Move Yourself into Excellence

I chose to write this blog for two reasons.  First to laugh at myself and second because there was a very important point someone made in an article that came up in an Internet search.

I was Internet searching this afternoon to see how my wesbushby.com and wesleybushby.com was doing (just linked it to my blog yesterday), along with finding out if I could Internet search on the blog I just wrote titled “Where do you start Lean?”  The dot com link worked, and my blog title was nowhere in the search.  However one finding in the search jumped out at me as potentially interesting so I read it.  The title, “Where to Begin with Lean: A3 Analysis”.

I have to pause here and state that I view myself as being able to “see” problems in processes whether visual or hidden, whether manufacturing, service, or information. I “see” waste.  I “see” broken processes.  What I do not “See” is what is right in front of me.  So let us now move on.

As I read the article, I heard a clear voice and thought in the writing.  Every sentence I read added more excitement, thinking “someone seems to have gotten this right, about time.”  One key point right at the beginning, to describe where to begin implementing the Toyota Production System, was a quote from someone at Toyota, “Start by analyzing the work to be done.”  I truly believe this.  And will support that belief one more time by quoting something Dr. W. Edwards Deming once said: “If you emulate Toyota you will always be less than Toyota.”  You need to solve Your problems.  Do not implement a “canned solution” to your problems.

The article went on to define the 3 categories of waste.  I must say I was impressed.  In the back of my mind I could not help but think this person copied from someone, because it was too correct.  The article then went on to describe how in manufacturing it is easy to place categorized steps from a manufacturing environment onto a value stream map, and how today Lean thinkers try to apply their manufacturing experience to service and information and loose their Lean as it were.  That today’s Lean thinkers can easily become confused given the dynamics, constant change in direction, which service and information throws at you.  Meaning, claims of “creative work” now pop up and that the outcome of steps is not predictable.

I am not here to re-write the article.  I am here to say the thought in the article is stupendous.  At the end of all this “seeing” the statement was made, “. . . we need to use the standard process of value stream mapping with A3 analysis.  This is the real role for creativity at work.”   That statement blew me away.  During my short experience in healthcare I found myself solving problems in that same fashion, never realizing that given my manufacturing background, I was doing the right thing in applying what I felt was the obvious for healthcare.

Here is the big laugh at myself.  The last two sentence of the article hooked me.  I wanted to read more from this person.  And the person was . . . drum roll . . . (wish I could put this on the back side of the page so you could flip it over and be surprised) . . . James Womack!!!  (The person who coined the word Lean and the phrase Lean Thinking.)  All I could say to myself with great respect to Womack was, “it figures” and then laugh at myself.  (Click here to see the article.)

I believe James Womack to be one of the Guru’s of our time.  At least I think there are others currently out there.  As I find out more from Womack I find he “sees” with clear thought as I do.  He is a hell of a lot more experienced than I am.  So I cannot even think about being in his realm of genius.  The top of my list is still Dr. W. Edwards Deming.  To me it is because Deming had revolutionized the focus in quality, greatly challenging the status quo in his era.  I, and perhaps we, have a long way to go to take what these two gentlemen have given us and to move it forward, let alone understanding the many changes that take place over time and to improve upon their thought.

What you should take away from all this is that you need to solve Your problems.  You need to “see” Your waste.  Though I am not experienced at value stream mapping (want to be), I am an experienced problem solver and believe in PDSA and A3 analysis.  Value stream mapping and A3 are common tools that crossover from manufacturing, to service, to information.  However you need to “see with new eyes” and solve Your problems.  Not apply solutions found by others.  How else are you going to move yourself into excellence?

Where do you start Lean?

As mentioned in an earlier blog (click here), I frequent the LinkedIn forums to understand how others see and resolve problems using Lean, Six Sigma, or whatever other process that may be out there. This morning I came across a discussion that I commented in earlier as a simple "No", however I now see the forum taking shape, deep diving into the last "Why?" as it were. So I thought I would share it with you. (Click here for jump to forum.)

