When “1 Who” replaces “5 Whys”

 A company or a business unit culture is a set of group norms, behaviors and underlying shared values that help keep these norms in place according to the renowned management guru Kotter (www.kotterinternational.com). The leaders and managers in an organization play a very vital role in setting examples for either undesirable or good behavior. Some very common place undesirable behaviors have to be called out which in itself is a reflection of one aspect of the culture! I want to highlight one example using the context of problem solving.

It is usual during project execution, we encounter technical problems. In Japanese tradition and culture, technical problem solving is strongly linked to 5 Whys. To describe it in simple terms, it is an approach where the team drills down to a root cause by asking why such a problem occurred. Usually if one drills down by asking 5 times, one can get to the root of the problem. Then there is 3 legged 5 Why approach which looks at immediate problem being solved, how such a problem slipped through the verification process and how such a slippage can be prevented in the future by making a systemic change. The above is a desirable process and hence a good culture.

However in the same context, what can be an undesirable manager behavior and hence the culture? In simple terms when 1 Who replaced 5 Whys !

Many times managers want a “scape goat” and hence the “1 Who”. It is common manager behavior when problems come up to immediately start asking “who” messed it up instead of 5 whys. There are several problems with this culture. As you can imagine it most often would be that one junior engineer at the bottom of the food chain who gets punished. “1 who” invariably makes it personal and thus losing an opportunity to be objective and tackle the issue at hand.  Manager behavior gets repeated by others in the team for issues in the future. Not to mention how that engineer grows up to be a manager. The ultimate damage is to the organization because the problem solving capability gets stunted and hence it remains mediocre.

Don't be "That Librarian"

What kind of “librarian"? Read on. 

I heard this story from several sources and reusing the same. One day a man is in a library and walks up to a librarian and requests him to issue a book. The librarian looks at the book for making an entry into his records. The title of the book is "How to commit suicide in 101 ways?" Then the librarian asks the man "Sir, can you please tell me who will return this book to the library?"

The librarian is measured by his boss on how good he is protecting the library books. How many books got issued and how many got returned? In the above case, of course from his perspective, the librarian is doing a great job, because he may be confident that the man will find at least one way to commit suicide. If there is even a little bit contextual understanding in the job, then the librarian would have asked the man with concern why he is borrowing such a book?! How he can be of help to him to face his challenge?

So even in our work, if we keep aside the “contextual” part of the job, even without realizing, we will end up being "librarians of the above nature". Some Examples from design and engineering: 

a. Do you implement the requirement as stated in word? Does not matter whether it makes sense or not in the big picture?

b. Do you follow a check list for doing code reviews? Don't know whether the time was spent on actually studying the code in its overall context?

c. Do you test a requirement writing many test cases even though the requirement in the first place does not make sense?

Let us not become "such Librarians".

Caveat: The intention of this note is not to shed low light on Librarians. I have great respect for them. They are great because they protect the books, hence knowledge and ensure that more people get to read books and gain knowledge. I have used this only for symbolism.

There is "Good" Jugaad and "Bad" Jugaad"

There is a lot of interest in the term “Jugaad” in the last couple of years. This term is almost synonymous to “Indian Innovation”. There are also a couple of books that were released which are definitely interesting reading and not mention hundreds of articles in business literature. At the same time, there are also several comments on the same “Jugaad” as something that is not desirable. So is there “Good” Jugaad and “Bad” Jugaad?  Yes, I think so. It is like Good Cholesterol (HDL) and Bad Cholesterol (LDL) we have got used to hearing from our doctors to explain in a layman’s language, in this case for us Engineers. Bad Cholesterol contributes to plaques formation in the arteries restricting blood circulation due to clogging. Good cholesterol scavenges bad cholesterol away from the arteries and gets it to liver to break it down thus reducing the plaque formation. Hence possibility of a cardiac arrest is reduced.

According to Wiki, Jugaad is a colloquial Punjabi-Dogri word that can mean an innovative fix or a simple work-around, used for solutions that bend rules, or a resource that can be used as such, or a person who can solve a complicated issue within a specific context. So let me first elaborate a bit on what is so “Bad” about this. 

Some examples:

• ·         When a jugaad approach is taken only to provide a quick fix to a problem purely because there is short-term pressure.
• ·         When the approach is used to by-pass well documented engineering processes ("bend rules") because the engineers are either not willing to put extra effort to take the recommended approach only keeping in mind finishing the task.
• ·         When this approach is taken to "cut corners" in name of simplifying or using resource constraint as a pretext and in the end delivers a much below quality output.
• ·         Using a material just because it is available at hand which is not supposed to be used to solve an immediate issue

One of the key issues with this approach is that the solutions provided are just for that context and that instant. So it is neither scalable nor sustainable. More often than not, a jugaad fix will be a temporary relief.

