Ebook R Keith Mobleys Reflections On Excellence Be3bee7d

R.
Keith Mobley’s
REFLECTIONS
ON EXCELLENCE
Fresh insights based on five decades of experience
on the state of manufacturing today.
www.LCE.com
INTRODUCTION
E ncouraged by peers and friends, six years ago we began a monthly series of e-newsletters titled Re-
flections on Excellence letter. My intent was not to preach, but rather to share philosophies, beliefs
and behaviors that have governed my life and have helped me and others achieve success in our personal
and business lives.
Over the years numerous clients have dubbed these reflections Mobley’s Laws but these concepts are not
original, nor are they really my laws. All were learned from others who are, or were, much smarter and
wiser than me. These mentors inspired me to seek a way of life that looked outward, always trying to help
others succeed.
Readers have responded so positively to our monthly Reflections on Excellence that we have compiled a
selection of 35 letters to include in this eBook. I am, and always will be, gratified knowing that, in some
small way, these letters have perhaps given you the confidence to meet the challenges we all must face in
our personal and business lives.
Wishing you much success,
2 Reflections on Excellence
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Achieving Reliability Excellence
There are no silver bullets; change takes time 4
Be effective first, then strive for efficiency 7
Never, never, never give up 9
One must take calculated risks 10
Success is the sum of repeated, day-to-day improvement 12
Show them the numbers and performance will follow 13
Maintenance cannot create reliability 15
What gets measured, gets managed 17
Begin with the end in mind 19
Excellence Requires Culture Change

You cannot mandate change 21
Impatience never commands success 24
Change must be holistic and absolute 26
Don’t worry about things you cannot change 29
Physical assets mean nothing without empowered employees 31
Never forbid what you cannot prevent 33
If you want to change behavior, start by changing your behavior 35
Managers Shape Performance

People do what you inspect, not what you expect 37
Without vision, people perish 40
Stretch goals fuel the furnace of excellence 42
Build a strong foundation first, then build upoon it 44
Time is money, it should never be wasted 46
You don’t know what you don’t know 49
Solving Problems and Making Decisions

Seek perfection, never settle for anything less 51
The solution must match the problem 54
Knowledge is not enough, it must be applied 57
Remove emotion from the decision-making equation 59
Even when you stumble, keep moving forward 61
Embrace the truth. It will set you free 63
Behaviors Make the Difference

Making the same mistake twice is unforgivable 66
Work smart, not hard 68
One cannot govern without consent 70
Play to win, not to avoid losing 72
Speak with honesty, think with sincerity, and act with integrity 75
Obstacles are great incentives 78
You must look into people as well as at them 80
ACHIEVING RELIABILITY EXCELLENCE
Reliability Excellence requires a foundation of principles and culture, establishing the
processes and procedures that create reliability, and developing the management and
reporting elements that drive sustainability and continuous improvement.
There Are No Silver Bullets
I f I had a nickel for every time a client has said, “…but you don’t understand, we’re different,” I would be a
rich man. While it is true that differences exist, this is too often an excuse we use for not doing what we
need to do—acknowledge our shortcomings and admit our imperfections. Then and only then can we over-
come limitations and truly achieve our full potential.
This is especially true when it comes to continuous improvement. I have lost count of the times when I have
visited plants that have adopted Lean, Six Sigma, TPM or one of the other alphabet soup of continuous im-
provement philosophies only to find they really have not. In many of these plants, the leadership, implemen-
tation team, and sometime even the associates on the floor know all the right words and can parrot all of the
important ones. But it quickly becomes clear they do not really understand what the words mean or the real
philosophy of continuous improvement.
In a recent visit to a large discrete manufacturing plant, I heard the V.P. of Operations espouse the merits
of Lean and the value of Kaizen. What he was really taking about was Kaizen Blitz—short-duration, high-
-intensity improvements—not Kaizen, a methodical, long-term continuous improvement process. When
asked, he affirmed that their transformation from almost totally reactive to world-class would be accom-
plished in a few months and with no other effort than a few teams implementing Kaizen. The instant gratifi-
cation of Kaizen Blitz, even though gains are not sustainable, was his and the company’s preferred solution,
rather than a slower, steady journey to sustainable excellence. How one can expect brute force changes, like
those created by blitz activities, will survive without changing the culture that enable the deficiencies in the
first place, escapes me. Unless and until the enabling culture is changed, nothing is sustainable.
As in this example, we have become a culture that is obsessed with instant gratification and short-term
focus. Read any trade magazine or listen to the multitude of continuous improvement consultancies and
you will be bombarded with proven solutions to your problems. Although the solutions vary, most share a
common theme: the solution is quick, cheap and painless. Some focus on maintenance; others on reli-
ability; and still others on production improvement. Maybe it is just me, but none of these solutions and
their associated gains ring true.
There Are No Silver Bullets, cont.
A statement I hear often is that maintenance is the sole reason a company cannot capture and retain market
share. No matter how hard I try, I fail to understand the logic behind this. If one investigates the “mainte-
nance deficiencies” that plague most plants, the true cause is not maintenance. Regardless of where they
are generated, most deficiencies manifest as maintenance issues, e.g. breakdowns, unplanned cost, and
reduced output. The old saw “One operator can wreck a machine faster than ten mechanics can repair it”
is true. To resolve these maintenance deficiencies one must address the sources of the visible symptoms
and that means deficiencies in production, operations,
engineering, procurement and other functions whose
I have learned with abso- combined deficiencies create them. Anything short of a
lute certainty that there holistic approach to continuous improvement must result
in partial, less than desired results.
are no silver bullets—no
quick solutions to the I have learned with absolute certainty that there are no
silver bullets—no quick solutions to the complex issues
complex issues that must that must be resolved before any company can capture
be resolved before any and retain sufficient market share and margins to ensure
continuance and profitability. Once this simple fact is ac-
company can capture and cepted, one can begin the process of reengineering with
retain sufficient market some assurance of success.
share and margins to Where should you start? There can be only one answer—
ensure continuance and everywhere, but with production or manufacturing as the
focal point. The interdependency of plants and corpo-
profitability. rations forces a holistic approach. Think about how you
would improve your production organization. The best
place to start is to eliminate variability in the way work
is planned and executed. If one looks at the results of each operating team and shift on a day-to-day basis,
the level of variability is clear. Next, eliminate the waste and losses by value-stream mapping all of the work
activities required to effectively produce the requisite output. Create value-added standard processes and
procedures and then enforce them.
As you go through the process, one thing should become clear: the ability to effectively produce or manufac-
There Are No Silver Bullets, cont.
ture depends on the supply chain, engineering, maintenance, human resources, sales—in other words, the
entire company. A holistic or total approach is the only option that ensures changes that eliminate the loss
and waste in today’s environment, precludes recurrence of poor practices, and engrains a culture of contin-
uous improvement.
Oh, before I forget, there is one other small thing you must do to transform: enforce policies and standards.
When did compliance with company policy and adherence to established practices become optional?
A few years ago, I was asked to help a mid-western manufacturer of high-end automotive consumer prod
-ucts. In our initial conversation, the general manager laid out the problem. They were losing a little more
than $2 per unit shipped, resulting in a significant annual loss. He and others believed that a technology
problem in their foundry was the reason for high scrap rates and low production rates. What we found was
quite different. While their foundry technology was dated, the real reason was simply failure of their oper
-ators to comply with standard procedures. Their procedures were near perfect; they simply were not being
used. As a result, throughput was less than 50% of capacity, not enough to cover fixed costs, and their scrap
rate exceeded 25%. The truly amazing part of this story is that no one on the management team had any
idea that this was going on. Why? For the same reason the problem occurred in the first place: no one from
the management team, including the front-line supervisors, were on the floor and no one was looking at
the performance data. Because they already had valid standards and standard work procedure, solving the
problem was straightforward. Get the supervisors back on the floor and universally enforce the procedures.
Within a month, the plant was consistently doubling their previous daily output—and making more than $4
per shipped unit.
I can hear you now. “You just don’t understand. We’re different. We know what’s going on in our plant, and
besides we can’t afford to make the kind of investment you’re talking about. It takes too long.” I once felt that
way too, but after striving for excellence for these past four plus decades, I encourage you to reconsider your
approach. Change takes time and cannot be achieved by selective or partial solutions. No matter how hard
or how often you try, there are no silver bullets and no way to short-cut the change process. Approach
change with an open mind and patience to see it through. The results are certainly worth the effort.
Be Effective First, then Strive for Efficiency
W hy is everyone always in such a hurry? I was recently approached by yet another production man
-ager who was in a panic to improve the performance of his production area. Nothing would do,
other than immediate help and instantaneous results. It did not matter that the poor performance that
he was so anxious to resolve had existed for years. He wanted improvement right now. Obviously he was
feeling the pressure from above and the need for change was immediate.
For someone in my profession, this is a common request: provide instant solutions to problems that have
evolved over years of variance from best practices or just plain bad practices. They want us to wave a magic
wand, speed up their production process, eliminate waste and improve their operating profit. And they
want it done yesterday. What they do not seem to understand is that it is just not that simple.
The keys to effective production are consistency and stability. Each step, task and action in the production
process must be performed in the same way and in the same sequence each and every time. Variability in
the operation, from incoming materials to finished
goods and from startup to shutdown, must be elimi-
nated or at least held within acceptable norms. The keys to effective pro-
Achieving this consistency and stability takes time
duction are consistency
and cannot be speeded up in a rush to achieve instant
results. and stability. Each step,
task and action in the
Years of solving these types of problems have taught to
always seek effectiveness first, and then worry about production process must
how fast it can be done. I was reminded of this lesson be performed in the same
as I listened to this potential client. He just could not
understand why his efforts to improve his operation
way and in the same se-
were not having the desired effect. He argued that he quence each and
had copied exactly what we had done in another area
of the plant. He had established process control boards every time.
and new standard procedures copied directly from
what we had done. He had instructed his supervisors
to enforce these changes. Why was it not working?
The difference between the approach that worked and the one that did not is that the successful approach
concentrated on being effective first. It took the time to create cross-functional teams made up of the
Be Effective First, then Strive for Efficiency, cont.
operators, maintainers and support personnel in the subject production area. These teams were charged
with the responsibility and authority to resolve the issues that impacted the consistency and stability of
the production operation. They identified the waste, losses and non-value added activities associated with
their current mode of operating. They designed new standard procedures containing specific, step-by-step
instructions to guide the production process—procedures that were effective and provided consistency and
stability. Because the teams created these new procedures, acceptance and adherence was a natural progres-
sion.
In contrast, in the approach that did not work, the workforce was not involved at all. Instead the production
manager attempted to mandate change—to bypass effectiveness in an attempt to speed up the process. But
change must be at the individual level. No matter how significant their role, each member of the workforce
must choose to change the way they think and behave. Change cannot be forced or mandated.
The evolution from current, less-than-desired operating performance to best-in-class does not stop with the
reengineering process. After the cross-functional teams have accomplished their assigned task, these new
procedures and methods must become an integral part of the operation’s DNA. This is a two-step process.
First, these procedures must be implemented and validated to ensure effectiveness. Then you need to estab
-lish the means to ensure long-term compliance.
Only after this is done, can we switch focus to efficiency. Efficiency must be built upon a stable, consistent
platform. It cannot be achieved by taking shortcuts, eliminating needed tasks or activities, or by arbitrarily
reducing headcount. Improving efficiency is a continuous, long-term process focused on eliminating waste
and inefficiency in all aspects of the production process. This might entail implementing a kanban mate-
rials handling system to eliminate lost time waiting on materials, a redesign of the module or cell layout or
further elimination of unnecessary steps, but it is constant and never-ending.
In closing, always remember to concentrate on doing it right first, and then worry about how fast it can be
done. Cheaper and faster is a guaranteed journey to failure.
Never, Never, Never Give Up
I recently received news from a protégé in South America. I had the opportunity to work with John about
five years ago and over a three-year period was able to share LCE’s approach to Reliability Excellence. As
we applied this approach, his company, an alumina refinery, achieved a first-year reduction in operating
cost of more than $11M and firmly established the foundation for continuous improvement. The refinery
was well on its way to excellence. About three years ago, John was lured away from the refinery by another
company in the same country. They had heard of the refinery’s success and wanted John to duplicate it for
them. When he accepted the position, everyone on his new employer’s leadership team was excited and
eager for change—or were they?
We were asked to spend a few weeks with the client to assess the situation and recommend the best ap-
proach to implementing a Reliability Excellence-based continuous improvement program. It was a hard,
long two weeks but with John’s help we were able to gather the necessary cost and performance data
needed to fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of his new company. We put together a solid bu-
siness case that conservatively would yield a $25M improvement in operating cost over a three-year period,
but to get there the client—a government-owned enterprise—would have to make substantial changes in
the way they managed the company. The company, citing too many initiatives, elected not to pursue Relia-
bility Excellence.
John refused to give up. Instead of simply accepting the company’s decision to defer implementation, he
set about resolving some of the deficiencies that we had identified through the assessment process. He
focused on those that were within his and the Reliability Engineering Manager’s span of control. Through
persistent efforts he was able to achieve substantial results.
One of my best Christmas presents last year was an email from John sharing the results of his efforts.
Without any support from senior management, and despite resistance from a bureaucratic organization,
he was able to reduce operating cost by more than $9M and identified an additional $4.5M that would be
enjoyed in the first quarter of the following year. He took some pride in reporting this to his management
team and tactfully reminded them of the $25M potential that achieving Reliability Excellence would provi-
de.
Needless to say, I am proud to have been a part of John’s introduction to and education in Reliability Excel-
lence. His success in applying what he learned is commendable, but I am most proud of his adherence to
one of Mobley’s laws: “Never, never, never give up.”
One Must Take Calculated Risks
I n the not too distant past, I had the opportunity to help two clients that faced similar problems. Both
were losing market share because of high costs of goods sold and ineffective use of installed capacity.
Even when presented with vetted data and incontrovertible facts, neither would accept any responsibility
for these shortcomings. They sought to blame external forces for their declining market position. That is
where the similarity ends.
The first client had a history of being ultra conservative. They had relied on a few product families that
generate 90 percent of their revenue, but that market was declining and future prospects were dim. Over
four decades, the risk-averse philosophy of the company permeated the organization. As a result, every-
one—from the CEO to the newest hire on the factory
Few companies consider floor—avoided risks at all costs. No one was willing
to question status quo, to see obvious losses, or to
the instability of their bu- consider options that could improve performance.
siness and work processes Everyone played it safe and followed management,
business and work practices that accelerated the
that are the true source of company’s decline. Like an ostrich, they buried their
high costs, poor quality collective head in the sand and refused to acknowl-
and loss of market share. edge that just because that is the way they had always
done was no longer acceptable.
Constant fluctuations of
output, product quali- The second client had a volatile history full of di-
rection changes, false starts and aborted projects.
ty, or any other aspect of Their solution to almost every problem, including
day-to-day business are loss of market share, was to change something. Over
the past few years, they had reorganized the entire
risks. The only question is management team, not by bringing in new faces but
whether one can afford to by reassigning their incumbent managers. They had
spent tens of millions on new production systems,
live with them. implemented an SAP information management sys-
tem, and adopted the Toyota Production System. Over
the decades, the company had ingrained a culture of
initiative change as a means to solve problems. If this organizational structure did not work, they changed
it. If they could not meet demand, they installed more production systems. Even though change contin-
ued, nothing had slowed the escalation of costs or decline in market share.
One Must Take Calculated Risks, cont.
These are the two extremes in culture, one risk averse and the other an almost limitless risk taker, but
neither company could resolve their common problem. When we first met with each client, risk manage-
ment was near the top of the discussion topics. Viewpoints of these two clients were diametrically opposed.
One client thought risk should be avoided at all cost and the other believed that risk-taking was the way
business should be run. Neither view is correct, but changing decades of conditioning is never easy.
Risk is a part of life. Taking risks is a necessary part of any business but one should never take unnecessary
risks. For many years, I have joked that I do not gamble but I play the laws of probability every day. The
difference is that before changing anything I take great pains to understand the risks, consider all of the
possible consequences of each possible change, and then weigh the probabilities of success. In other words,
I take carefully calculated risks.
Each of these clients slowly moved away from its polar position and moved toward the center—toward ef-
fective risk management and a culture that questions everything but carefully considers alternatives before
making changes. In each case the transformation began with helping them understand risk. That might
sound strange, but few companies truly understand or can even identify the risks that each day threaten
their business. Most companies think of risk solely in terms of regulatory compliance or catastrophic busi-
ness interruptions. Few companies consider the instability of their business and work processes that are the
true source of high costs, poor quality and loss of market share. Constant fluctuations of output, product
quality, or any other aspect of day-to-day business are risks. The only question is whether one can afford to
live with them.
Once they could see and understand the risks within their operations, each of these clients was able to make
viable business decisions to resolve, or at least mitigate, them. Overcoming the decades of conditioning
takes time and both clients continue to struggle against the incessant pull of habit, but they have main-
tained their discipline and are gradually reclaiming lost market share. They have learned an important
lesson, but from different directions. One has learned that being risk averse—avoiding change no matter
what—does not work. The other learned that uncontrolled change—taking unnecessary risks—does not
work. They have both learned that taking risk is necessary, but only when the risk is known and the outcome
predetermined.
Success is the Sum of Repeated, Day-to-Day Improvement
A s a student of human behavior, I am constantly amazed by our culture’s quest for instant gratifica-
tion. No matter what the topic—sports, business or personal—we are too impatient to wait for our
desired future state. We are unwilling to expend the practice time, invest in business improvement or even
spend time in our personal life to achieve sustainable success. Instead, we expect to be the superstar, the
best-in-class company, or have the perfect personal relationship, without investing much time or effort.
The transformation from a culture steeped in a pragmatic pursuit of success to one of instant gratification
has been so gradual that few recognize the change.
When entering the university and subsequently the Sustainable continuous
business world, I did not expect easy, instantaneous
success. Instead, my generation knew that success
improvement requires
requires an investment of commitment, effort and patience, perseverance,
time. My personal goal was to achieve corporate level
management by my 40th birthday. The pursuit of that
and a clear vision of the
goal was a focused progression of carefully planned future but it is the only
steps which would achieve my vision of success. I se-
sure path to success.
lected jobs that would provide experience and growth
to support the journey to corporate management. In today’s culture, this seemingly tortoise-paced jour-
ney would not be acceptable. But in truth, it is the only sure path to sustainable success.
One example of this homage to instant gratification is the morphing of lean manufacturing methodolo-
gies. The founding philosophy of lean is Kaizen. The term literally means methodical, paced, continuous
improvement—repeated, day-to-day improvement forever. However, in too many corporations when one
looks at the implementation of lean, Kaizen morphs into a short-term, all-out blitz designed to provide
immediate improvement. While there is nothing wrong with using blitz tactics, gains are never sustain
-able. One can improve anything with enough resources and effort, but without changing the underlying
reasons that necessitate the blitz any gains will quickly dissipate and little or no evidence of the blitz will
remain.
That is the same problem with instant gratification—its duration is fleeting. Sustainable change is and
must be a methodical, one-step-after-another journey that literally has no end. Success, built upon incre-
mental successes, is a constant forward pressure to get better each day. There are no shortcuts or silver
bullets. Like the tortoise and the hare, steady and constant forward movement wins the race—not sporad
-ic bursts of speed interspersed with lethargy. Sustainable continuous improvement requires patience,
perseverance, and a clear vision of the future but it is the only sure path to success. Are you a tortoise or
the hare?
Show Them the Numbers and Performance Will Follow
O ne truth I learned early and applied often is that people respond to visible, tangible stimulation. This
truth is often referred to as the Hawthorne effect: people tend to work harder and perform better
when they are participants in a focused effort. They may change their behavior due to the attention they
are receiving from others, especially their peers.
One recent example of just how well the Hawthorne Raised to be competitive,
effect works is a high-speed manufacturing process
that struggled to meet market demand. No matter
it is in our DNA to win.
how hard management tried to encourage, cajole, or Harnessed effectively, this
stimulate the workforce, the numbers did not
embedded characteristic
change.When presented with this challenge, we
installed visual control boards on each of the manu- is the key to sustainable
facturing modules and requested that each operating growth and continuous
team post their performance numbers every hour. The
boards displayed the performance numbers for each improvement.
shift and performance trends vs. plan so that all could
see how they and others affected performance. At first, the boards had little positive impact; there were
complaints about the extra work required to post the numbers. Even management questioned the
approach. “We have electronic tote boards all over the plant,” they argued. “There is no reason for the
module boards.”
It took a few weeks, but things gradually began to change and then gathered momentum until the entire
manufacturing floor’s performance numbers climbed closer and closer to the plant’s business plan. Within
a few months, they consistently exceeded goals and the numbers continued to climb. Incredulous, man-
agement questioned why or how this had happened. The electronic tote boards had been in place for years.
They clearly showed plant performance vs. plan. What made the difference? The answer is both simple and
complex.
The simple answer is that unlike the electronic boards that displayed impersonal plant vs. plan informa-
tion, the module boards showed how each operating team was performing. Combined with each team
posting its own numbers, the module boards provided a direct, very personal link between their perfor-
mance and the resulting plant performance. This link is a powerful motivator that, properly applied,
provides the foundation for continuous improvement and high-performance workgroups.
Show Them the Numbers and Performance Will Follow, cont.
However, there is more to the story. Linking individuals or individual workgroups will activate the inbred
competitive nature of the team but until there is someone or something to compete with, the link has little
effect. In our example, the real agent of change was one operator who really liked winning. A few weeks
after installation of the module boards his numbers were up and clearly better than any other module in the
plant. Proud of his numbers, he began walking the floor snickering at those with lower numbers. Almost
immediately, the other operators took up the challenge and their numbers slowly began to climb. Within a
few months plant numbers soared.
Raised to be competitive, it is in our DNA to win. Harnessed effectively, this embedded characteristic is the
key to sustainable growth and continuous improvement. Success depends on:
• Directly connecting individuals and natural work teams to overall plant performance. Electronic
tote boards, closed-circuit televisions and other information systems are too impersonal. Manual
boards posted directly by the employees or natural work teams may be low-tech but they provide the
direct link needed for success.
• Enabling and encouraging positive competition between individuals and workgroups. It does not take
much effort. Awards for meeting targets, acknowledging high-performers in plant meetings, and other
simple, inexpensive rewards will trigger the competitive juices.
It’s important to understand this about the Hawthorne effect: it is a wonderful tool, but it is not sustain
-able. You can leverage the Hawthorne effect to overcome inertia and begin the journey but it is not enough
to sustain it. A formal change management process, combined with standard work practices and constant
reinforcement, complete the puzzle that ensures you will reach your goals and create a truly continuous
improvement culture in your plant. It is not hard; you just have to do it the right way. Show them the num-
bers—let them post them and the results will follow.
Maintenance Cannot Create Reliability
L ately I have been wondering about the topic of reliability. With the growing exposure to the impor
-tance of reliability as expressed in reliability-centered maintenance and formalization of PAS 55 as
ISO 55000, more and more organizations are incorporating reliability into their lexicon of continuous
improvement buzzwords.
While reliability is essential to best-in-class performance, I cannot understand how anyone can believe
that reliability, as it applies to organizational performance, is a maintenance issue or is limited to the
plant’s physical assets. Effective levels of value-added, sustaining maintenance are necessary, but
maintenance activities, no matter how well planned or executed, cannot improve reliability. At best,
maintenance can sustain reliability, but even that is
highly doubtful. There are too many variables outside
the maintenance function that drive asset reliability
Effective levels of value-
to believe that maintenance has any real control over -added, sustaining
asset reliability.
maintenance are
It starts with design. Ninety-five percent of an asset’s necessary, but
life cycle cost is determined by the design and man
-ufacturing processes. Properly designed, an asset maintenance activities,
is inherently reliable, energy-efficient and requires
no matter how well
minimal maintenance to sustain reliability over its
life cycle. If not properly designed, there is little that planned or executed,
cannot improve
maintenance can do to eliminate design deficiencies.
I’m reminded of the anonymous quote everyone reliability. At best,