The question posed by Lee Jones was, "Does everyone agree, that 5S is the starting point for introducing lean??" Now that I typed his question, I realize I did not post my response in the correct context. For introducing Lean perhaps the answer is Yes. I missed my edit time on the forum so I had to enter another post. Here was my prior response:

"I believe we are all on the right track. We have our purpose in thought, and if you combine all that we are stretching based on how we see the problem. As others stated, the lean journey starts with identifying waste and most of all being able to sustain improvement. Depending upon how others see it or cannot see will help determine what to start with. 5S is a method of identifying waste, as is VSM, Kanban and all the rest. However the strong argument not to confuse the stated question with "start with" and "foundations" is totally correct. The foundation, the brick and mortar that holds up the Lean structure, is seeing and sustaining. 5S is probably the best tool to train people how to do that. However this needs to be coupled with what the tool was meant for which is to see waste. As alluded to, what is the gap between you totally satisfying your customer and what they are getting now? It could be a poorly engineered product, so would 5S or VSM be the tool to identify the waste in that process, or would a house of quality matrix?

Remember, the glass does not have to be half full or half empty. It just might be engineered to the wrong size. Use the tools to identify probable cause so that you can see probable solutions. Generically, 5S seems to be a common starting point. But will you achieve greatness if you use it every time?"

Are there any other thoughts out there?

Once upon a time there were three little companies

I think too much sometimes and it leads to severe daydreaming.  I began wondering why some companies become part of the “excellence” we grow to admire, and why others flounder.  So I thought I would make up a story of the three little companies that go “we passed TS”.

Once upon a time there were three little companies.  To keep them straight let us call them Straw, Wood and Brick. All three companies are TS-16949 certified, and re-certify when the time comes.  My question, which company is better at the end of an audit?  Straw who passes with flying colors, meaning no majors or minors to be found; Wood who passes perhaps with just 1 minor; Or, Brick who passes with maybe three minors?

Decide yet?  If not, try to.  After all, this is just a fictional story.

Now let us add some more depth.  All three of these companies, typical to most, choose to internal audit themselves thirty days prior to the external audit. Straw's internal auditor is like the external auditor, asking questions, asking for proof, and then reports out that there are minors and perhaps a major finding.  Wood asks each department manager to audit their own process and to shore up holes.  Brick does the internal audit similar to Straw, however they dig deep and when something is not quite right the audit stops to allow the auditee to make corrections, with a return at a later date to complete the internal audit.

Decide yet?  Did you change your mind yet?  After all, this is just a fictional story.

Yes, now some more depth.  This almost feels like a deep dive problem solving event.  Anyway, let us say Straw’s internal audit report to management placed several of the auditees under severe scrutiny because it was reported the auditees failed the internal audit.  The internal audit instructions were to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s” and make sure all the paperwork matched.  Wood’s audit report to management from the department managers was that they felt the process was captured and the recommendation was “steady as she goes”.  Brick's audit report stated some minor findings, and time had to be given between the audit processes to correct issues that could be interpreted as additional minors perhaps turning into a major.  Trust was given to the people in the process to make the corrections themselves.

Decide yet?  Did you change your mind again?  After all, this is just a fictional story.

To side track a little to a real life story. I fly as a hobby, or at least I did many years ago.  One time near the local airport my engine stopped.  The prop was static – not wind milling.  This was a hand prop airplane, meaning I could not press a start button, nor walk outside in mid air to try to start the engine.  I had an adrenaline rush, and an attitude like, “okay, time to get down to business”.  This is the same as my passion for Lean Manufacturing. While flying, as long as I knew how to obtain the maximum glide slope I could sustain my flight for a safe outcome. The same goes for continual improvement.  Meaning there will always be short comings and room for continual improvement.  Recognize that and go for it, one increment at a time, stretching the sustaining between each increment.  After my engine experience I had a flashback to it when on July 19, 1989 United Airlines Flight 232 had a catastrophic failure of its hydraulic system.  I remembered thinking, whom would I rather have as a captain?  One with several years of experience and no accidents, or one close to retirement who may have had several accidents?  After my engine experience I can now say I will choose the person who has been through the problems to guide me to safety.  There is a solid foundation to base decisions and to continually improve from.

So now let us get back to the fictional story and add some more depth.  Straw passed the external audit with flying colors.  No major or minor findings, though through the process only documented proof of what showed “a perfect record” was presented.  Business continued status quo, still shipping defects and believing processes did not need to be improved.  I might even re-write this fictional story to show that the foundation was still crumbling, under the premise of good work.  

Wood passed, perhaps not as fancy as Straw, but with honest effort and a breath of relief once it was over, and with the attitude “were good until the next audit”.  Brick passed, but with respect to audit outcome not as fair as Straw and Wood.  However they came out saying “we did well and know what we need to do to improve.”

