missing something?
• What should they be working on instead? Are we clear enough in the practical implications of our strategic intention to explain it concretely to the manager, and why this is such an issue until they get it and set themselves up for being stretched and tacking it?

I’d argue that having a system to schedule gemba walks and keep track on which topics key people are working is very useful. On the other hand, any system will tend to reinforce motivated reasoning and become solipsistic in its own way. Gemba walks need to remain open-ended to stimulate curiosity and reflective thinking – both on the part of leadership and people on the ground. In that sense, any system of “virtual gemba walks” is unlikely to help. As always with lean, it’s not about the tool in itself – but the intent of how to use it.