agrees with: “One operator can destroy a machine
faster than 10 maintenance technicians can repair it!” maintenance can sustain
If one bothers to consider real data, it is apparent that
reliability, but even that
non-maintenance sources are responsible for 83% of
reliability issues associated with plant assets. How can is highly doubtful.
maintenance compensate for improper operation of
the organization’s assets? We recently worked with a chemical plant that insisted on operating one of its li-
nes well above its design limits. As a result, many of its critical, single-point-of-failure assets catastrophi-
cally failed—not once but repeatedly. Of course, the blame focused on maintenance deficiencies instead of
production management’s decision to violate design parameters. It took almost three months to convince
corporate management of the real reason and only solution for these chronic failures.
Maintenance Cannot Create Reliability, cont.
The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that U.S. industries lose more than $738 billion annually because
of reliability issues. The data indicates that operational issues, predominantly production, account for $553
billion (75%) and maintenance the remaining $185 billion (25%). The report attributes these losses to varia-
bility and inconsistencies throughout the organization that result in lost capacity (revenue) or unnecessary
costs.
Perhaps a part of the asset focus of reliability is as simple as its definition. If one searches the Internet for
a definition of reliability, many of the responses will be from an engineering perspective or by vendors who
have engineering or maintenance solutions they want to sell. For example, a popular definition is “The abili-
ty of an apparatus, machine, or system to consistently perform its intended or required function or mission,
on demand and without degradation or failure.” How would you interpret this definition? It does focus on
physical assets, but is maintenance the solution?
What would one need to do to ensure the physical assets meet this definition of reliability? If, from a design
standpoint, they are inherently reliable, then production must universally adhere to the operating envelope
and operating best practices; procurement must provide raw materials and consumables that sustain relia-
bility; engineering must sustain form, fit and function of the assets; human resources must provide trained
operators, tenders and technicians; and maintenance must provide sustaining maintenance. All of these are
essential to a reliable operation but one final, dominant component is necessary—management-enforced
discipline to adhere universally to standard work processes, procedures, and practices that ensure
consistent best practices in all facets of the operation.
What Gets Measured, Gets Managed
Y ou have all heard some version of the phase “you cannot manage what you do not measure.” Yet few
people seem to actually believe it to be true. Recently I read a post on LinkedIn that attempted to
explain the difference between preventive and corrective maintenance in which the author suggested that
all maintenance activities should be grouped into one of these two classifications. The point that the topic
was maintenance is moot. The real point is that one cannot manage a budget that only has two classifica-
tions.
The post reminded me of a conversation that I had with a maintenance manager many years ago. When
asked if he could tell me, with any degree of accuracy, where his maintenance dollars were spent, he quick
-ly responded, “Absolutely, I have three open blanket work orders and all charges go against one of them.”
It should be intuitively clear that neither of these approaches could possibly enable effective management
of one’s budget. But too many people do not seem to understand this fundamental business requirement:
to manage something you need to measure it appropriately.
It is not just the maintenance organization that does not grasp this simple concept. Many production
organizations fail to measure performance thoroughly enough to enable effective management. For
example, overall equipment effectiveness, OEE, is one of the more popular performance indicators. As
designed, OEE measures the performance of the
operating team by measuring losses that they can con-
trol, such as delays, unscheduled downtime, running
Always remember this
rates and off-spec product. Unfortunately, that is not simple fact: if you don’t
the way OEE is typically used. Instead, many organi-
know it’s happening, you
zations, assume that production and quality rates are
fixed and only measure delays or downtime. Others cannot change it.
choose to not measure delays or downtime shorter
than some arbitrary interval, or they count changeover time as an OEE loss. All of these arbitrary devia-
tions from the true definition of OEE skew the outcome and eliminate the value it could offer as a manage-
ment tool.
The point that I am striving to make is that one must clearly understand where the labor hours and costs
are being spent—no matter what business function—in order to effectively manage and hopefully im-
prove the operation. Over my 50 years in the business community I have had the opportunity to evaluate
hundreds of organizations. One distinct difference between a true best-in-class and typical company is
their level of performance management. In the best-in-class, the key performance measurement process
What Gets Measured, Gets Managed, cont.
is well-developed, effectively designed to measure controllable variables within each functional area, and
integrates all functional groups into a cohesive, focused team. Not so good organizations run the gauntlet
from a few measurements, like the three open work orders, to hundreds of arbitrary parameters that fail to
provide accurate indicators of performance.
Why do so many organizations struggle with this fundamental business requirement? Candidly, I do not
know the answer. It is like the response when I questioned the recent post. In part, it may be because you
don’t know what you don’t know. Without a basic understanding of business—all aspects, not just finance or
manufacturing or maintenance—and a little bit of common sense, it could be hard to grasp the fundamen-
tals of what is required to be successful. One must measure the real parameters that define performance,
do so in a timely manner, and then take the appropriate actions to sustain effective performance or improve
deficiencies that adversely impact it. Always remember this simple fact: if you don’t know it’s happening,
you cannot change it.
Begin with the End in Mind
O ne would think that any journey would begin with a destination in mind. How else would you plot
a course from point A to point B? It seems like common sense would dictate that this same logic
applies to almost everything we do, but is that the way most of us go through life? Based on my personal
habits and observations, apparently this is not the case. Instead, many of us seem to meander through life
without any clearly defined end game in mind. There are exceptions of course. In my case, my endgame
was to reach corporate-level management by age 40, but my vision did not extend beyond that. I never
considered reaching old age or retirement. I believe that this is common to most of us in both our personal
and business lives. We may have a series of short-term objectives, but no real vision of the ultimate results.
I am constantly amazed by how many organizations, including Fortune 100 companies, do not have a clear
vision of their future or what it will take to get there. Instead they bounce from one reactive plan to an
other, driven by changes (some real and some perceived) that shape their ultimate future. The truly ama-
zing part is that they do not realize what is
happening. Yes, almost all companies have a pub-
lished vision statement, but that is not enough. The To be effective, a vision
published vision statement often seems to be an statement should stretch
idealistic statement describing lofty goals that the
organization is unlikely to achieve. To be effective, a
the organization but be
vision statement should stretch the organization but based in reality not fan-
be based in reality not fantasy. It must define the ul-
timate or endgame for the organization. It must start
tasy. It must define the
with a clear vision of the end. ultimate or endgame for
Vision statements are not stand-alone documents.
the organization. It must
They must be supported by a well-defined plan or start with a clear vision
road map that includes specific actions, intermediate
goals, escalating objectives and stage gates that will
of the end.
govern the journey from present day to the envisioned
future. Regardless of what the bumper stickers say, nothing just happens. Every result is caused by
discrete actions that, alone or in combination, create an outcome. The long-range strategic plan and
intermediate operating plans must be carefully designed to anticipate internal and external variables,
mitigate their negative impacts, and stay the course until the end game is accomplished. Does this sound
impossible?
Begin with the End in Mind, cont.
It is possible to shape your personal or an organization’s future. But you must be proactive, not sit back
and let events rule. We have become a reactive culture in our personal and business lives. Rather than take
control of and responsibility for our destiny we take the easy way out and follow the events that constantly
change our environment. It is not that hard to take charge of the future, but it does take courage, commit-
ment, and discipline. It requires the courage to step up and become proactive, to constantly seek ways to
anticipate and mitigate distractions or events that could alter our course. Success is not easily achieved. It
requires commitment and discipline to stay the course until your vision becomes reality.
The final key to success is to have a well-defined end or future state before you begin any journey. It is
necessary when you plan a vacation trip. Why would it be any less so for your future or the future of your
company? It sounds so simple. Why do so few understand and apply it to their personal and business lives?
Perhaps one reason is that the future state is blurred by our perceptions and conditioning that significantly
limit our understanding of possibilities. Over the years, I have often heard my clients say, “Yes, what you
are recommending is exactly what we need—but it will never happen here.” Why not? Simply because they
cannot foresee creating that vision in their environment.
Do not artificially limit your vision for the future. Remember that all things are possible. You and your or-
ganization can achieve anything that you can envision. It is just a matter of taking control of your environ-
ment, anticipating impediments, and having the courage, commitment, and discipline to stay the course
until your vision becomes reality. Remember, the first step in your journey is to have a clear end in mind.
EXCELLENCE REQUIRES CULTURE CHANGE
Any continuous improvement journey requires culture change, change that can’t
be mandated from the top. It needs to begin with empowered employees.
You Cannot Mandate Change
O ver much of my career, discussions centering on how to change the work culture—considered one of
the roots of poor performance—have been frequent and often quite heated. It seems everyone has an
opinion or favored methodology to get the workforce to adopt new policies or work practices. These meth-
ods vary depending on the organizational level and background of the individual.
The use of cross-functional Senior executives tend to believe that they can mandate
change. All that is needed is to tell the workforce what
teams comprised of they must do to comply with changes developed solely by
stakeholders in the a core group of the management team and then hold the
workers accountable for success. They point to Hoshin
change and at all levels Kanri, a favored Japanese management concept, which
of the organization have is interpreted as an executive-developed policy deploy-

ment process. Hoshin Kanri does establish a discipline
proven to be highly that helps an organization create and focus on shared
effective. Leveraging goals, effectively communicate these goals to all leaders,