Decide yet?  Did you change your mind at all?  After all, is this fiction when you look at how companies treat TS-16949 to improve quality?

Is there a moral to the three little companies? – Perhaps.  Straws who arrange their house to please an auditor, or Woods who arrange their house just to get by may find in the long haul that time (the Wolf) will still get them.  However, the Bricks who have such a strong foundation of continual improvement shall be able to weather time.

12/25/2011 - Please note that passing an audit does not mean the organization is providing a quality product / service / or information.  All passing an audit means is that controls put in place by management are, for the most part, being followed given the sample size of the audit.  Whether the controls are appropriate is not the concern of the audit per se.  Though feedback should be given to management by the auditing organization for continual improvement.

To Poka-Yoke or Not to Poka-Yoke, that is the question . . .

If you have gone beyond the title you probably have an interest in this and have some knowledge of what a poka-yoke is. For the sake of focus I will state in my words what a poka-yoke is.

Poka-yoke is a Japanese term that basically means “fail safing” or “mistake proofing”. The intent is to Help the equipment operator from making a mistake. This is not to be confused with Jadoka (sometimes referred to as autonomation). This is another Japanese term for detecting when an error occurred and automatically stopping the machine or operator until the error is fixed.

Also, there have been two types of poka-yokes generally accepted. The first and the one you want to use is the poka-yoke that aids the operator from making the mistake in the first place. Examples: Configure the assembly nest so the product can only be installed one way before it is assembled; Color code stops that can be put in place for the different products made off the same equipment; Barcode scan and build off the barcode requirement. The second method, and the one you want to use least, is to check at the end of the process step and to contain the product if it is non-conforming.

I bring this topic up because I see issues how people perceive poka-yoke. In automotive everyone believes that 100% poka-yoke is the golden rule, the cure all, to build in quality. However those who believe this lack the comprehension it is not free, that there are still risks. When there are risks, there are associated costs.

Specifically in automotive I have seen a defect product repeatedly make it to the next process step from a fully poka-yoked previous step. Every time you ask them why this occurred the response was “the machine allowed it”. So the poka-yoke failed and made the defect. WRONG. The Help to the operator failed and the Operator made the defect. Quality at the source please . . .

This fully poka-yoke system was not robust. It had a 50% Type II (false negative) failure rate. Production rate out of this cell was 50% because of this. So the operator had to work even faster to make up for the loss in defects, creating a higher chance of defects. Nobody tracked OEE (overall equipment effectiveness – a topic for some other day), however the OEE would have brought you right to the problem which was machine downtime. The company’s solution was to add higher cost poka-yokes. The problem persisted.

My solution was to turn off the poka-yoke, which I did without the boss’ approval. Most reading this already know what happened. The defects went away. I mean went away to zero. The operator took the responsibility to build quality. After turning off the poka-yoke the operator “owned” this cell, not allowing supervisors to remove them from it. Why? The operator did not have to wait for the poka-yoke to pass the part. The assembly was uninterrupted by the process (no machine failure), allowing for more time to build in quality. There were zero machine adjustments needed, allowing time for maintenance to work on other now higher risks within the plant. You see the picture . . . costs dropped dramatically.

Once the boss found out I turned off the poka-yoke he was not happy, though he could not argue the facts. He had been taught you poka-yoke everything. Here I come along and say you do not. You only poka-yoke what the operator has difficulty with, and even then material presentation can make a greater positive impact than a poka-yoke. He still wanted a solution. So I stripped off the $20k poka-yoke system and threw it in the trash. With the help of the people who add value (the operators) we found a feature we could poka-yoke for $1.2k. We implemented it and began having 3% Type I (false positive) errors. Much better than a Type II, but you wonder why we would even have them if we had zero without the poka-yoke. Answer: People can become complacent with fully poka-yoked equipment. If the poka-yoke fails they will not notice. The flip side is, if the machine and poka-yoke fail often, nobody will have faith in the equipment, so when the equipment Does build it right the operator says “it’s wrong, I know I made it correctly”, and pass on a defective product. Hmmm, the Hawthorne Study comes to mind all of a sudden (when I ran without a poka-yoke).

Then, and this is true, a month later my boss had to be at another plant because Toyota was coming to visit. The team there proudly displayed their masterpiece poka-yoke that was ingenious (and it was). After they explained it to Toyota, the response from Toyota was, “You were having problems maintaining quality?” The answer was, “No.” So Toyota was very dissatisfied. All of this additional cost (cost of engineering, making the poka-yoke, maintenance, added equipment down time when the poka-yoke fails) and added machine cycle time for something the operator was not having a problem with.

To poka-yoke, or not to poka-yoke, that is the question.  Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the defects of outrageous poka-yokes, Or to take arms against the sea of problems, And by making the operator accountable end them?

Analysis Paralysis

When things go awry with quality and defects keep shipping to the customer, it seems human nature for management to put in stop gap check points to inspect for quality.  Management wants data collection inspections and reaction to the data, adding layers to the processes, requiring more work from others who are suppose to monitor the process and build in quality.

I cannot help but ask why do we keep analyzing numbers?  Why do we try to FIND trends?  Why do we grow this monster add on process of inspecting quality into the product?

I believe this type of response from management is waste at the extreme.  In a manufacturing environment I believe these questions need to be asked:

1. Is the process running normal?  Are we following our standardized work?
2. Is the equipment functioning properly?  Are we keeping interruptions to the process at a minimum?
3. Is the material being presented correctly so the correct part is being applied?  Is the incoming material meeting specified quality?

Quality is built into the product / service / information by the people who touch it – the operators.  Tools need to be in place for the operators to build quality.  The above questions are tools needed to build a quality manufactured product.  Perhaps You can contribute base questions for service and information.

Without the above as a foundation, “noise” will take place within the process.  After all, it is the process that has failed.  Not the people.  This “noise” takes the work force away, distracts, causes confusion when building quality.  “Noise” can be a lot of things: unplanned equipment outages, material shortages, wrong material presentation, poor quality material, unsafe work conditions, not following 5S (a place for everything and everything in its place), not following a repeat process.  I hope you have enough examples to grasp what I mean by “noise”.

So, instead of management asking “is our process in control”, and if not getting it back in control; instead of asking “did we follow standardized work”, and if not do so; instead of asking “has the equipment been running properly”, and if not get it back up to running standards, . . . (you get the point) . . . management wants to see more data and to react to the data.  From the data they take some sort of corrective action measure, get more data, make more corrections, to the point the labor force is now paralyzed from building in quality.  Analysis Paralysis!

How about we just put the process back to normal?  (Of course I am presuming you had a normal process that was producing quality to begin with.)

Do you every wonder why people batch process?

I had an "ah ha" moment while making corrections to a spreadsheet this morning.  In the Lean experience one would suggest that walking in manufacturing / service (or in this case jumping cell-to-cell in the spreadsheet) is waste.  You should move all of the tasks within the grasp of the operator so as to minimize motion, resulting in as close to an efficient process as possible.  As I went through my task correcting the spreadsheet, I now am asking myself "how effective is this (jumping cell-to-cell)?"

Here is what I found.  Though I was meeting cycle time making corrections, I found myself batch processing.  Meaning that instead of making all of the corrections at once in a given cell and moving onto another, I would make one "type" of correction in each cell, then come back to make another batch set of corrections.

You really don't know what I am up to, but lets just clear the thought here.  I am not able to do "find and replace" because of the extensive coding I am doing in the cell formula.  I cannot create a formula, highlight it, and extend it down the column like one would do to repeat a formula with for each preceding cell.  (I hope you know what I mean.)

The "ah ha" moment came when I realized I was processing small batches at a time because the work content was too complicated to do it right in a one-piece-flow process.  This "ah ha" moment immediately directed me to what I have seen in manufacturing.  Team members batching even though they know very well the Standardized Work instruction calls for each of the elemental tasks be completed before you start the next part.  Have we made the process too complicated?  Is this why industry Guru's (I will have to go back and research which of them prescribed this) insisted on breaking the process down to such a simplistic short set of operations for an individual team member? (Something like a vacuum cleaner example comes to mind . . . Professor Susan S. can you help me out here?)

So, my latest mission (to add on to the many I have stacked on my shoulders) is to observe team members doing their tasks.  I hope to understand why some may have chosen to deviate from the declared process.  The outcome may be that if you see them batch, perhaps the work content is too complicated.  Nothing like a visual factory to bring out the Why? Why? Why? . . .

Do you understand quality?

Another LinkedIn forum question caught my eye (click here to see the forum).  This one was from Mateus Machado.  He asked, "What's the best way to change the mentality of workers that work on the production floor?"