involve all leaders in the planning, and hold participants
natural work teams and accountable for achieving their part of the plan.
leaders at all levels of the I believe they are misinterpreting the word “leaders.”
organization empowers Leaders occur at all levels within the organization, not
the change process and is just in the rarified strata of the executive wing. Factory-
-level leaders, including hourly and salaried employees,
essential to sustainability. must be involved in the change process. Only those on
the factory floor have a true, practical understanding of
factors that limit their ability to be effective and efficient. This practical knowledge of factory-floor limiting
factors is inversely proportional to one’s position on the corporate ladder. As you climb the corporate ladder,
your first-hand knowledge diminishes until you rely solely on reports and communications that often
distort facts.
You Cannot Mandate Change, cont.
Others believe that change is a straightforward, tactical exercise. All one must do is make the workforce
aware of the change, create a desire to change, have the workforce exhibit its ability to make the change and
then everything will be better. If you believe their logic, creating awareness is simply a matter of one-way
communication. Again, management communicates that change is coming and the employee’s role in the
change. Sometimes, this communication will include management’s reason for the change. In the better
attempts they try to couch the reasons in terms the employee can relate to or at least understand; in other
situations it is just deployment communications.
If you are not too far removed from your days on the factory floor or a true member of the workforce, try to
remember what it was like to be on the receiving end of these mandated changes. How did you like being
told that you must change the way to think, the way your work is to be performed, and how your worth
would be measured? Couple this with your experience with all of the previous changes that invariably led to
workforce reductions, expansion of workload and a myriad of other negative impacts on your work life. Do
you think mandated change will really change anything?
Over my career, I have tried or been involved in every possible approach of effecting sustainable cultural
change. Most of these early attempts, patterned after my interpretation of popular methodology, failed.
While we could create short-term improvement and gain the appearance of change, the workforce would
revert to its old habits as soon as management pressure was removed. As we progressed, we tried everything
from threats to incentives to get the workforce to accept the changes that we as management thought neces-
sary to meet business goals. Nothing seemed to gain traction with the workforce.
Three epiphanies, one quickly following the other, finally showed the way to successful change:
Identify true attributes of change: When I looked back at the changes we had attempted, it became clear that
too often we were attempting to change the wrong things. We were trying to fix systemic or infrastructural
problems by forcing cost reductions, eliminating overtime and making other cosmetic changes that did
little more than alienate the workforce. I remember sitting in a leadership team meeting years ago. Around
the table sat 21 vice presidents discussing a reduction in the hourly workforce. Business had not been good
and we were falling below our business goals. The obvious solution was to reduce the hourly workforce to
compensate, right? At that point in my career, I was responsible for the manufacturing organization and
knew we could not meet demand with the reduced workforce that was being suggested. As an alternative,
You Cannot Mandate Change, cont.
I suggested that three of us, the vice presidents, resign instead of cutting the workforce. Eliminating three
vice presidents would have the same impact on our bottom line and still support our ability to meet
customer demand. What do you think happened?
Involve the workforce and natural leaders: My second epiphany was if I cannot get the workforce to accept
and adopt management’s view of needed change, let them develop it. Think for one minute. When you have
an idea, it is in your view logical and totally viable. But when you hear or read someone else’s idea you can
quickly see flaws and faults that need changing. That’s simply human nature. Why not leverage this trait
and eliminate the resistance by letting the workforce develop and create the changes needed to eliminate
waste and improve effectiveness? The use of cross-functional teams comprised of stakeholders in the change
and at all levels of the organization have proven to be highly effective. Leveraging natural work teams and
leaders at all levels of the organization empowers the change process and is essential to sustainability.
The workforce encompasses the entire organization: The third epiphany changed my focus from downward to
the factory floor. One reason for these early failures was that we ignored required changes in the executive,
senior and mid-level management strata of the organization. One fallacy of management-created change is
that we tend to overlook the deficiencies within our own span of control. It’s simply too easy to fixate on the
perceived weaknesses in the execution of the production and maintenance functions and not see that they
are the result of policies that we created.
One thing that I have learned is that change is not easy, but it is not as hard as we too often make it. You can
fight the workforce and try to force them to adopt your view of change or you can lead them through the
process of recognizing the need for change, defining how they can best effect the needed change and finally
enable them to succeed. Change can be easy—if you just let it be. Use your workforce. Let them make you a
hero.
Impatience Never Commands Success
B eing fast is important in a race and perhaps other instances, but not when changing individual habits
or work culture. Both take time and infinite patience. Change cannot be rushed. This simple fact has
been the downfall of too many attempts to transform a reactive, poor performance company into one that
can compete and survive in today’s marketplace.
Frankly, I struggle to understand why companies ignore poor performance until it is much too late and
then demand instant solutions to a sometimes decades-old problem. Invariably, they will expect miracles
that require little, if any, effort on their part, and they just cannot understand why they are not possible.
After all it’s not a management or infrastructure problem. Just make the workforce work longer, harder, or
with less, and the problem is solved.
Surprisingly, the workforce is just as impatient. The business reengineering process, when done correctly,
requires the commitment and involvement of the workforce for periods of 18-36 months. The first year is
generally dedicated to value-stream mapping and reengineering of the processes and procedures. This
effort is intensive and requires hours of concentrat
-ed work. Long before this initial effort is complete,
There are no silver bullets
the workforce will grow impatient and want to opt
out. “Just tell us the answer or what the best-in-class or magic wands that will
process looks like and let’s get on with it,” is the typical undo bad habits, ineffec-
request.
tive processes, and ineffi-
Unfortunately, neither of these demands can be satis- cient procedures that are
fied. Resolving the complex factors that limit poorly
performing companies cannot be accomplished with at the heart of poor per-
the snap of your fingers. There are no silver bullets formance.
or magic wands that will undo bad habits, ineffective
processes, and inefficient procedures that are at the heart of poor performance. Current-state perform
-ance must be systematically evaluated, limiting factors must be identified, and solutions that will provide
long-term, effective resolution must be implemented.
There is also no quick solution for workforce impatience. The only way that the workforce will embrace and
universally adopt change is to go through the process of self-creation. They must understand the deficien-
cies in their current practices and develop solutions that will add value to the operation. Giving them the
answer is not an option. They must go through the pain of creation before the new way of life is theirs.
Impatience Never Commands Success, cont.
I know what you are thinking; it’s the same rationale that we get from almost all clients. “You don’t under-
stand. We cannot wait.” You and they will cite tens or hundreds of reasons—ranging from operating profit
to loss of market share—as reasons an immediate solution is needed. While many of these arguments are
based in reality, quick fixes and permanent resolutions are diametric opposites. The conundrum is that you
are right; many companies cannot wait. The problems have become critical and survival is a real concern.
How do you resolve both the short-term need and a permanent change that will prevent a recurrence and
ensure long-term survivability?
There is no shortcut to the permanent solution. Patience and absolute commitment to doing it right is not
optional. With that said, there is no reason that one cannot integrate a parallel, more tactical effort that can
be used to stop or at least slow down the bleeding. In most cases, one can find problems that can be resolved
using viable tactical or technical efforts. For example, we were able to find $11.3MM in unnecessary costs in
a refinery that could be saved by changing the control logic—a quick fix that could, and most likely would,
reoccur without a permanent change in the way these logics are developed. There really is not any reason
that temporary fixes cannot be integrated into the journey to a permanent solution. However, one must
understand that temporary fixes are just that—temporary. Do not let impatience overrule logic. Do not let
the short-term pressures, no matter how grave, prevent permanent solutions to the limiting factors that
prevent sustainable, best-in-class performance.
Change Must Be Holistic and Absolute
O ne thing that has always bothered me about most continuous improvement programs is that they
ignore the impact of the plant’s infrastructure on productivity. If you stop to think about real factors
that limit performance, infrastructure must be a primary consideration. Perhaps one reason that most
continuous improvement programs ignore or covertly address infrastructure is that few of us like to be
told that we are the reason our plants are ineffective.
Think about it—if you were the CEO of your company, Unfortunately, the corpo-
would you hire a consultant or adopt a continuous im-
provement program that pointed the finger of blame rate cultures established
directly at corporate management? by many corporations are
To me there are two distinctly different infrastructu-
counter-productive. In
res that influence, if not control, plant performance. most cases, the primary
The first is the way that you do business and run your
plant. The second is the methods and tools that are
mission statement, po-
used to manage the entire operation. licies, and benchmarks
Corporate or plant culture is established in the board
preclude effective resource
-room and is carried out by the entire management utilization and severely
team. It should establish and enforce an operating
environment that is conducive to effective operation
limit performance.
of the entire corporation. Corporate culture starts
with the mission or vision of the corporation. Why is the company in business and what are its goals and
objectives? In addition, the philosophy and policies established in the boardroom govern the day-to-day
operation of every function within the corporation. These policies establish the benchmarks that will be
used to measure success, individual performance, rewards, and all of the other criteria that will determine
how each employee within the corporation will perform.
Unfortunately, the corporate cultures established by many corporations are counter-productive. In most
cases, the primary mission statement, policies, and benchmarks preclude effective resource utilization
and severely limit performance. In too many cases, these criteria are driven solely by short-term return-
-on-investment or stockholder dividends, not optimum plant performance.
How many of you have worked in a plant that closed the receiving department near the end of the month
to limit expenditures? Or that kept the books open for an extra week or two to improve monthly revenues?
Change Must Be Holistic and Absolute, cont.
These are classic symptoms of corporate cultures that severely limit our ability to achieve optimum perfor-
mance levels.
The second form of infrastructure that has a major impact on performance is the actual methods and tools
that are used to manage day-to-day operation. Until recently, most corporations have ignored this critical
limiting factor. They continue to use out-dated information management systems and standard procedures
that can no longer provide effective management tools. Two major areas should be considered: information
management and standard procedures.
What should we do to I am absolutely convinced that the information man-

agement systems in most corporations are designed
create an infrastructure for one purpose—to make the corporation look good.
that is conducive to opti- In my experience it is unusual to find an information

management system that provides accurate, timely
mum performance? The data that can be used to effectively manage the day-to-
first and most critical -day and long-term operation. In most cases, reports
step is to change the way

are generated much too late to provide any meaningful
management data.
we do business. Instead
of short-term benefits, we In the past two years, many corporations have rec
-ognized the limitations imposed by their outdated
must focus our efforts on information management systems. As a result, there
the real measures of is a growing trend to replace these systems will a new
generation of enterprise systems that will provide a
effectiveness. common, integrated database for all of the data need
-ed to manage the corporation. While this enterprise
approach has many benefits, it is not a panacea. My concern about this new trend is that corporate man
-agement has not recognized the need to completely upgrade the methods, like standard procedures and
practices, which are integral to these systems. It will do little good to invest $100 million in a new enterpri-
se system and continue to do business as usual. These systems are simple software shells that provide the
ability to acquire, store, manage, and report all of the data needed to evaluate and manage a corporation.
Unless these software shells are properly implemented, loaded with viable data, and universally used, they
offer little value.
Change Must Be Holistic and Absolute, cont.
Please do not misunderstand. I firmly believe that an enterprise-type system is an essential management
tool. Consolidating all of the data needed to effectively evaluate and manage a plant is a positive, necessary
step toward optimum performance. However, to gain the real benefits of this approach, it must be used
properly. This means that it must be consistently, universally used by all functions within the corporation.
Without a corresponding change in corporate culture, it will not happen.
What should we do to create an infrastructure that is conducive to optimum performance? The first and
most critical step is to change the way we do business. Instead of short-term benefits, we must focus our
efforts on the real measures of effectiveness. This will mean a radical change in the way we evaluate and
measure performance within the corporation. As part of this effort, we must establish a new benchmark
that defines the physical limits of performance and establish specific, universal indices that will measure
both day-to-day and long-term effectiveness.
Management philosophy must also support effective utilization of all resources. This philosophy must be
universally applied throughout the corporation. Until effective procedures and practices become the only
acceptable means of performance, we cannot hope to achieve optimum performance levels.
An effective, information management system must be fully implemented and universally used throughout
the corporation. The format of this system must be conducive to effective performance of each function
within the corporation. The new enterprise-type system eliminates many of the technical problems of
hardware and software integration between data required by each plant function, but represents only one
part of the solution.
The bottom line is that developing an infrastructure that is conducive to productivity will require a total,
absolute culture change in many of our plants.
Don’t Worry About Things You Cannot Change
L ike most of you, I am a natural-born worrier. I strive to limit the focus of my worry, but that was not
always the case. As the oldest child of working parents, I was expected to be responsible and look after
my siblings. When things went wrong, I was the center of attention. My parents were strict and instilled in
me a strong sense of responsibility and accountability. These remain core values in my life today. I worried
about everything. As a result, I tried to control every-
one and everything around me to make sure nothing
would go wrong and that nothing unexpected would
A word of caution: make
happen. sure that what you ignore
While this may sound like an admirable trait, it is
is truly uncontrollable or
not. Besides being totally unbearable to be around, I unchangeable. The per
became a prime candidate to become the first 10-year-
-old with ulcers. I worried about everything, tried to
ceived inability to con-
control everything and, as you would suspect, failed trol or change is too often
miserably. Around age 10, my father—the one with a
sixth grade education—pulled me aside and we talked
used as an excuse and
about my constant quest to control my environment results in non-action.
and its underlying causes. Out of that conversation
came a simple statement that has become an essential part of my life. He was adamant that no one can
control or change everything—that there are parts of our environment which, no matter how hard we try,
cannot be controlled or changed. His advice was quite simple: don’t worry about things you cannot control
or change.
Whether or not this resonates with you, this simple statement could solve many of the problems that
seriously limit plant performance. How many times have you heard or said that something cannot be
done because some internal or external factor is not controllable? When true, there is no value in worrying
about these factors. Yet too many of us seem to focus—almost fixate—on them instead of shifting focus to
those things we can do. Recently we worked with a client who was convinced nothing could be done about
his conversion cost. His argument centered on raw materials costs that were governed by a volatile market
and a corporate procurement department. It took several months to finally convince him that focusing on
standard work, loss elimination and the value stream could, in fact, reduce conversion cost, even in a vola-
tile supply chain. Once his focus shifted to what could be changed, the plant’s asset utilization and overall
equipment effectiveness soared and conversion cost steadily declined.
Ignoring those things that one truly cannot control and instead focusing on those that can be changed is
Don’t Worry About Things You Cannot Change, cont.
my father’s simple lesson and has been the key to success after success during my five-decade career. A word
of caution: make sure that what you ignore is truly uncontrollable or unchangeable. The perceived inability
to control or change is too often used as an excuse and results in non-action. One of my favorite excuses is
that asset utilization is too low because of “no sales”, and it is accepted as uncontrollable. A simple rule of
business is that demand and installed capacity must match for profitability and survivability. In situations
where insufficient new business is too low to fully utilize capacity, something can and must be done. There
is simply no legitimate reason to allow this situation to exist or continue.
No, I have not stopped worrying. Perhaps worry is the wrong word. I continue to be deeply concerned about
performance—personal and business. These questions run through my mind: Am I recognizing and using
full potentials—mine as well as the potential of people around me? Are there things that we are leaving un-
done? Are there perceived uncontrollable factors that could be changed? Each day, I strive to question
paradigms. Are they real or simply perceptions? Once sure that a factor is uncontrollable, focus shifts to
those that will mitigate the uncontrollable and have a positive impact on future performance. Unlike Don
Quixote, I don’t tilt at windmills. Instead my focus is, and always will be, on what can be changed.
Physical Assets Mean Nothing Without Empowered
Employees
I f you have followed the recurring theme of asset reliability in most of the trade and organizational
magazines, it would seem that the physical assets that we all rely on to produce our products and serv
-ices are the determining factor in our success as organizations. I read the articles, listen to the “experts”
and wonder how they could be so wrong. Obviously,
we need reliable machinery and process systems to Empowering employees
produce an adequate revenue stream, but are they the
critical factor?
is a mandate to executive
management to create
Over my 50 years in the global business world, I have
seen highly profitable plants that were comprised
a culture where the em-
of old, misused and under-maintained systems, yet ployees are given the
they turned out quality products at standard cost and
consistently met market demands. Conversely, I have
tools, support and
seen plants made up of the newest and best systems authority to do their job
money could buy that could not meet minimum
quality, cost or demand levels. What is the difference
and then allowed to do so.
between these plants? To me the answer is simple:
the workforce—the people who operate and maintain those physical assets. Even in organizations where
management really did not value its human assets and too often created barriers that artificially restrict
-ed performance, an empowered workforce (even when they empower themselves) perseveres and meets
business objectives. I could recount thousands of examples where an empowered workforce has worked
miracles to produce high-quality, low-cost products on systems that should have been decommissioned
decades ago and in cultures that were diametrically opposed to success. The converse is also true, there
are thousands of examples where the only missing piece of the puzzle is an empowered workforce that
cannot seem to succeed no matter how much money is invested in physical assets, automated systems and
programs that are the latest panacea for organizational shortcomings.
Before you go off on a tangent and think that I am referring to the popularized definition of empower-
ment, let me clarify. It is not management by consensus or the chaos that would follow. Nor is it beginning
each shift with group calisthenics or any of the other myths that evolved from our interpretation of Total
Productive Maintenance, the Toyota Production Systems, or the myriad derivatives of these management
systems that are in vogue today. Instead, empowering employees is a mandate to executive management
to create a culture where the employees are given the tools, support and authority to do their job and
Physical Assets Mean Nothing Without Empowered Employees, cont.
then allowed to do so. Business organizations are not, nor should they be, democracies where popular vote
or consensus decides all aspects of the business. However, a common trait of successful organizations is
a culture that enables, intentionally or not, the workforce and each employee to pursue success and their
common goals.
Most organizations are about to learn just how indispensable their human assets really are to their success.
Over the past decade there have been repeated warnings about the maturing workforce and its potential
impact on business continuity. Few in decision-making positions have heeded these warnings and will soon
suffer the results. In the near future they will be shocked to learn that the workforce that they have
undervalued all these years is gone. Gone to well-deserved retirement. Now what? How will you meet
market demands with no one to sell your products, to do your planning or to operate your physical assets?
Never Forbid What You Cannot Prevent
I f you have raised children, you no doubt have at some point given them an ultimatum, forbidding them
to do something. They may have adhered to your demand in the short term but then reverted to their
prior behavior. As a parent, this inability to shape your child’s behavior is frustrating. It seems that the
more you try to prevent certain behaviors, the more likely they are to ignore you altogether. My memories
of this period in my life have been clouded by more
than four decades but the problem is as clear as ever. The problem is that try-
As consultants, we observe this same phenomenon ing to drive change by
almost every day. Whether it’s at home, church, or forbidding things you
business, everywhere we look someone is trying to
shape others’ behavior. It can be as simple as “keep off
cannot control or pre-
the grass” signs or as complex as trying to change cor- vent does not work. You
porate culture. These efforts usually take the form of
forbidding certain behaviors rather than encouraging
cannot change the way
others. The problem is that trying to drive change by people think or behave
forbidding things you cannot control or prevent does
not work. You cannot change the way people think or
by forbidding them to do
behave by forbidding them to do something. Consider something.
the “keep off the grass” sign. How can you enforce it?
Unless you put a 24-hour guard on the lawn, some people will ignore the sign and walk on the grass. How
about corporate culture? How do you prevent employees from continuing forbidden practices?
In today’s corporate culture almost everything is voluntary. Even when you forbid certain practices, every-
one knows that it’s optional—that no one will try to enforce it. Why waste time trying to change culture by
demanding certain behaviors, when history proves it will not work? You simply cannot change how people
think or behave by mandate, or by deploying new rules, regulations and behaviors developed in the
vacuum of the executive wing.
Change is personal and cannot be forced upon anyone. You have all read the white papers and books on
change. Everyone says you must answer the “what’s in it for me” or “how will it affect me” to eliminate
resistance, but still assumes change can be deployed or mandated even though history proves otherwise.
Significant change, such as the transformational change that many corporations must undertake to sur
-vive, depends on everyone in the organization voluntarily agreeing to modify their behavior—the way
they think, plan, and execute their work. The key phrase is voluntarily agreeing to change. Impossible,
Never Forbid What You Cannot Prevent, cont.
you say? Not really. In fact, the solution is quite simple. The only way it will happen is to engage everyone in
planning the transformation. Let the people who must adopt new behaviors—from the top to the factory
floor—define what changes are needed and how best to achieve the desired results.
If you stop and think about it, I am sure you will agree. We are all conditioned to distrust or find fault in
what others do, but think everything we do is perfect. For example, I have difficulty proofreading what I
write. I know what was written and often miss words that were used incorrectly. However, when I proofread
what others have written, I quickly find every misplaced word, grammatical error or improper punctuation.
It’s in our DNA and has a direct impact when we try to mandate or deploy change.
The obvious solution is to leverage the former trait. If everything one does is perfect—or at least a good
idea—why not let those who need to change develop the change? When they develop it they understand the
what, why, and how and because they developed it there is little, if any, resistance to it. After all, it’s perfect.
There is another benefit of engaging the workforce in developing transformational change: you get a much
better result. One of the major problems with trying to deploy change is that the executive level is too far
removed from the enterprise’s day-to-day operations to really know, with any degree of detail, what changes
are needed. Most executives would disagree with this statement but it has proven true time after time. Even
when they came up through the ranks, time has faded their knowledge and their perceptions have changed
over time to the point they have lost touch with the factory floor. There are exceptions. Some still believe in
management by walking around (what some now call Gemba), but even they have become jaded and too
often misinterpret what they hear or see in their plants. Let those who know, because they live it every day,
help shape the change.
I have frequently admitted in these letters that too often I am a slow learner. This is one lesson that took two
children and many years to learn. Regardless of whether they are young or old, people are individuals and
have their own way of thinking and doing things. No matter how hard you try or how persuasive you are,
you cannot force them to change. Why continue trying to forbid things that you cannot prevent? Instead, let
them discover what they need to change and why. It is in their best interest, as well as that of the enterprise,
to do so.
If You Want to Change Behavior, Start by Changing
Your Behavior
D ecades ago, while I was visiting a large industrial complex, the VP General Manager requested a
meeting. After we exchanged the usual pleasantries, he informed me that a team of experts had
recommended the complex be shut down. His first question was concise and straightforward: “Do you
think this complex—a large, integrated steel mill—can
be saved?” The question is not that unusual. What was
surprising was the discussion that followed. As you
Understandably, we are
know, I am an absolute believer that all things are reluctant to acknowledge
possible if one is willing to put forth the required
effort. So it should be no surprise that my answer to
or accept our contribution
him was “Of course it can.” to problems such as poor
organizational perfor-
His next question was also expected: “What do we
need to do to change?” This common question is mance, inability to com-
innocuous, but the answer can be the defining point pete, and falling short of
of success or failure. Too often the answer is modified
or softened by a consultant to prevent alienating a corporate goals.
potential client. After all, no one wants to be told they
are the problem—or at least a significant contributor. After hesitating slightly as I considered whether I
should tell the unvarnished truth or play the consultant’s game, I responded that his current management
approach was a major contributor to the mill’s problems. First he had to change; his leadership and
personal behavior would be key to a successful transformation.
No one wants to hear feedback like this. Understandably, we are reluctant to acknowledge or accept our
contribution to problems such as poor organizational performance, inability to compete, and falling short
of corporate goals. He sat quietly for a few minutes, then looked me in the eye and said, “You’re right, but
how do I do that?” At that point, any doubt I might have had about the complex’s ability to transform
vanished. If the senior executive was willing to admit he was part of the problem and commit to change,
then everything else was possible.
Over the next five years, he effectively led his 20,000+, heavily unionized workforce through a transfor-
mation from worst to best in a highly competitive marketplace. Together the workforce defied the experts
who recommended that the complex was beyond hope and should be shut down. They won preferred
vendor status from their automotive customers, national awards for excellence and regained their flagship
status for the corporation. Why was his answer the pivotal factor?
If You Want to Change Behavior, Start by Changing Your Behavior, cont.
Key players, especially those in decision-making positions, are too often unwilling to accept their contribu-
tion to the problem; the problem is always caused by other people. While these individuals will acknowledge
the need to change and may actively embrace the transformational process, they are not willing to change
their own behavior. Instead, they push others to change without any thought of the impact their continued
behavior has on the workforce. Each of you have witnessed this type of failure. Policies are deployed, memos
dispatched, and meetings held stressing the need to change while the originators of the activities continue
their day-to-day activities unchanged.
One of the many lessons I’ve learned over my five-decade career is that you cannot ask others to change if
you are not first willing to change as well. This is especially true in transformational change. The reasons
should be obvious, but as reinforcement, consider the following points.
Organizational behavior and performance are driven and bounded by the policies, procedures and prac
-tices created and enforced by the executive leadership team. The day-to-day behavior of the entire manage-
ment team reinforces these policies and procedures throughout the workforce and, in combination, define
organizational performance. The relative impact of individual employees is proportional to their authority
within the organization; the CEO has significantly more impact than the floor-sweeper. This is why most
attempts to deploy change fail. Even in the rare instance when the executive leadership team identifies the
changes that are needed, few in the workforce will embrace them because the actions and behaviors of the
leadership team remain constant. The leaders expect the workforce to change but do not change their own
behavior.
Another consideration is that organizational behavior is the composite of the entire workforce and success-
ful change depends on everyone adopting and universally adhering to the policies, procedures and practices
associated with the change. No exceptions.
In closing, always remember that organizational behavior is created and bounded from the top of the
organization; led and enforced by the management team; and enacted by the entire workforce. One cannot
expect behavior change unless everyone—including you—changes. If you want to change your
organizational—or personal—world, start by changing your own behavior.
MANAGERS SHAPE PERFORMANCE
Organizational leaders and managers can guide an organization to great success
or stand in the way of achieving excellence. Never underestimate their influence.
People Do What You Inspect, Not What You Expect
H ow much time do you spend in your plant and with your direct reports? Years ago, we were asked to
lead the transformation of the second-largest integrated steel mill in the world, all 20,000+ hourly
employees and 13 labor unions. In our initial meeting with the V.P. and General Manager, who was also the
corporate “fixer”, he asked what had to be done to transform this operation from one that was losing key
customers and hundreds of millions annually to one that
The only way to truly could compete in the new global marketplace. At first,
understand what is or he was stunned by our answer, which was simply that
he needed to change the way he managed the operation.
is not happening on the After recovering from this initial shock, we discussed
plant floor or within your what these changes would be.
span of control is to
When John was first assigned to either fix or shut down
regularly spend time this failing operation, he dedicated one full day each
directly observing or week to spending time on the plant floor—listening to

the workers and having open, honest communications
participating in its that give both parties an understanding of the busi-
operations. ness and its drivers. In this heavily union environment,

neither labor nor management trusted the other and
through this “management by walking around” style, he was able to break down some of the barriers and
open a dialogue that was having positive impact on
performance.
His time on the floor was essential for two reasons. First, the simple fact that John cared enough to spend
his time on the plant floor listening and learning about the issues and problems that impacted the work
People Do What You Inspect, Not What You Expect, cont.
-force’s ability to meet performance standards had a positive impact on everyone. The key to his success was
that he really listened and learned.
Second, the fact that he allocated a measurable portion of his busy schedule to these regular plant floor
visits sent a message that the employees and their input were valued—what they do has value to the compa-
ny and their insights are important. I can remember my early mentors and how impressed I was with them
when they would ask me about my work. It really felt good to think they—as busy as they were—took the
time to check with me about my contribution to the company. Even after I learned that this was a planned
activity and that they kept “tickler files” to remind them to follow up on key points, my admiration did not
diminish.
There is another reason that executive managers—especially the most senior—should spend time on the
floor. It is the only way he or she can have a factual understanding of the plant’s operations. One cannot rely
on the reporting systems, no matter how good they are, for the level of understanding needed to effectively
lead and ensure sustainable competitive performance levels. The only way to truly understand what is or is
not happening on the plant floor or within your span of control is to regularly spend time directly observing
or participating in its operations.
Whether we recognize it or not, there is a communications filtering system in place in all plants or corpo-
rations. These filters may be inadvertent or intentional but either way they distort reality as information
flows from the plant floor to the executive office as well as from the executive office to the plant floor. When
inadvertent, the filtering is the subconscious interpretation or skewing of information as it is passed up
or down the hierarchy of the organization. This is compounded by the inherent desire for job security that
leads us to put the best face on any data or information that may be seen by our superiors.
For those of you who are into Lean, this “management by walking around” is called Gemba, which means
“the real place” and is appropriate to this discussion in that the plant or factory floor is the most critical
part of any operation. Regardless of what you call it, this simple management tool affords company leaders,
managers and supervisors a simple, easy means of supporting overall continuous improvement and process
standardization while helping to insure alignment of the efforts of all teams.
People Do What You Inspect, Not What You Expect, cont.
What happened to John and the world’s second largest integrated steel mill? It took time, but the transfor-
mation was successful. Within a year, the mill was generating a substantial operating profit and regaining
lost market share. One key to this success was the active, willing participation and involvement of the mill’s
entire workforce—created by a mutual trust between labor and management driven by John’s weekly time
on the plant floor. Yes, there was much more involved, including a new enterprise information management
system, standard work processes and procedures that eliminated waste and losses, and culture that
embraced continuous improvement. As John said, “It was like pulling an impacted wisdom tooth without
Novocain, but it was worth it.”
If you’re considering spending more time on the plant floor or with your direct reports, I would caution you
to do it right. Be open and sincere. Encourage everyone to be open and honest. Really listen to what you
hear and always, always respond to questions and suggestions. If you still need motivation to get out of your
office, remember that people do what you inspect, not what you expect.
Without Vision, People Perish
I have taught a Reliability Excellence for Managers course as part of Life Cycle Institute’s learning, lead
-ership, and change management programs. The course is four, three-day sessions of classroom study
interspersed with assignments conducted in participants’ organizations over a calendar year. The course
provides the knowledge these senior and middle-level
managers need to lead their organizations to sus-
tainable excellence. It forces the participants to chan-
A properly crafted vision
ge, sometimes radically, their understanding of how statement will concisely
their company functions and what true excellence
looks like. To many it is quite a culture shock.
define what your
company will be when
In the first session, we begin the journey to excellence
with the importance of a clear vision, one that every-
it achieves sustainable
one in the organization can understand and embrace. excellence.
Invariably they immediately push back. In detail, they
explain that they already have a vision statement. “We spent months in meetings, rewrites and reviews to
create our vision; we do not need to waste time here.” Sound familiar?
Because a shared vision is so critical to a successful transformation and a sustaining continuous improve-
ment culture, we have no choice but to press on. We try to help course participants understand that what
most of them call a vision statement is of little value and certainly does not meet the criteria of one that
will galvanize the entire organization into a cohesive team—all focused on shared values, objectives and
goals. To help them understand, we ask that they compare their company’s vision statement to the three
unofficial rules for a vision statement: 1) it must contain all currently popular buzzwords; 2) it must fit
on one PowerPoint slide; and 3) it must be one continuous run-on sentence so that one runs out of breath
before completing it. Most of those tested over the past few years have met all three criteria.
A properly crafted vision statement will concisely define what your company will be when it achieves sus
-tainable excellence. What will it look like, how will it function or behave? Rather than general statements,
such as “we will be the best…,” define what the best looks like in words that all can understand and em-
brace. It must be unifying, drawing functional groups and the workforce together into a focused effort
toward that shared vision.
Of course, vision is not enough. Specific objectives and goals that stretch the workforce and systematically
guide the transformation are essential. They provide the roadmap to the future. Each objective effectively
Without Vision, People Perish, cont.
supports one or more components of the vision and in turn, intermediate goals that ensure achievement.
Each of these objectives motivates the workforce by providing a challenge that is achievable. The visioning
process is not difficult. Proper execution yields the desired results; poor execution does not.
One of the many lessons I have learned the hard way over years of leading change is that without a clear,
unifying vision nothing changes. The vision acts like a lighthouse. Its beacon provides a target which, day or
night, keeps us on track. Knowing where we are going helps all of us move in the same direction and ulti-
mately achieve our vision. Combined with supporting objectives and goals, we have a roadmap as well as a
centering beacon that guides us to our vision.
Without a clear path forward, one tends to wander aimlessly, first going one way and then another. As
individuals, we are uncomfortable aimlessly wandering through life. As a group, aimlessness, compounded
by group dynamics, morphs the workforce into a shapeless group of people that mills around accomplishing
relatively little. Human nature cannot tolerate aimlessness. Each of us needs direction in our life to be con-
tent. We need a vision—a challenge—something that makes us want to get up in the morning and go out to
meet the new day. Without it we are simply not complete; we perish.
Stretch Goals Fuel the Furnace of Excellence
R ecently I had a long discussion with a client about goals and how they impact work culture. It started
when one of their executives made an adamant comment about his approach. He could decide what
the goals were and then deploy them to the workforce. “They will follow them whether they like them or
not,” was his closing remark.
This approach has never worked and never will,