I liked it because this is a common issue, yet I believe we choose not to “see” it because we are driven to “show individual effort” rather than “synergy”.  My response:

“The best challenge I have used is putting the work force in the customer’s shoes. As an automotive example, get a group of people together and have them define quality outright. Then have them mentally go into a restaurant and define quality, and understand the differences each of them place on a quality aspect (hot food, quick service, etc). Have them mentally buy a car and define quality. Then have them think of the automotive customer they are now providing a product / service to and define quality if you were in the customer's shoes. Soon they understand who the customer is, how quality is defined at each level of the "quality stream", and most will get an “ah ha” moment. 

The end product you are looking for is the work force developing their own work standards that will provide quality to the customer. They first need to understand what quality is as defined by the customer before they can do that."

We need to treat people at all levels with the same respect.  Why would the worker on the shop floor not want to be mentally challenged, at least at some level?  Why should the worker on the shop floor not understand what the customer is paying for?

One individual came up to me during work and asked, "why should I work harder without more money?  The owner has the money to pay me, so why not let loose the purse strings and then we will work harder?"  After a couple days I was able to refocus him on who defines quality, and that the person buying the product defines quality and also holds the cash.  If you work status quo, the only option to increase your pay check would be to put more business into the same workplace.  This does mean you will need to work harder.  Lean manufacturing is intended to eliminate waste, open shop capacity for new business, without working harder.

Let us make this "Common Knowledge" - Part 1

I heard that Dr. Deming has once said, “If you emulate Toyota you will always be less than Toyota.”  This is because in order to understand and the creation of the tools Toyota developed over the decades, you would have had to have gone through their struggles.  TPS (Toyota Production System) did not happen overnight.  It began in the late ‘30s, and TPS was framed by the mid ‘70s.

Over the recent decades manufacturing began to focus on ways to improve.  Programs like TQM, APQP, Lean, Six Sigma, TPS, and Outside-In Thinking came about.  A few books that I have read (which I cannot recall the specific titles) have claimed their way of looking at manufacturing is the only way to look at it if you want to be successful.

To claim a cure all for anything begins to boil my blood.  They can only speak from their experience and those perhaps close to them.  They cannot speak for all.  If you attempt to emulate anything without understanding the problem, you are most likely applying the wrong solution.

We are all problem solvers and to different degrees.  We view current situations based on our experience, clarity of thought, and self developed philosophy.  How clear we view the problem depends on how open we are to new ideas, challenges, and to the desire to improve.  We choose what clothes to put on in the morning (sometimes challenging for me), which way to drive to work, what to eat for lunch, when to go to sleep, and many more choices in between of various difficulty (difficult based on our experience).

So I propose to those in manufacturing, service, and information, that any label you believe to be the solution, whether TQM, APQP, Lean, Six Sigma, TPS, Outside-In Thinking, or anything else you can come up with, are all the same.  The difference is the degree of emphasis on a specific need.  They all speak of customer focus, advanced planning, quality, elimination of waste, controlling the process, and more.  However they do it in different degrees. This is how consultants “shift” the flavor of the month to make it appealing to the problems that face you now.  Generically, perhaps the problem is the same day-to-day when you look at your business from the 10,000 ft level.  However as you drill down dynamics form, move, slide, into problems that can present themselves differently many times during that day with each requiring a different solution.

So why do we have to assign a label such as TPS or Six Sigma?  Why can we not make the aggregate “Common Knowledge”?  This is day-to-day problem solving, driving root cause, and implementing permanent corrective action.  Understanding the problem is the first hurdle.  Understanding how it affects your customer so that it can be prioritized is another.  By taking the label away and focusing on identifying and solving problems, you can excel your business beyond bench marking and the mere adaption of business models.  Set the bar high.  Do not accept the solutions put in place by others, for you will always come up short.

Let us educate and make this "Common Knowledge".


(Common Knowledge - Part 2)    (Common Knowledge - Part 3)

Deming . . . Does everyone understand his point?

In my opinion Dr. Deming had the knack of breaking a problem down to its simplest components, and then to "see" a statistical pattern across problems.

Though I have not confirmed this yet, my understanding is that Dr. Deming at one time said:

“True values do not exist.”

That statement is thought provoking.  If you dig deep you can define the meaning for yourself.  For me, it is the difference between calculated and reality.  It goes along with another statement I believe he made:

“Uncontrolled variation produces low quality.”

In this statement you begin to understand that “variation” exists everywhere.  You can design to a “true value”, but the reality will always be a variation, therefore a “true value” will never exist.  And as this variation is allowed to go uncontrolled, quality is no longer repeated.  Reduce the variation you float closer toward a true value, never meeting it, however quality increases.

I am always amazed at those who say “if you do this then it will produce that every time”.  Then when the product is not 100% perfect once again, they blame the process, force an adjustment to bring it back to “true value”, with the repeat adjustment for every factor that changes the product.  This promotes such a small window to process in that it makes for headaches to those who have to maintain it.  Then we begin to say the equipment is not robust enough.  We add more money, more tweaking (which I call tampering), with the same result that we are constantly chasing to provide “true values” that will never exist.

Variation will always exist.  It is up to us to understand variation and to develop a process window that produces a product the customer is willing to pay for.  When the “real value” is measured, is it within an acceptable range?  Do we understand what caused it to be in that range?  Do we need to improve control on that aspect?

This will be another topic, however it is appropriate here.  How much do you poka-yoke a process?  There comes a point when the poka-yokes are so many and tuned so tightly that you cannot get a product out.  The equipment is down again and again for adjustment.  Whatever happened with quality being the responsibility of the people who provide value?

Lean Training

I have been active on many forums in LinkedIn with respect to my interest in Lean Manufacturing/Service.  As a connoisseur of Lean, I find some likes and some dislikes with responses to the authors question.  What I like is the creativity of others and their willingness to share.  My dislikes would be personal agenda rather that understanding and responding to the question.  Though I do admit, because I have the passion for Lean I have gone down that track to make a point too.

Luisa Rivera put a question out in the Kaizen subgroup of Lean Six Sigma (link to forum here) which asked, "Has anyone considered including the positive mindset in any of their Lean trainings and/Kaizen events?"

Several responses were given, however the Lean connoisseur in me was not satisfied so I responded:  "We are not created equal. All of us have different experiences and motivation. It is up to us as trainers / leaders, to recognize this in every individual and then to design an experience that most will follow and enjoy. I have heard and used this phrase in many applications, and I will do it here as well. Create a “positive tension” towards change. Create a SMART goal for all, if that is possible. Start with quick successes if you believe there could be failure with larger and perhaps more aggressive change. Then grow. For me this is how I create the environment for a positive mindset. This is obviously the 10,000 ft level view. Much more trickles down from here.

I believe in the Toyota philosophy that inherently everyone wants to improve. It is our nature. If this can be considered a constancy of purpose within us, then we can move right into Lean or Six Sigma, with the understanding of “positive tension” that is accepted by most, if not all."

For a positive mind set to take hold, do you not need to persuade, somehow make your case, and get the other person emotionally involved too?  Everything needs to start with the person who creates the value.  There must be a win-win.  There must be ownership, and most of all leadership.

Lean Training

I have been active on many forums in LinkedIn with respect to my interest in Lean Manufacturing/Service.  As a connoisseur of Lean, I find some likes and some dislikes with responses to the authors question.  What I like is the creativity of others and their willingness to share.  My dislikes would be personal agenda rather that understanding and responding to the question.  Though I do admit, because I have the passion for Lean I have gone down that track to make a point too.

Luisa Rivera put a question out in the Kaizen subgroup of Lean Six Sigma (link to forum here) which asked, "Has anyone considered including the positive mindset in any of their Lean trainings and/Kaizen events?"

Several responses were given, however the Lean connoisseur in me was not satisfied so I responded:  "We are not created equal. All of us have different experiences and motivation. It is up to us as trainers / leaders, to recognize this in every individual and then to design an experience that most will follow and enjoy. I have heard and used this phrase in many applications, and I will do it here as well. Create a “positive tension” towards change. Create a SMART goal for all, if that is possible. Start with quick successes if you believe there could be failure with larger and perhaps more aggressive change. Then grow. For me this is how I create the environment for a positive mindset. This is obviously the 10,000 ft level view. Much more trickles down from here.

I believe in the Toyota philosophy that inherently everyone wants to improve. It is our nature. If this can be considered a constancy of purpose within us, then we can move right into Lean or Six Sigma, with the understanding of “positive tension” that is accepted by most, if not all."

For a positive mind set to take hold, do you not need to persuade, somehow make your case, and get the other person emotionally involved too?  Everything needs to start with the person who creates the value.  There must be a win-win.  There must be ownership, and most of all leadership.