While it is true that all
but too many organizations—or at least the senior human beings need a
leadership—do not recognize the real results of this
challenge or goal that
approach. There are two things they fail to under-
stand. First, human beings do not react well to any- forces us to stretch to
thing that is created by others and then forced upon
them. It is just not in our nature to blindly accept
achieve, that challenge
what we perceive to be arbitrary goals. While it is has to be something we
true that all human beings need a challenge or goal
that forces us to stretch to achieve, that challenge has
believe to be reasonable
to be something we believe to be reasonable and has and has value.
value.
Believe it or not, I learned this lesson from a mule named Clyde. My great-great grandfather Austin had a
cotton farm in Winnsboro, SC and as penitence for my transgressions during the school year I helped on
the farm during the summer. Well, as much as an eight-year-old can help. He had a very big mule, named
Clyde that was his pride and joy. I learned a lot in that first summer on the farm. The first thing was that I
really did not want to work that hard. The second thing was how to help others achieve their full potential.
When I was dropped off at the farm, my great-great grandmother was, as always, in the kitchen and she
pointed me to the south field where grandpa and Clyde were preparing for a new crop.
As I approached the field, the first thing I noticed was this huge mule with a carrot dangling in front of his
nose, just out of reach. I found this hilarious. When I asked grandpa about the carrot, he quietly respond
-ed that he used the carrot to entice Clyde to pull the plow. Nothing more was said about the carrot until
dinnertime. As we ate, grandpa shared with me what has governed my actions ever since. He told me that
mules are not very bright—he actually said stupid—but even as dumb as they are they will realize that no
matter how hard they pull, the carrot will always be out of their reach. Once that realization occurs, they
will sit down and refuse to pull the plow. In his words, you might as well shoot them because they will be
worthless from then on. The lesson passed on by my grandpa (and Clyde) was to always let them get the
carrot once in a while.
Stretch Goals Fuel the Furnace of Excellence, cont.
Like Clyde, all of us need realistic goals that force us to stretch—to use all of our abilities—to reach them.
Morale and the sustainable performance level of your organization depend on how well everyone in the
organization is stretched. If the goal’s too low, complacency sets in; when perceived to be unrealistic or un
-achievable, morale and performance sag to alarmingly low levels. My question to you is how one or a small
group of executives, who are far removed from the factory floor, create stretch goals that the workforce will
deem reasonable and embrace.
The second failure in logic is that goals can drive both positive and negative behavior. Goals that are estab
-lished in the vacuum of the C-level too often drive the wrong behavior. One of the more serious problems
faced by organizations is functional and individual goals that create fractionalization rather than seamless
integration. Too often, one function or individual must fail for another to win. This is the primary reason
that functional silos exist and thrive.
Stretch goals must create an environment that pulls functions and people together into a highly focused,
seamlessly integrated team. A shared vision and effective stretch goals are essential and when combined
with standard work, visual management and true employee empowerment will ensure sustainable, best-
-in-class performance—Reliability Excellence. This cannot be accomplished by continuing the traditional
executive-developed, then deployed methods that were created at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
The world has changed and so has human behavior. Today’s employee, at any level in the organization, has
much more to contribute to the organization’s success than did his ancestors of the last century. Their work
ethic remains as strong. The truly best-in-class organizations recognize the value of each member of the
team—no matter where in the hierarchy—and leverage that ability to create goals that create a focused team
and stretch everyone, from the boardroom to the factory floor, to their full ability. And they do not forget
Clyde’s lesson.
Build a Strong Foundation First, Then Build Upon It
Y ou all know that I am a student of human nature and observer of patterns in our environment. When
it comes to continuous improvement and so-called world-class performance, one pattern is obvious.
All continuous improvement models are built upon a common element. They all insist that continuous
improvement is predicated on management
commitment. The definition of this term varies Management commit-
slightly from model to model, but all agree that any
change depends on the approval, support and
ment is not optional. All
commitment of C-level management. This makes models share this fact, so
sense. Funding, allocation of resources, support from
the workforce, or any of the many other requirements
avoid the human nature
are not possible without management commitment. instinct to avoid confron-
I think that each of you will agree that change is not
possible without this one fundamental requirement.
tation or uncomfortable
situations and ensure it is
Why is it, then, that few of the continuous improve
firmly in place before
-ment programs that are attempted actually have
management commitment? Nine out of 10 efforts, at attempting change.
any level, fail to involve C-level management. Instead,
they begin the transformational process with just enough mid-level support to obtain short-term, mini-
mal funding, hoping to gain C-level support based on effecting measurable change with the initial effort.
While it is possible to incrementally grow an organization-wide transformational change, the probability
of success is extremely small. The reason is simple: successful continuous improvement must overcome
and change the organizational culture that is driven by C-level policies and procedures. These cannot be
changed without C-level approval. Not engaging C-level support almost guarantees that any lower-level
attempt will fail.
Another approach to avoid securing top-level management commitment is to limit improvement to a spe-
cific function within the organizational structure. Over the past decade, maintenance has been a frequent
target. At best, these programs begin with buy-in from maintenance management and cursory approval of
plant-level management. The latter is typically restricted to approval for minimal funding and short-term
allocation of limited resources. The expectation is that significant, short-term financial benefits will be
generated within a few months or years to offset the investment. It is exceedingly difficult, if not impossi-
ble, to generate significant short-term financial benefits by improving maintenance. Because of attrition,
headcount reductions and pressure on cost avoidance, most plants are already under-maintained. Any
hope of further reducing maintenance cost is limited and cost avoidance is the only avenue for short-term
Build a Strong Foundation First, Then Build Upon It, cont.
measurable improvement.
If my observations are valid and we agree that C-level management commitment is essential, how can one
assure commitment before beginning a transformational journey? Those of you who enjoy a C-level position
should already know the answer: show me the money (benefits). All business decisions, including change,
are based on the positive, tangible benefits that will be generated.
Winning C-level commitment should follow a well-defined path. First, include them in the continuous im-
provement process from the beginning. This requires a valid understanding of the organization—its
strengths, limitations and opportunities—before initiating any serious discussions of transformation. A
forensic financial analysis, performance evaluation, and, if possible, a benchmark comparison to compar
-able best-in-class organizations, will provide the knowledge required for these discussions. As fiscally
responsible businesspersons, C-level leaders are not interested in generic or hypothetical scenarios. Instead
they want and need data that enables them to accurately determine risks and potential benefits.
Once there is agreement that the proposed change justifies the risks, the next step is to establish the level of
commitment needed from the C-level. Gaining agreement to the opportunity or business case is only half
the battle. Without gaining their commitment to get actively involved and sponsor and support the trans-
formation, the probability of success remains low. These discussions are often difficult because the trans-
formation includes change within the C-level—not personnel, but how business is planned, executed and
measured.
Management commitment is not optional. All models share this fact, so avoid the human nature instinct to
avoid confrontation or uncomfortable situations and ensure it is firmly in place before attempting change.
It may require you to change your normal modus operandi and think like a C-level executive, but that will
become a critical part of the transformation anyway. Gaining commitment is not difficult, but must be
grounded in fact, accurate data, and good understanding of both the risks and benefits of the transforma-
tion.
Time is Money, It Should Never Be Wasted
W hen I entered the business world one of the first principles that I learned was effective use of reso-
urces, especially time and labor-hours. While this principle was not new to me my early mentors
in corporate America repeatedly hammered it home until it became part of my DNA. As a result, my view
of an organization revolves around how well its
resources are managed. Frankly, most organizations
fail to do this well.
Eliminating the bad ha-
bits learned over decades
I am constantly amazed that very few people, espe-
requires taking the or-
cially those charged with the fiscal responsibility for
organizations, have any real knowledge of their true
ganization back to the
costs. Most rely on balance sheets, income statements basics of good business,
and traditional financial reports, issued well after the
including a clear un-
money is spent, to manage their operation. Individu-
ally or collectively these documents cannot provide
derstanding of time and
a true picture of two simple tenets of good manage- labor-hour utilization.
ment—effective use of time and labor-hours. It means a total culture
As a result, most of our clients are shocked when
change throughout the
presented with a detailed breakdown of these two organization, from board
values. Once visible, they clearly show distribution -room to factory floor.
of time and labor-hours, for both direct and indirect
personnel. Most importantly they show the rampant waste and losses caused by non-value activities, poor
planning and inconsistent execution.
One example is a packaging plant that was struggling to meet market demand. Their business plan limited
asset utilization to 43% of its installed capacity. The plan arbitrarily limited production to a five-day week,
shut down for 20+ holidays, included low-volume products that left a significant number of assets idle
for most of the year, and added multiple, unnecessary outages. To compound the problem, deficiencies in
their production planning and scheduling forced an additional capacity loss of 29% caused by unnecessary
changeovers, material shortages, and other logistics issues. The net result of using only 14% of its installed
capacity (not counting OEE losses), was an inability to keep up with market demand and a high cost of
goods sold.
Time is Money, It Should Never Be Wasted, cont.
We often see another example of misunderstood costs: maintenance numbers that just do not make sense.
A recent client-site evaluation revealed maintenance direct labor expenditures of $9MM and total materials
cost of $100,000. The expenditures were verified—that was how much the plant spent in the year evaluated.
My question to them (and you) is what did the technicians do that warranted a $9MM expense? This may
seem like an outlandish example, but it is not uncommon. No one looks at or questions where the time and
money goes, so we perpetuate enormous waste and wonder why the organization struggles to make a profit.
To me it is inconceivable that anyone could or would make decisions that would create these types of bar-
riers that ensure failure, but it happens everywhere, every day. The problem is not limited to capacity utili-
zation; it has become embedded throughout the organization. Every functional group, from marketing to
maintenance, plans and executes their duties without full understanding of where their time and labor-
hours are spent. Staffing levels, budgets, and operating plans are filled with waste and artificial losses
simply because of failure to follow these two simple, common-sense principles. Consider these two
examples:
• The typical maintenance organization expends 38% to 42% of its direct labor on non-value and
unneeded tasks
• The typical planned annual production is 6,000 hours (68%) of the 8,760 hours available.
The sad part of this story is that most organizations do not realize what they are doing. Perhaps it is be-
cause we have become accustomed to relying on reports generated by others to make our decisions. Or we
have become complacent and rely on repetition rather than invest the time to gain first-hand knowledge.
Or perhaps we lack the necessary education and skills. Whatever the reason, this is one of the more serious
deficiencies faced by organizations today. Unless we stop making poor decisions based on intuition or faulty
intelligence, recovery and long-term survival are unlikely.
The solution is simple, but it will require an absolute commitment, discipline and strong leadership to
accomplish. Eliminating the bad habits learned over decades requires taking the organization back to the
basics of good business, including a clear understanding of time and labor-hour utilization. It means a total
Time is Money, It Should Never Be Wasted, cont.
culture change throughout the organization, from boardroom to factory floor. This is perhaps a daunting
task but there is little value in taking a piecemeal approach. It can be done but there are no silver bullets or
shortcuts. Until you and your organization value every minute of time and use it and your resources effec
-tively, true world-class performance is impossible.
You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know
A s I drove my four-year-old grandson to day care, he gave me a dissertation on the solar system. Not
just naming each of the planets, but quoting their circumference, mass and a myriad of facts that
amazed me. Looking in my rearview mirror, I watched as he swung his legs and continued his disserta-
tion. As we pulled into the day care center, I turned
and asked him how he knew that much about the
Regardless, behavior is
solar system. Without hesitation, he looked me in the
eyes and said, “Grandpa, I know everything.” Of personal and only the
course, I laughed his comment off. Almost two dec individual can change
-ades later, I find that there was some truth to his
statement. Blessed with an eidetic memory, he has it. That does not mean
stored a wealth of facts, figures, and information, that behavioral change
exceled in school, and is now embarking on the next
phase of his evolution, college. His growth has not
is impossible—just that
been without pain. He has had to learn to balance his one must look inward
ability to easily absorb information with the need to
convert it into knowledge.
and ask, “What don’t I
know?” “How do others
My grandsons and granddaughter are blessed with
view me?”
exceptional intelligence. Learning is easy for them but
they struggle with social interaction. I constantly remind them that no matter how much they learn they
will never know everything, and must always guard against becoming over-confident or exhibiting arro-
gance in communicating with their peers. They constantly get the same warning that my father repeatedly
gave to me, “You don’t know what you don’t know.” No matter how much you know, or think you know, you
are not omniscient and you will never fully know what is lacking. Like my grandson, I knew everything—
or thought I did—when I was young. It took years of constant reminders from my father and repeated
attitude adjustments, some physical, from those around me before finally acquiescing to the inevitable.
This phenomenon is not limited to my family or to any segment of society. We often see it across organi-
zations but it seems to be especially prevalent in middle- and executive-level management. Perhaps it is
the result of our growing culture of instant gratification that has perversely spread across the globe. It is
manifest by an apparent knowledge of best practices, world-class management philosophies, and other
elements of effective organizational leadership and management. Unfortunately, when one looks deeper
there is little depth to their knowledge and frequently a lack of real understanding. Managers execute their
You Don’t Know What You Don’t Know, cont.
responsibilities convinced that they are doing the right things, making the right decisions, and adding true
value to their organization. Too often the exact opposite is happening. These managers seem oblivious to
the damage that results from their decisions and actions. Because they are convinced they understand and
are following best practices, nothing can dissuade them from the path.
I have lost count of the number of discussions I’ve had with executives and managers on this topic over the
past five decades, but it is in the thousands. It is one of the more common factors that limit organizational
performance and can be one of the more difficult to resolve. How do you convince someone that “they don’t
know what they don’t know”? I have learned the hard way that confronting them does not work. Nor does
demeaning them for their lack of knowledge. Instead, you must find a tactful way to help them discover
what they do not know. This can be accomplished by providing articles that define the details of a philoso-
phy, principle, or best practice that the individual needs to master. Or you can suggest seminars or training
courses on the topic. Almost any non-confrontational means that will enable them to self-discover the mis-
sing link will work.
If persistent, you can help others discover the philosophy, principles, and practices that they are missing
from their knowledge base, but you cannot help them overcome their engrained behavior. One attribute of
this phenomenon, especially when over-confidence drives it, is the outward perception of arrogance.
Because the individual is convinced that they are correct and master of the situation, they tend to exhibit
superior or egotistic characteristics. Sometimes it is just a perception and other times it is an inherent
component of their makeup. Regardless, behavior is personal and only the individual can change it. That
does not mean that behavioral change is impossible—just that one must look inward and ask, “What don’t I
know?” “How do others view me?”
Always remember you don’t know what you don’t know. Always be willing to listen to others’ opinions. Even
when you know you know the answer, give others the opportunity to express their views. Even if you have an
eidetic memory and have absorbed all the knowledge in the world, you still don’t know what you don’t know.
SOLVING PROBLEMS AND
MAKING DECISIONS
Steering an organization to sustainable success requires almost constant problem-
-solving and innumerable decisions that must be made. How organizations appro-
ach challenges can determine their future.
Seek Perfection; Never Settle for Anything Less
G ranted, I am old and perhaps set in my ways but there is one thing that I just cannot understand. Why
is everyone averse to striving for perfection? It seems that almost every time we broach the subject of
improvement, the client has a hundred and one reasons why their company cannot achieve, and therefore
should not pursue, perfection in the form of asset utili-
In truth, the single largest zation, cost of goods sold, and elimination of waste.
source of OEE losses is If one looks at asset utilization, for example, many
reduced speed operation- companies give up at least half of their installed capacity
caused solely by operators before actual production losses enter the picture. When
a company elects to operate on a five-day, 24 hours/day
who elect to run at a lower production schedule, they automatically give up 104 days
speed. or 28.5% of their capacity. Add holidays, outage downti-
me and other arbitrary reasons for non-productive time
and the net result is that only 40% to 50% of possible capacity is available—assuming no actual production
(OEE) losses.
Over the past three years I have had the opportunity to evaluate numerous, multi-national, multiple plant
organizations and the best asset utilization I found was 36%. None of them recognized their low utilization.
According to their internal numbers, these plants were operating in the 75% to 90% asset efficiency or effec-
tiveness range with no consideration for true utilization.
When we discussed the absolute need to improve their use of installed capacity, no one believed that they
could or should try to achieve full utilization. Instead, each wanted to set their goals well below 100%, in
Seek Perfection; Never Settle for Anything Less, cont.
some cases as low as 60-70%. When pressured for a reason, the most common answer was, “We just cannot
achieve higher levels of performance in our culture.” All had multiple reasons, such as cleaning require-
ments, seasonal sales, and asset maintenance requirements, but no one had any data or statistics to support
them.
Asset utilization losses compound when one considers those associated with operations. Overall Equipment
Effectiveness (OEE) is the most common measure of these losses and includes actual run time, production
rate and yield losses as a measure of effectiveness. Most of the clients we have evaluated over the past
decade fail to accurately measure these losses and instead assume that they are a result of asset reliability
and maintenance deficiencies.
In truth, the single largest source of OEE losses is reduced speed operation—caused solely by operators
who elect to run at a lower speed. We have observed operations where as much as 40% of shift output is lost
to run-below-rate decisions. One would think that enforcing consistent operation at the rated speed of an
asset would be a no-brainer, right? Wrong. In most cases the management response is that the assets will
not run at design. This type of response really bothers me as a reliability engineer and machinery designer.
Machines are designed to operate at their design speed—anything less actually accelerates the wear and tear
on the machine and will increase the interval and level of sustaining maintenance.
There are several things that I would like you to think about. First, take a long, hard look at your use of
installed capacity. Do you really know what it is or are you relying on numbers that are skewed and give
everyone a false sense of well-being? If your utilization is less than 8,760 hours per year, can you isolate and
identify the reason for each day lost? Is each reason real and justifiable? There is one legitimate reason for
not running 24/7/365: sustaining maintenance. All electro-mechanical equipment requires some level of
maintenance to retain reliable performance and useful operating life. Depending on asset type, between 400
and 1000 hours per year (5-11%) should be allocated to maintenance. All other deductions from continuous
operation are controllable losses.
Second, are you fully and effectively using those hours that you currently plan to run? Have you really con-
sidered the cost associated with your production schedule and mode of operation? How much time are you
losing to changeovers and are they really necessary? Production planning and the coordination within the
Seek Perfection; Never Settle for Anything Less, cont.
internal supply chain combine to severely reduce the effectiveness and increase the cost of most operations.
And finally, write down all of the losses, including everything. Once you have the list, calculate the cost of
each of them. Remember that there is a real cost associated with everything and this is certainly true of pro-
duction losses. For example, what is the cost associated with a fully manned production asset that produces
one half of designed capacity? It should be obvious that your cost is double—it takes twice as long to make
the same amount of product. What about running one shift a day? What is the cost of the idle capacity for
the other two shifts?
Now, list the reason that you cannot eliminate each of the losses on your list. In light of the costs, are these
justifiable? Can you justify these losses? Should you not seek perfection—full, effective utilization of your
installed capacity? Can you really justify continued operation with some or all of these losses?
As stated at the beginning, I simply do not understand why anyone would chose to ignore obvious, control-
lable losses and not make a concerted effort to eliminate all—not just some of them. One cannot violate the
laws of physics—there are only 24 hours in a day, seven days in a week and 365 days in a year. One should
strive to effectively use all of this time—anything less is a controllable loss. If one is satisfied with less than
perfection, then that’s all they will ever achieve. If you truly want to be world-class, you must seek perfection
and never, ever settle for anything less.
The Solution Must Match the Problem
I am constantly amazed that intelligent professionals think that all problems can be resolved by either
ignoring them or creating quick-fixes. They do not seem to realize that not all problems, especially those
that severely limit too many of our plants, are candidates for simple, technical fixes.
For instance, a client forced to carry far too much fin

Problems, regardless of
-ished goods inventory because of the almost infinite
variability of its out-of-control production process their magnitude or com-
made an executive decision to holistically resolve plexity, must be fully un-
the problem. All functional groups, from production
derstood before deciding
planning through materials management, received
the executive mandate to develop standard processes how they should be
that would effectively integrate shutdowns, startups, evaluated and resolved.
changeovers and the myriad of other processes that
contributed to the variations in, and limited, produc-
Even an apparently
tion. simple problem can be
the result of hidden and
Even though the executive fully understood the
magnitude of his request, those charged with imple-
potentially serious issues
menting the change did not. They could not grasp the that, if ignored, can lead
magnitude of the effort required to fully integrate all
to catastrophic problems.
of the diverse functions that must seamlessly work
together to have a stable, effective production operation, especially during transitions such as startups or
changeovers. Instead, they decided that a one-day, off-site meeting of a select group of functional group
representatives would suffice. “After all, all we need is to tweak the schedule a bit and everything will be all
right.” Thoughts about coordinating work-in-process (WIP) to minimize waste and delays; minimizing the
number and duration of changeovers; and reducing the overtime and losses associated with startup never
even entered their minds.
Even consultants are not immune from relying on the technical or tools solution to problems. I recently
overheard this: “Our job is to give them the tools and show how to use them. It’s not our job to create the
desire, that’s up to the client.” If that is true, then where does the desire to change come from? Everyone
who knows me will attest to my love of tools. I have a tool for practically everything. But tools are not
The Solution Must Match the Problem, cont.
enough to effect change or to solve a problem. They are simply tools that may, if you choose the right one,
help you along the way.
I’m often surprised by people, especially those in the rarified air of the executive suite, who think that they
can delegate change or solutions to problems—that the workforce will automatically and enthusiastically
embrace and universally adopt anything that is passed down to them. They consider delegation a simple so-
lution. It’s easy to convene a meeting of a select few managers, quickly decide on a solution or path forward,
and write a memo telling the workforce what needs to be done.
Problems, regardless of their magnitude or complexity, must be fully understood before deciding how they
should be evaluated and resolved. Even an apparently simple problem can be the result of hidden and poten-
tially serious issues that, if ignored, can lead to catastrophic problems. Certainly complex issues, such as the
integration of the production operation or changing plant culture, demand more than a quick meeting of a
select few managers and a memo outlining a path forward. Too many of the factors that limit perfor-
mance are the result of a complacent culture and bad habits that have evolved over many years, if not
decades. This is also true of the too-common approach to resolving them. We have become conditioned to
ignore a problem, hoping it will go away. When finally forced to face a problem, we tend to seek simple
solutions and quick-fixes or put Band-Aids on symptoms rather than dive deep and resolve it.
One classic example is the almost universal belief that deficiencies in the maintenance function constitute
the primary limiting factor faced by our plants. We point to high maintenance cost, frequent breakdowns,
and chronic reliability issues, often exhibited as scrap, downtime and reduced output. Few people stop to
verify these assumptions or to investigate the underlying causes of these deficiencies. After all, everyone
knows that maintenance is to blame.
The truth is that maintenance contributes no more than 17% of the reliability issues that our plants endure;
the other 83% are the result of deficiencies in other functional groups—led by production and purchasing.
These deficiencies are often manifested as high maintenance cost. No matter who causes the breakdown
or damage, maintenance must perform the repair and absorb the cost. If the historical data is correct, can
one solve high maintenance cost, excessive downtime, high scrap, and other problems by improving mainte
-nance? The answer is obviously “no”, but that does not stop thousands of plants from trying.
The Solution Must Match the Problem, cont.
My father gave me two pieces of advice that are relevant to this discussion. The first was to fully understand
a problem before trying to solve it. As a millwright, he spent his entire life trying to understand how ma-
chines work, why they fail and how to effectively repair them. He was a very good trouble-shooter, not a
parts-swapper. This is excellent advice for us all: always solve the real problem instead of simply patching the
symptoms.
The second was to work smart, not hard. He advised that one should not over-complicate one’s approach to
solving problems, but at the same time one should not ignore hidden complexities. He warned that people
tend to gravitate to the two extremes: over-simplify a problem and therefore miss the underlying causes, or
over-complicate the solution and fail to reach resolution. Take the time to understand the real problem—
dive deep and fully investigate the underlying issues that contribute to the visible symptoms. When, and
only when, you fully understand the problem, determine the best approach to resolve it.
One final word of advice: completely solve the problem, not just part of it. Too often our conditioning once
again holds us back. To avoid confrontation and perceived non-solvable issues (such as bargaining unit
agreements), or to avoid disturbing company policy or the status quo, we avoid implementing a complete
solution. If I had a nickel for every time a client said, “Yes, that is absolutely the right thing to do, but you
cannot do it here,” I would be a millionaire many times over. You never know whether you can change some-
thing until you try.
Knowledge Is Not Enough; It Must Be Applied
W hen it comes to data in the business world, there seem to be two extremes. Some organizations
are data poor and others have so much data that it becomes impossible to use. Both extremes
invariably fail to recognize the critical importance of the knowledge gleaned from timely, accurate data.
Once converted into knowledge, it supports actions
that drive business strategy, day-to-day activities and
The only viable means of
continuous improvement.
decision-making is to rely
I must confess my inability to understand why or on knowledge about past
how intelligent people, especially corporate execu-
performance, current per-
tives, prefer to make decisions based on intuition,
the collective opinions of their leadership team, or formance, internal and
the guidance from their board of directors instead of external influences on
accurate data that defines the true situation. To me it
future performance, and
is obvious that the only viable means of decision-mak
-ing is to rely on knowledge about past performance, other factors that directly
current performance, internal and external influences or indirectly define the
on future performance, and other factors that direct
future.
-ly or indirectly define the future. Yet almost every
day, large and small organizations ignore the data and forgo real knowledge when making decisions that
determine their future. In too many cases, these decisions foreshadow the organization’s failure.
Examples of these failures are common. For example, a large integrated steel mill purchased six new zinc-
-plating lines at a cost of $500 million on the belief they were fully utilizing their installed capacity. They
ignored the data that clearly showed that they were using less than 46%. Failure to understand utilization
of installed capacity seems to be a problem shared by far too many organizations. Some plants artificially
limit capacity by either limiting production hours or setting targets that are less than design capacity.
Both may be the right business decision, but business leaders must understand that these are artificial
limitations and reversible when needed.
In a recent example, a high-speed manufacturing organization perceived they needed to increase output.
Since the current mode of operation was five-day, 24 hours, their first thought was to increase to a seven-
-day operation. When they looked more closely at the current operation, they found that current produc-
Knowledge Is Not Enough; It Must Be Applied, cont.
tion targets were well below design capacity. With this knowledge, they increased output by 40% without in-
curring any additional cost or changing current operating hours. They simply raised the production targets.
Even after almost five decades, I cannot tell you the why, but we can provide the how to gain the knowledge
and convert your organization into a knowledge-based operation. The journey starts with collecting accu
-rate, timely data to drive knowledge and ultimately provoke action. While this sounds simple, it is perhaps
the most difficult step in the journey. Data must be limited to the fewest possible key performance indica-
tors. Collecting too much data creates data diarrhea and because of the sheer quantity, assures no one will
use it. Use care to ensure complete, accurate data. Data, especially cost data, is often badly fragmented and
easily distorted. Bad data has no value, so make sure you are measuring the right indicators and that it is
accurate.
Even when reduced to minimum key performance indicators, the amount of data needed to create a know-
ledge-based organization is substantial. Few organizations can afford to allocate a dedicated staff to collect
and manage data. As a result, when these duties are assigned to already busy employees, they rarely get
done. The solution is to automate the data acquisition and management. With today’s technology, we can
automate most of this work, thus eliminating the overloads and collecting data that are more accurate.
The next step in the journey from ignorance to knowledge is converting acquired data into knowledge.
Unfortunately, automation does not apply in this step. While automating data manipulation such as trends
and charts can help, converting data into knowledge requires human intervention. The question is who
should perform this role. This step in the process requires a unique skill set and dedicated time to complete,
so assigning it to an already overloaded employee is not a good idea. Ideally, reliability engineers trained in
statistical and business analysis provide the skills for this conversion.
Assuming we have effectively acquired meaningful data and converted it into actionable knowledge, one
critical step remains. Knowledge has no value until it is used. I started this letter with this thought but it
bears repeating. Think for a minute. How many examples can you cite where you or your organization failed
to act on knowledge—knowledge of deficiencies, of situations, of people—that limited performance or cre-
ated cultural issues? Perhaps it is production targets that are too low or a manager who fails to provide the
leadership needed to meet business objectives. Let me leave you with one last question. Why do you ignore
the problem? You know it exists. You have the knowledge. Always remember, knowledge is not enough. It
Remove Emotion from the Decision-making Equation
T he ability to express and control our own emotions is important, but so is our ability to understand,
interpret, and respond to the emotions of others. Imagine a world where you could not understand
when a friend was feeling sad or when a co-worker was angry. Psychologists refer to this ability as emotion
-al intelligence and some experts even suggest that
it can be more important than any other measure of
Decisions, no matter how
intelligence or ability.
small or large, must be
There are four major areas of emotional intelligence: made solely on factual
perceiving, reasoning with, understanding, and man
data and without any
-aging emotions. It is the second that I would like to
explore in this letter. How many times in your career, bias or emotions. One
perhaps even today, have your business and personal cannot rely on emotion or
decisions been driven by emotions?
instinct in the decision-
Earlier this year we had the opportunity to visit a new making process.
client who has serious reliability problems. Process
lines are down almost as often as they run and reacting to failures is an almost continuous act. Above all
else, emotions run high. As we observed the turmoil, one thing became clear—logic had left the building.
Every action, every decision was driven solely by emotional reaction to a stimulus, usually a breakdown or
management directive. It even carried over into decision about new capital equipment procurement and
non-emergency activities. At all levels of the company emotions had become not only dominant—they had
become the only driver. The result was not pretty. The plant was in a death spiral. Simple problems became
unsolvable and simple decisions took on the appearance of string theory.
Emotions, and our ability to truly understand and leverage them, form an essential part of our lives, in
-cluding our lives at work. But in any successful company, emotions have no place in the decision-making
process. Decisions, no matter how small or large, must be made solely on factual data and without any
bias or emotions. One cannot rely on emotion or instinct in the decision-making process. Our coaching to
the management team in this example was to stop reacting to emergencies, real or perceived, and instead
to logically evaluate the facts—the real ones—before making a decision. It is imperative that decisions,
especially those in stressful situations, be made in a calm, cool frame of mind. If you allow emotions to
take control, the probability is high that the wrong decision will be made.
Remove Emotion from the Decision-making Equation, cont.
I am not suggesting that we should become emotionless. It would be a boring world without emotions.
As the science of emotional intelligence states, there are four steps in understanding and using emotions
effectively:
• The first step in understanding emotions is to accurately perceive them. In many cases, this might in
-volve understanding nonverbal signals such as body language and facial expressions
• The next step involves using emotions to promote thinking and cognitive activity. Emotions help priori-
tize what we pay attention and react to; we respond emotionally to things that garner our attention.
• The emotions that we perceive can carry a wide variety of meanings. If someone is expressing angry
emotions, the observer must interpret the cause of their anger and what it might mean. For example, if
your boss is acting angry, it might mean that he is dissatisfied with your work. Or it could be because he
got a speeding ticket on his way to work that morning or that he’s been fighting with his wife.
• The ability to manage emotions effectively is a key part of emotional intelligence. Regulating emotions,
responding appropriately and responding to the emotions of others are all important aspects of emo
-tional management.
All of these are fundamental requirements for effective leadership, sustainable change and continuous im-
provement. All should be nurtured until they are part of your DNA. But always remember that emotions are
not and should not be part of your decision-making process.
Even When You Stumble, Keep Moving Forward
H ave you ever hit roadblocks in your planned path forward? Of course you have. We all have. The real
measure of your success is how you deal with these roadblocks. If you are a student of history, you
know that it is full of examples of ordinary people who repeatedly faced insurmountable challenges and
found ways to overcome them. Others, who repeatedly stumbled, momentarily took the wrong direction
or had to completely reverse their course in order to achieve their goals.
I have not been immune. Over the past 50 years, there have been few smooth, uninterrupted journeys.
While I am one who firmly believes in plan first and then follow the plan, plans do not always unfold the
way we anticipated. When this happens, we have choices. Do we allow the unexpected to stop or delay pro-
gress, or do we find ways to overcome and continue
on our planned path forward? I am fortunate – my There are too many
managers who have
parents implanted the latter option in my DNA.
My generation was conditioned to treat roadblocks chosen to do nothing -

as opportunities – a test of our ability to find ways
make no waves - to ensure
around them and continue our journey. I am not sure
that this attitude has been passed along over the last
they make no mistakes. I
few decades. It seems that too many of those I meet assume that they feel this
in my consulting travels allow the slightest obstacle to
is their best chance of
derail them and permanently stop their path forward.
Some have become paralyzed by the anticipation of survival, but it does
potential obstacles and have stopped trying to im-
nothing for the
plement change, no matter how much it is needed.
Inertia is not and never will be good for anyone and organization.
certainly not for a company in this highly competi
-tive world. To survive, individuals and organizations must constantly evolve—that means change—just
to survive. Neither can they allow the fear of making mistakes or encountering obstacles to dissuade them
from trying.
Candidly, I do not understand why people are derailed by obstacles. I have been forced to find ways to
convince these clients, associates, and even my own family to accept that they will stumble in their jour-
ney and persuade them to adopt a way of thinking that our predecessors used to create this world we live
Even When You Stumble, Keep Moving Forward, cont.
in. Stumbling is a given. No plan is perfect, no path free of obstacles, and no one is immune to challenges.
The true measure of your success is how you deal with them. When you encounter an obstacle, do you stop
or find a way to get around it and continue? When you stumble, do you hide in shame or shrug it off and
resolutely continue your journey? Always remember that the only one who never makes a mistake is one who
does nothing.
There are too many managers who have chosen to do nothing—make no waves—to ensure they make no
mistakes. I assume that they feel this is their best chance of survival, but it does nothing for the organiza-
tion. This aversion to taking risks is so deeply rooted that nothing, not even the threat of termination, can
dissuade them from the status quo. Few companies escape this behavior because most have this type of
individual in their ranks. All too often the individuals are in key positions and because of their aversion, the
entire organization suffers. In my concrete sequential mind, there is no place for this type of individual,
at any level, in an organization. If they cannot be reconditioned to become a forward-looking leader, they
should be removed so that they no longer hold the company back. Organizational inertia is not acceptable
in our highly competitive, rapidly change world. Do not let fear of stumbling stop you from change. You will
stumble—that is a given. But if you always keep moving forward your goals will be achieved.
take control, the probability is high that the wrong decision will be made.
Embrace the Truth; It Will Set You Free
I t seems like all we have heard since 2015 is alternate facts, alternate truths, and a litany of variations
on every topic. While all of this is unbelievable to most of us, it is not new. Alternate reality has been
alive and well in the business world for decades and seems to be most evident at the highest echelons of
the organization. In the rarified air of executive suites, many decision-makers live in an alternate reality
created by isolation and information management systems designed to put the best possible spin on what
is happening on the factory floor.
I recall one meeting in the early 1990s with the executive leadership team of a large, integrated steel enter-
prise. The meeting was held to discuss how to overcome their lagging performance. One slide in our pre-
sentation contained the total output of their mills the
previous year. The tonnage number was vetted and
taken directly from their information management
One cannot solve a
system. In turn, each of the executives questioned the problem when the
number, accessed the same information management
problem is unknown. It
system, and produced a different number. We then
had six radically different outputs, all from the same is far better to know the
information management system, and after several truth, not some alternate
hours of discussion the group could not agree on
reality. Organizations
which number was correct. Imagine trying to manage
a multi-billion-dollar enterprise when the leadership that bury their head in
team cannot agree on its total output. Of course, the sand like an ostrich,
this was only the tip of the iceberg. Throughout the
embrace only good news,
meeting, conflicting perceptions—in their minds,
facts—made achieving consensus impossible. The
and ignore the truth, are
team, this enterprise, was truly living in an alternate destined to fail.
reality with little hope of success.
This is just one example of a widespread problem. The business world has unintentionally become blind
to the real problems that limit performance, choosing instead to rely on an alternate vision. One obvious
reality that is too often ignored is proper management of their physical plant and employees. Few senior
leaders seem to recognize that without these critical resources, continued operation is not possible. From
a property, plant and equipment viewpoint, they have forgotten or will not acknowledge the need to design
Embrace the Truth; It Will Set You Free, cont.
properly, consistently operate within design limits, sustain useful life, and maintain these assets to ensure
maximum return on investment. Instead, the leaders complain about poor maintenance as they watch their
capital expenditures soar.
Mark Twain’s saying “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure” sums up the information systems in too many orga-
nizations. We encountered one example in a large, integrated plant which reported yield or output for each
of the 57 steps in the manufacturing process. Raw materials entered the first step and its yield was reported
through the information system. This was repeated for each of the 57 steps and the output from the last step
represented the actual finished goods output for the plant. One thing that we always do when evaluating a
plant is a mass balance; we compare the output volume to the raw material input volume. Imagine our sur-
prise when the output of this plant was significantly higher than the raw materials coming into the plant.
Unless the laws of physics have changed, one cannot create mass.
We presented our findings to the executive leadership team, pointing out that we believed the way each step
in the process calculated yield was different and therefore unreliable. Our request was simple—everyone
should calculate yield using the same criteria and formula. The leadership team took our recommendation
under advisement and adjourned the meeting. At the next leadership team meeting, we asked for their
decision. After much consideration, they decided that six of the calculations used would be omitted, but
the remainder would continue to use their current calculations. Needless to say, we were dumbfounded and
requested clarification. They explained that the manager of those six process steps were no longer there, so
the old calculations were no longer necessary. The new managers would develop their own. Truthfully, I do
not believe that anyone intentionally lied in this example, but they did put the best spin on the yield num-
bers.
In another example, the business unit in a fiber optics cable plant used stacked bar graphs to report the per-
formance numbers for the six production lines in each unit. Recognizing that most people who viewed the
graphs would read the scale at the top of each bar, the overall performance looked good. However, if you lo-
oked more closely, each of the six lines that made up the bar were well below acceptable performance levels.
Imagine the results when these seemingly minor distortions of the true facts combine and roll up to the
enterprise level. Have we not created an alternate reality? One result could be that the enterprise continues
fat, dumb and happy—thinking that everything is working well, and a successful future is ahead—until the
bottom drops out and the truth is revealed.
Embrace the Truth; It Will Set You Free, cont.
One cannot solve a problem when the problem is unknown. It is far better to know the truth, not some
alternate reality. Organizations that bury their head in the sand like an ostrich, embrace only good news,
and ignore the truth, are destined to fail. They might not fail today, but it is only a matter of when. Success-
ful organizations seek out the truth about their performance across the entire value stream. They ensure
that consistency and accuracy of information and data in their information management system is the only
acceptable norm. They constantly seek ways to improve all aspects of the enterprise, and all of this is predi-
cated on real facts. Alternate realities are not allowed to skew them.
BEHAVIORS MAKE THE DIFFERENCE
Every organization is nothing without its people. It is our behaviors and our inte-
ractions that are at the heart of whether we make a difference in the world.
Making the Same Mistake Twice is Unforgivable
F rom an early age, my father instilled in me rules that I was to live by—or else. Near the top of his list was
one that still resonates with me almost every day. He explained that making mistakes was a natural part
of the learning process. Only those who do nothing can go through life and never make a mistake. Sound
advice, but he did not stop there. Instead he continued
Never fear making mi- to admonish me that making the same mistake twice
was absolutely unforgivable. Admittedly I am not the
stakes. They are an inevi- brightest star in the universe and was somewhat of a
table part of change and slow learner in my early years. As a result, my father had
growth. Embrace them more than one opportunity to reinforce his mandate that
making the same mistake would not be tolerated. With
and use them to become repetition and some pain, I learned this valuable lesson.
smarter, both as a person Today, I strive to learn from my mistakes and never, ever
and as a company. make the same one twice.
The reason this early lesson resonates with me almost every day is simple. As part of my profession, I am
exposed to classic examples of the same mistake being made not just twice but too often tens or even hun-
dreds of times. If the results were not so serious, some of these are so ridiculous that they are almost funny.
Others are so catastrophic in nature that there is nothing funny about them.
Consider the steel mill that manufactured a product that severely damaged critical production systems each
time they ran it. When asked if they were aware of the damage this product produced, they acknowledged
that they did. Why did they continue to produce it? It was a niche market; no one else would produce it so
they had a captive market. Oh, by the way, their margins on this product were practically zero. Why would
one elect to make a product that caused severe damage and then give it away?
Making the Same Mistake Twice is Unforgivable, cont.
Or there was the food company that continued to run a critical packaging line after all of its timing belts
and drive chains had stretched well beyond their limits. Even after repeated wrecks, they continued to run
the line without ordering new belts and chains—until the line catastrophically failed. I wonder if they will
repeat this mistake.
Another example of repeating mistakes: management teams that continue to listen to and act upon bad ad-
vice. Even when history clearly shows that the inner circle of advisors lack the ability to provide sound busi
-ness advice, management continues to turn a blind eye to facts and continues to make decisions that limit
success, sometimes to the point of bankruptcy. I once worked for a company owned and managed by three
professors. Primarily because of this recurring mistake, the company was forced to file for bankruptcy. The
recovery plan filed with the courts offered a solution that the owners and their small inner circle of advisors
thought would guarantee future success—the owners would change roles within the company. Each of the
three owner-managers would assume a new role. Ted who was over engineering would move to marketing,
Jim to manufacturing, and Bert to engineering. With a bit of a smirk on his face, the judge asked them if
changing positions would make them any smarter. The reorganization plan was rejected.
I have never truly understood why it is so hard to learn from our mistakes. Granted, I hate to make mistakes
but when a mistake is made, I am the first to acknowledge it and accept full responsibility. Perhaps this is
because of my upbringing, but it is also the logical thing to do. If we cannot acknowledge our mistakes and
with an absolute open mind understand how they occurred we are destined to repeat them over and over
again. To my father and now to me, life is too short to be wasted on recurring mistakes.
One common trait of highly successful companies is their ability to limit mistakes and never to make the
same mistake twice. They are driven by knowledge gained from accurate, timely data, not the opinion of an
inner circle of advisors who may or may not provide good advice. They have standard processes that isolate
and identify mistakes, without placing blame or penalty, and provide a positive means of preventing repeti-
tion. In other words they are following the same mandate that my father impressed upon me. It is accepta-
ble to make mistakes, but unforgivable to make the same mistake twice.
Mistakes are a part of learning and growth. Failure to learn from one’s mistakes ensures stagnation and
mediocrity. Never fear making mistakes. They are an inevitable part of change and growth. Embrace them
and use them to become smarter, both as a person and as a company.
Work Smart, Not Hard
W hen I state, as I often do, that I am basically lazy, those who know me are incredulous. They know
that my work is constant and almost continuous. What they do not understand is that when you
work smart, it is not stressful or tiring. It’s actually quite enjoyable, even fun.
Have you ever observed an operator or maintenance technician fight a problem until the symptoms dis
-appeared only to have the same problem occur later, often repeating this cycle for weeks or even months?
This is a too-frequent example of working hard, not smart. We too often mistake activity for value-added
work, in this case problem-solving.
One of my favorite examples of working hard not

Working hard is not a
smart comes from a plate glass plant. I had the bad thing. In fact it is
opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of their
the foundation of every
operation, including maintenance. While reviewing
their maintenance logs, one shift stood out. Eight
successful person and
times during the midnight shift, the on-duty main- organization. But simply
tenance technician was called to repair a robot that
working hard is not
unloaded plate glass from the production line. He had
to walk from his shop to the robot—about one-half enough.
mile round trip—to respond to each call. What caught
my attention was the action taken on each of the trips. In each case, the technician reset the breaker and
returned to his shop. Perhaps that is an appropriate action on the first call. Surely one would recognize
that something was causing the breaker fault on the subsequent seven calls, but apparently not. On the
following shift, a different maintenance technician responded to the ninth call and found the mechanical
binding that was the source of the repeated trips. In this example, working smart would be to trouble-
shoot the problem on the first call and prevent the subsequent calls.
Working hard is not a bad thing. In fact it is the foundation of every successful person and organization.
But simply working hard is not enough. It is fascinating to watch the frenetic activities that too many
people consider productive work. Another of my favorite examples is budget development. The norm
seems to be to consume the third and fourth quarter of each fiscal year developing the budget for the follo-
wing year. Hours upon hours of key employees’ time is consumed by this annual event. The sad part is that
the budgets are often arbitrary rather than data or fact-based. We all know that budgets are a
Work Smart, Not Hard, cont.
recurring requirement of any business, so why not automate the process and eliminate the excessive labor-
-hours that we offer up to the budget god each year? If each of the functional groups that make up a
company are effectively managing and measuring their operations, creating next year’s budget should be a
non-event.
Here are my fundamentals for working smart:
• Plan before you act: One trait that has helped me more than any other is that I rarely do anything with
-out a reason. Everything one does should have a clear objective and your actions should be carefully
evaluated before they are executed.
• Use the 80/20 rule: As an engineer, this was one of the hardest traits for me. There are always many dif-
ferent ways to achieve a desired outcome, but only one that will accomplish the objective with the least
effort and investment of time and money. You must also know when to stop—80% is often perfectly
acceptable.
• Automate: If you know that a task or activity is recurring, create a work aid or tool that will eliminate
as many of the repetitive activities as possible. Those who know me accuse me of having a tool for
everything—an exaggeration, but not by much.
• Ask for help: There is absolutely no shame in asking for help. No one can know everything or be the
expert in every facet of the business world. Asking for help from others will let you accomplish your
objectives much more quickly, and with better results.
• Always look for a better way: As my father said, “Son, if you have done anything the same way for years,
odds are there is a better way.” Good advice then and now. Never restrict yourself to a certain set of
rules just to maintain status quo. Think outside the box and find better, more efficient ways to accom-
plish your objective.
When you work smart, work can be enjoyable, even fun. It certainly eliminates much of the frustration and
fatigue that are the outcome of working hard. Take a close look at yourself. Are you working smart?
One Cannot Govern Others Without Consent
O ne of the many lessons that I was slow to learn is that personal success is an illusion and never within
one’s control. Once learned, this lesson has been reinforced over and over again throughout my
career, but perhaps the best example is the frequent reminders a colleague persists in providing.
Almost a decade ago, I led a team of subject matter experts in helping a large, high-speed manufacturing
client in its transformation from a highly reactive to a best-in-class operation. As is my nature, I worked
very hard to create a team concept where each of us worked together as a team of equals. In addition to
our own area of expertise, we would always provide support for others on the team. In spite of my effort
to create a team concept, one of the team members
insisted on calling me “boss.” No matter how many Even when the chief
times I reminded him that there were no bosses on
our team, he would not relent. After this went on for executive is a strong
months, I finally sat down with him and asked why leader, it is impossible
he insisted on calling me boss. His answer was both
short and profound—“you are my boss as long as I let
to achieve sustainable
you be.” His message was clear—an inherent attrib world-class performance
-ute of human nature is an acceptance system that without strong leaders
determines who can be trusted, merits respect and is
worthy of being followed. All others are tolerated or
throughout the organiza-
ignored. tion.
I hope that you can grasp the significance and magnitude of this simple comment. We are the boss only
when those who work for us allow us to be. They may report to us on the organization chart, and we may
sign their timesheets and do their performance reviews, but we will be their boss only when they let us be.
Sometimes we can force them, through fear of losing their jobs, to perform certain tasks. But we cannot
command their involvement or willingness to do more than go through the physical motion of their job.
Over the intervening decade, I have observed far too many managers—at all levels—who apparently do not
understand this basic attribute of human nature. Like monarchs of old, they believe acceptance natural-
ly comes with the title. They truly believe that their direct reports will embrace their leadership without
question and blindly follow wherever they lead. This type of manager is easy to spot. They rarely talk, really
One Cannot Govern Others Without Consent, cont.
talk, with their direct reports and when they do, the communication is one way—I talk, you listen. Trust is
unknown. Is it any wonder that these companies are unable to operate effectively?
Fortunately, I have also observed true leaders. While their numbers are smaller, their presence is clear for
all to see. It is obvious that these leaders understand human nature and the attributes they must exhibit
to be permitted to lead. All of the indicators are evident: continuous communication is two-way, everyone
functions seamlessly within the team, and mutual trust is universal. One will see true leaders make time to
spend time with everyone on the team, have open, honest dialogue with them, listen—truly listen—to their
input, and treat each and every one as an equal. They are the boss only because the team members permit
them to be.
To me, the fascinating part of these two diametrically opposed management styles is that they too often co-
exist within the same company. A company may have a strong chief executive who is a natural leader but his
middle managers are old school and do not understand human nature. Even when the executive makes the
time to meet with the entire workforce—to exhibit the attributes of a good leader—his actions are nullified
by members of the management team who just do not get it. Unfortunately, the outcome is preordained.
Even when the chief executive is a strong leader, it is impossible to achieve sustainable world-class perfor-
mance without strong leaders throughout the organization.
Some believe that a few strong leaders within a company, especially when they are in key areas, are enough
to ensure success. Based on almost five decades of observations, this is true only when the strong leaders are
the clear majority. Even one weak manager can limit the company’s performance. Are you a strong leader
who leads with the consent of those you lead, or are you a manager by right of title?
Play to Win, Not to Avoid Losing
H ow often have you watched your favorite football team, holding a comfortable lead, become con
-servative near the end of the game only to lose the game? Fearing losing more than wanting to win,
they focus on not making mistakes, calling plays that minimize the chance of turnovers, and above all,
not taking any chances. Why do they lose? One reason is that the team they are playing has nothing to lose
and, as a result, they play to win. They take risks, gamble on interceptions, try to force fumbles and
sometimes call high-risk plays. When they work, they win—but they were losing anyways, so why not take
a chance?
Because of my background in reliability engineering,

corporate management and business, and because I
One key to my success,
am a devout coward, I am risk averse. You will never and the success of all
see me skydiving, bungee jumping, doing anything highly successful enter-
that tempts fate, or making high-risk business deci-
sions. With that said, one key to my success, and the
prises, is taking calcu-
success of all highly successful enterprises, is taking lated risks. This means
calculated risks. This means playing to win by taking playing to win by taking
advantage of opportunities when and where they
advantage of opportuni-
present themselves. It means not being paralyzed by
a fear of failure. We have all observed, if not ourselves ties when and where they
been guilty of making, decisions that are driven by a present themselves
fear of losing rather than a concerted push to win.
In a recent example, a services company experienced an unexpected growth in business that far outstrip-
ped its ability to deliver. The sudden surge forced a decision to either increase the current cadre of profes-
sionals with full-time employees or try to bridge the gap with a temporary or sub-contracted workforce.
You have been there and can imagine the thought process. If the company hires full-time employees and
the surge is temporary, then what? If they use temporary or contract personnel, will the quality of work
meet their high standards? Which would you choose—would you go for the win, trusting in the future and
your company’s ability to sustain and grow the business, or choose not to lose by using contract labor?
Over the past few years, playing not to lose seems to be the dominant direction of too many corporations.
Play to Win, Not to Avoid Losing, cont.
This phenomenon is occurring at all levels of the organization, literally from the boardroom to the newest
hourly employee. Everyone seems so concerned about not making a mistake—not losing—that no one
is willing to deviate from status quo. This phenomenon is not new. Dr. Edwards Deming, long before he
took his philosophies to Japan, tried to point out this problem to American business leaders. You all know
his message, “Your systems—the way you run the business—is perfectly designed to give you the results
you get.” If you create an infrastructure and culture that is focused on winning, one where losing is not an
option, you will ultimately win. However the converse is also true. If your culture is one that is risk averse,
unwilling to change or try new ways of doing business, then ultimately you will lose. Failure might not be
absolute; your company may have survived for decades and could continue for decades more. But it has not
and will not realize its full potential. When focused on not losing, the best one can hope for is to survive.
This lesson came very early for me. Having been a devoted student of Dr. Deming, Philip Crosby, Joe Juran
and other early pioneers of what has become known as the Japanese management model, playing to win is
an integral part of my DNA. I shall always remember the reaction of my peers when these radical new phi-
losophies were introduced in America. The common response was “Can you believe it? Japanese companies
actually treat business like a war and they try to win at all costs.” They seemed genuinely shocked that any-
one would view business with the same seriousness as one would face a war. They were shocked as well by
the absolute focus on winning. It made perfect sense to me then and even more so now. After all, business is
serious and deserves to be treated with the same respect and drive to win as if one was at war.
I am not proposing that anyone should take unnecessary risks. Risks must be carefully weighed and options
considered, but they are a necessary part of winning and long-term success. This is true at all levels of the
enterprise and must be part of its culture and govern its day-to-day life. The workforce must be encouraged
to try new ideas and methods even though change entails some risks. These risks can be managed and are
essential for sustained growth and long-term success. Risk-averse managers must be identified and remold
-ed into leaders willing to evaluate opportunities and make decisions—even when some risk is involved—
that will help the company win rather than continue to hold the company back because they are playing not
to lose.
Are you playing to win or not to lose? If your focus is on preventing increased costs or maintaining current
performance levels, then perhaps there may be a more positive direction that would improve your success
potential. History has proven that you cannot cost cut your way to prosperity and performance losses are
Play to Win, Not to Avoid Losing, cont.
indicative of an unchallenged workforce. If your focus is on status quo and not continuous improvement—
stretching the workforce and your manufacturing capabilities to or beyond its known limits—you are
playing not to lose, instead of trying to win. If you are not using all of your installed capacity or taking full
advantage of the inherent skills and capabilities of your workforce, you are playing not to lose, instead of
trying to win. Are you playing to win?
Speak with Honesty, Think with Sincerity, and Act with
Integrity
W hen I was very young, my father frequently repeated one of his guiding principles: the importance
of speaking truthfully and acting on that truth with integrity. As in most things, he had his own
way of expressing it: “Son, you can’t tell one lie, but you must tell more and more lies to cover the first.
Don’t waste your time, do it the easy way and always tell the truth the first time.” I am sometimes a slow
learner and this was one of those situations, especially when caught doing something that had been for-
bidden. But I soon learned that Dad was right. It is much simpler to tell the truth, even though sometimes
it may be painful in the short term.
Perhaps because of this lesson, total strangers, as well

as those who know me, listen to and accept my advice Ignoring mistakes, bad
or recommendations. But perhaps it’s more than a news, or the myriad of
commitment to always speak honestly that wins this
respect. Dad also taught me to evaluate situations
other issues that plague
with an open mind. Think it through, looking for the organizations will allow
truth, and then act upon that truth with integrity. If problems to persist if left
you stop to think about these three principles, com-
bined they form a serious mandate, one that wins
undiscovered. Someone
respect. To always speak honestly, think with sinceri- must step up, tell the
ty, and act with integrity is not easy. truth, and begin the
Years ago, an old client and friend had changed jobs
improvement process.
and found himself in need of my help. In our first me-
eting with his direct reports, he introduced me in this way: “This is Keith Mobley. Along with his associates
he is going to come see each of you, ask a lot of questions, look at your files and see just how good you and
your group are. Now I have to warn you he will tell you exactly how you are doing. Sometimes he is brutal,
but he is always honest in his assessment.” As I listened, he reinforced the mandate issued by my father
and I sincerely hope one that I live up to every day. I also realized that perhaps my tactfulness needed a
little work.
Think about how you interact with your superiors, peers, clients and those who work for you. Are you
always open and honest when you talk with them? Or do you skew the truth just a little to make it easier for
Speak with Honesty, Think with Sincerity, and Act with Integrity, cont.
them to believe or simply to avoid making waves? As a student of people, watching the interaction between
these groups is telling. Too many withhold the truth when talking with their superiors. Perhaps it is fear of
losing one’s job or just not wanting to be the bearer of bad news. But regardless of the reason, it creates a
lose-lose situation. Ignoring mistakes, bad news, or the myriad of other issues that plague organizations
will allow problems to persist if left undiscovered. Someone must step up, tell the truth, and begin the
improvement process.
Do you always evaluate situations, issues or problems with sincerity, putting emotions, prejudice and con-
ditioning aside? Or do you let one or more of these interfere and prevent you from finding the truth? It may
sound easy to consistently follow this principle, but it is not. We are all conditioned from birth, have ingra-
ined prejudices, and are subject to emotions. It is not easy to set this baggage aside. We could talk for hours
and not exhaust the examples of wrong decisions made because of a violation of this principle. Violating
this principle is especially dangerous for consultants and executives because of the ability to influence the
direction of entire organizations. Too often, consultants, conditioned by their toolbox, are narrowly focused
and see their offering as the panacea for all problems. They are a hammer in search of a nail, and often do
not see the real issues. Executives, influenced by a peer, magazine article, or recently attended conference,
will fixate on a new technology, methodology or philosophy and that automatically becomes the solution
that will save the organization. They then become blind to the real issues.
Do you always act with integrity or do you skew your actions to follow the company line or avoid displeasing
your boss? If I had a nickel for every time a client said, “What you are suggesting is absolutely correct and
would definitely solve our problems, but we cannot do it here.” What they are really saying is that because of
the culture or other perceived resisting forces the acknowledge solution cannot be applied.
As a consultant, the client is always right. Or are they? Too many executives—and consultants—go no fur-
ther. They accept the fact that uncontrollable, often mysterious, forces preclude a solution, so why try? As
many of you know, I am a perfectionist, expecting the best from everyone, every day. I have absolutely no
patience for those who refuse to act with integrity regardless of the obstacles or perceived reasons. The exec
-utives I can understand. Perhaps they need education or reconditioning. But a consultant who fails to do
everything in their power to lead with integrity—to help the client see the true solution to their issues—does
not deserve the trusted advisor title that is essential to all consultancies.
Speak with Honesty, Think with Sincerity, and Act with Integrity, cont.
If you answered yes to any or all, you are not alone. We all have been guilty at one time or another. But if you
think about the consequences of these deviations, I hope that you have learned that the best approach is
to follow my father’s guiding principles. It’s best for you, for those around you, and is certainly best for the
company.
Obstacles are Great Incentives
Y ou know that you are getting old when you can no longer understand how those around you think or
behave. Especially when it comes to dealing with the day-to-day obstacles that we all must face as we
go through life. Why is it that some people think that obstacles, no matter how simple, are justification to
stop and wait for others to resolve them while others roll up their sleeves and find a way to remove them?
One of the many lessons that my father taught me was how to deal with obstacles. In his typical, common-
-sense way, his advice was simple—when an obstacle presents itself, your only option is to find a way a-ro-
und, under, over or through it. He would not accept any excuses or even a delay. He expected continuous
forward progress and nothing else was acceptable. As he often did, my father combined his teachings. In
this instance, he always added: never panic when faced with difficult, seemingly insurmountable
obstacles. He constantly reminded me that panic was
counter-productive. One should always remain calm, Without obstacles, there
think the problem through, and solve it in the is no challenge. Without
simplest, most straightforward way.
challenge, there are no
Looking back over the last 73 years, this one law has opportunities for growth.
contributed more to my success as an individual, en- Without opportunities,
there is no reason for our
gineer and businessman than any other. It has guided
me thorough a myriad of obstacles, ranging from
simple to seemingly impossible. Over time, obstacles existence. Obstacles ena-
became my incentives, enabling me to achieve better ble change. They are our
incentive to grow, to im-
personal performance. Ultimately, obstacles became
the norm and most passed without notice. Obstacles
became opportunities. prove, and to succeed.
Apparently not everyone views obstacles the same way. Admittedly, these differences went unnoticed
through much of my early career. Then my sole focus was on results and I did not see the effect that
obstacles had on those around me. I just assumed that everyone shared the same traits as those instilled
in me by my father. As my awareness matured, the differences became more apparent. Too many people
viewed even simple obstacles as insurmountable—a reason to stop, an excuse for failing. Today this view
has even invaded our society. If you listen to radio and television commercials, nothing—from obesity to
Obstacles are Great Incentives, cont.
murder—is anyone’s fault. Problems are uncontrollable or someone else’s fault and there is nothing you can
do about them. It is acceptable to throw up your hands and give up. As we have learned lately, the alternative
truths are becoming mainstream to the point that we may be facing total inertia. If one accepts the premise
that obstacles, caused by both internal and external influences, are and will continue to be an integral part
of business, who is going to resolve them? If we all become stymied by the slightest obstacle, how can we
expect to survive in an ever-changing global economy?
Some people try to deal with the obstacles they face as part of their business and personal lives but are too
often unsuccessful. In many cases, the lack of success is caused by a failure to stay calm, think the problem
through, and then put the obstacle behind them. Panic, sudden uncontrollable fear or anxiety, often causing
wildly unthinking behavior, is counter-productive. One simply cannot think rationally or logically. We have
all been there, but how we reacted makes the difference. Those that can overcome their initial panic, and
think calmly and logically about the problem, will succeed; those who cannot will continue to fail.
A recent event demonstrates this premise. On his first day on a new job, a phone call from the drug-
screening laboratory called to inform the new employee he had failed the test. Suffering with a back injury
from a pickup basketball game, he had taken a prescription painkiller belonging to his wife and the residual
showed in the test. In a total panic, the new employee raced around in circles as all the negative results of
a failed test looped through his head. Observing the obvious agitation, a coworker attempted to help and
learned what had happened. Calmly, the coworker offered a simple solution to the problem—tell the truth
and retake the drug test. Days later, the new employee stopped by the coworker’s desk to thank him for his
help. When asked how he had remained so calm, the coworker answered simply, there is no value in panic;
problems must be solved calmly and rationally.
In closing, what if we lived in a world where there were no obstacles in our personal or business lives? What
if status quo was just that—nothing changes? How many would be happy in this world? This is not my vision
of a perfect world. Without obstacles, there is no challenge. Without challenge, there are no opportunities
for growth. Without opportunities, there is no reason for our existence. Obstacles enable change. They are
our incentive to grow, to improve, and to succeed.
You Must Look Into People as Well as at Them
T here are times when I truly think the art of conversation is dead. Obviously, there is a constant envi-
ronment where two or more people are talking to each other. We are surrounded by what outwardly
appear to be earnest communications, but are they real? Are these people really communicating or simply
talking, with neither party really understanding what the other is trying to communicate?
One of my favorite examples of this phenomenon is a conversation I observed in the Middle East years
ago. Two senior executives were literally nose to nose, both talking simultaneously at a speed I could not
comprehend, and arms flying to reinforce their point of view. This continued for more than an hour. To my
amazement, they were able to make their individual arguments, consider the other’s point of view, and
reach a consensus. How they managed this, I will never understand, but neither speed nor overlapping
talking prohibited true communications. However, this is the exception, not the rule.
Too many of us enter conversations with preset Considering that God

viewpoints and closed ears and minds, then try to
gave you two ears and
communicate only with our voices. We talk but do not
listen. We try to force our point of view by overpower
one mouth for a reason is
-ing or ignoring input from others. The mechanics of a good start, but effective
these “communications” take many forms. Some-ti- communication requires
mes it is like the Middle-Eastern executives—passion
-ate, almost-violent interaction between two or more
more than just listening.
parties. In other cases, the discussion is calm, low- One must also open their
-keyed, and outwardly appears to be effective. The one eyes, heart, and mind to
common missing factor is that neither party is trying
to understand the other’s perspective.
truly communicate with
others.
Considering that God gave you two ears and one
mouth for a reason is a good start, but effective communication requires more than just listening. One
must also open their eyes, heart, and mind to truly communicate with others. Most creatures, including
humans, communicate with more than their voice. Your dog wags its tail when happy to see you or lets
you know when it needs to go outside. Dogs cannot verbally tell you, but through their body language you
know what is needed. Humans are no different. Our body language, and especially our eyes, conveys our
true feelings and beliefs far better than our verbal communications.
You Must Look Into People as Well as at Them, cont.
Many years ago, I had a young administrative assistant who was fresh out of school, with little real-world
experience. On typical days, she effectively fulfilled her duties but on the rare occasion when I came into
the office in a bad mood or upset, she seemed to instantly know. She would get coffee for me—not a regular
practice—and try to cheer me up. At first this change did not register, but when it finally dawned on me
what she was doing, I asked her how she knew. Her answer amazed me. She said that when in a bad mood, I
reverted to my natural left-handed tendency, in effect becoming a mirror-image of normal. This 18-year-old
young lady was observant enough to see a change in my behavior that communicated my true feelings.
The ability to truly understand the perspectives, beliefs and feelings of others is a valuable skill that we
should all strive to nurture. Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, is not easy
to cultivate. After all, it is difficult to see the world from someone else’s perspective if you have never stood
in their shoes. Early in my career, viewing the world through my plant manager eyes, I envied the easy life
of our division’s vice president. He would get to the office around 9 a.m., spend a few hours on the phone or
in meetings, leave for a two-hour lunch, and after a 5:00 p.m. meeting with his direct reports, leave for the
day. Compared to me, in at 5:00 a.m. and home very, very late after a day of constant problems, this seemed
unfair. It was not until reaching his position that I realized just how wrong my viewpoint was. His hours
were longer and stress orders of magnitude greater than anything I could have imagined.
Empathy for others is not easy unless you have had the opportunity to walk in their shoes and view the
world from their perspective. However, you can begin the process and become a much better communicator
by simply trying. When you talk with your peers, co-workers, family, or friends, do it with an open mind.
Listen with your ears and eyes. Remember it is not the words spoken, but their body language—especially
their eyes—that conveys the true meaning of what they are saying. Consider the person you are talking to.
What are they feeling? What are they really trying to say? Do not just look at them and listen to their words.
More than 2,000 clients have leveraged the knowledge and experience of
LCE’s subject matter experts to improve economic performance of their
More than 2,000 clients have leveraged the knowledge and experi-
asset-intensive manufacturing and processing plants, mining operations,
ence of LCE’s subject matter experts to improve economic perfor-
energy generation plants,
mance of and education
their and health care
asset-intensive facilities. The cul-
manufacturing and processing plants
mination of 40mining
years ofoperations,
application, more than 500 years
energy generation of combined
plants, subject
and education and
matter expert experience, and thousands of successful implementations health care facilities.
in government The
and the culmination
private of 40posi-
sector uniquely years of application, mor
tions LCE as a leader in performance improvement. LCE’s proprietary, than 500 years of combined subject matter
holistic, data-driven approach enables clients expert experience, and
to achieve
thousands
leadership positions of successful
in their implementations
core businesses, leverage their core in government
strengths and theopportunities,
to grow adjacent private sectorand uniquely positions LCE as a leade
operate at superior
performanceinlevels
performance improvement.
that drive industry-leading LCE’s proprietary, holistic, data-driven approach enables clients to achieve leader-
results.
ship positions in their core businesses, leverage their core strengths to grow adjacent opportunities, and operate
at superior
Life Cycle Engineering performance
(LCE) levels
was founded in that
1976 by twodrive industry-leading
civil service results.
engineers working for the government in Washington, DC.
They worked directly with the United States Navy to pioneer the application of reliability engineering – and specifically predictive
Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) was founded in 1976 by two civil service engineers working for the government in
technologies and condition monitoring – to be used in nuclear submarines.
Washington, DC. They worked directly with the United States Navy to pioneer the application of reliability engi-
neering – and specifically predictive technologies and condition monitoring – to be used in nuclear submarines.
Today, LCE is a privately held company with headquarters in Charleston, South Carolina, providing engineering solutions for
That led to larger questions about how they could monitor and extend the reliability of additional Navy systems,
private industry, public entities,
particularly government organizations
the mechanical and electricalandsystems,
the military, in North
during America
their andlife
entire around the world.
cycle.
Today, LCE is a privately held company with headquarters in Charleston, South Carolina, providing engineering so
Life Cycle Excellence helps large, asset-intensive companies improve operatio-
lutions for private industry, public entities, government organizations and the military, in North America and
nal performance. Improving productivity of your assets requires understanding
around the world.
where your current systems are underperforming, developing processes and
LCE’s Reliability Consulting Group capabilities
provides to close performance
consulting, gaps, and
services andcreating a culture
education thathelp
that supports
organizations reduce
risk, improve operating performance and engage their employees. LCE’s reliability team ranges
continuous improvement. Our experience helping hundreds of clients is a talented, diverse
group
from multi-site, successfully
organizational managing to
transformations multiple, complex
diagnosing projects
and fixing a specificsimultaneously… around the globe. Our team includes
production line problem.
subject matter experts in a variety of disciplines from reliability engineering to planning and scheduling to lean /
Six Sigma.
Our team includes subject matter experts in a variety of disciplines from reliability engineering to planning and scheduling to
lean /Six Sigma. All of our consultants hold an advanced degree or an accreditation within their profession and are certified Pro-
sci® ChangeAll of our consultants
Management hold an advanced degree or an accreditation within their profession and are certified
Professionals.
Prosci® Change Management Professionals.
Life Cycle Institute is LCE’s human performance practice that integrates
Life Cycle Institute is LCE’s human performance practice that inte-
learning, change management and project management. The Institute offers 16
grates learning, change management and project management. The
courses attended by more than 1200 students from more than 200 companies
Institute offers 22 courses attended by more than 1200 students
each year. In addition
from to individual
more than courses, Life Cycle Institute
200 companies offersInuniver-
each year. addition to individual
sity-backed certification programs in Reliability Engineering and Maintenance certification
courses, Life Cycle Institute offers university-backed
Management. Our programs
universityinpartners
Reliability Engineering
include and Maintenance
Clemson University, The Ohio Management.
Our university partners include Clemson University, The Ohio State University, University of Kansas and University
State University, University of Kansas and University of Alabama
of Alabama.
A1 A2 B2

Ebook R Keith Mobleys Reflections On Excellence Be3bee7d

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook R Keith Mobleys Reflections On Excellence Be3bee7d

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R.

Wishing you much success,

Excellence Requires Culture Change

Managers Shape Performance

Solving Problems and Making Decisions

Behaviors Make the Difference

There Are No Silver Bullets

retain sufficient market some assurance of success.

I’m reminded of the anonymous quote everyone reliability. At best,

You Cannot Mandate Change

of the organization have is interpreted as an executive-developed policy deploy-

effective. Leveraging goals, effectively communicate these goals to all leaders,

What should we do to I am absolutely convinced that the information man-

that is conducive to opti- In my experience it is unusual to find an information

step is to change the way

People Do What You Inspect, Not What You Expect

directly observing or week to spending time on the plant floor—listening to

operations. ness and its drivers. In this heavily union environment,

This approach has never worked and never will,

Seek Perfection; Never Settle for Anything Less

For instance, a client forced to carry far too much fin​

My generation was conditioned to treat roadblocks chosen to do nothing -

Making the Same Mistake Twice is Unforgivable

and as a company. make the same one twice.

One of my favorite examples of working hard not

Here are my fundamentals for working smart:

Because of my background in reliability engineering,

Perhaps because of this lesson, total strangers, as well

Too many of us enter conversations with preset Considering that God

You might also like

For instance, a client forced to carry far too much fin