So what about Good Jugaad? Some examples:

• ·         To come up with a simple and elegant solution which fits the context "eliminating the bells and whistles"
• ·         Applying a solution from a different context innovatively not getting into the trap of “does not apply here, because we have always done it this way”
• ·         Solving a specific problem with far lesser resources through a "deeper understanding" of the problem and context of usage with efficient team work
• ·         Innovative way of solving problems with the same rigor and scrutiny for longer term applicability

There is bad and good jugaad in our workplaces and we see them every day. Bad jugaad behavior like LDL will constrict the long-term capability of a workplace and eventually lead to the death of the workplace due to “innovation arrest”. So we as managers have to act like Good Cholesterol in the blood stream. We have to discourage bad jugaad behavior and replace them with good jugaad behavior so that we can build long-term sustainable innovation culture within our workplaces.

Importance of Articulation

Importance of Articulation - A step towards achieving excellence!!

We as managers and leaders have to constantly motivate our smart engineers to deliver “Best in Class Output”. Of course we have to then know what is “Best in Class”, for which we have to look around and seek references from inside as well as outside. Is it enough our our engineers just to do good work? Let me elaborate.

Workplace reviews are not new to us. Every day we take part in some reviews or the other, in some cases we are the reviewers and in some, our work is being reviewed. It could be our own gemba walks during which we interact with our teams to see and hear from them about their work. Or these could be occasions where there are executive visitors, managers and customers visiting. 

However during all these reviews or interactions, one key enabler for effective communication is better “Articulation". It is not enough that our engineers just do good work but be able to articulate how and why it is best in class. This applies to all kinds of engineering output, be it Systems specifications, Design, Architecture, or the Code they have written or the Tests they are doing or the Simulation they have done, Electrical hardware they design or a mechanical part design or for that matter any engineering output! We have to encourage our engineers to also create high quality content to support the actual work-package to be able to not only preserve the knowledge for future but also help to explain to others as to how good they are.

There is one simple principle we can adopt. For anything we do, we should be able to create documentation or content that can meaningfully describe about the work itself and why the work is “Best in Class” in

- 2 minutes (Elevator pitch)
- 20 minutes (for busy executives or experts)
- 200 minutes (3 hours with a break for experts)
- 400 minutes (one full day with adequate breaks for experts who have traveled from far or who are willing to spend the time)

Once our engineers start creating such content and get into the habit of peer reviews internally and outside of their teams, they will hone their skills of Articulation. This then will automatically drive excellence in the work we do.

Can we Chase Excellence?

I wanted to continue my earlier story of Stone Chippers - please see https://plus.google.com/107890337380930166162/posts/SBXrYtN1DzW

The stranger to the village goes further ahead. He then sees a fantastic Stone Sculpture of an Elephant kept aside. He sees this idol and is struck with awe on the beauty of it. He then sees a worker working on another idol which seems to be very similar to the one lying aside. He is surprised and asks the stone worker as to why he is working on an exactly same idol. The worker says "the other one is damaged ! :-("

The stranger is surprised. He says he cannot see any defect. The stone worker says that if he observes very closely near the leg, there is a small hair crack. The stranger asks where do they intend to place the elephant idol for which the stone worker replies "20 feet up above". So the stranger asks "why the fuss, in any case the people won't be able to see it. Also the idol looks so beautiful?" The stone worker says "quality is to satisfy myself, my heart and "the God" in the temple and not for others who see".

It may be worthwhile for all of us to think whether we can set such a high standard for ourselves in what we do at the workplace. This is especially true when most often we chase schedules and just want work done rather than quality of that output. Can we Chase Excellence instead?

Are you helping to visualize the "Big Picture"?

Are we helping to visualize the Big Picture?

A simple story for illustration, I am sure many of you would have heard this. The story is not new but I think it has great relevance to us today:

A traveler is just at the outskirts of a village and sees several stone workers chipping away at stone. He asks one worker what he was doing. The worker replies that he is just chipping away stone as he has been told by his supervisor. Then the traveler asks the next worker the same question. The second one says that he is earning a living by chipping at stones. Then the third worker says that he is chipping stones to contribute to the grand vision of building a marvelous temple !! 

Same activity but the Picture becomes Bigger and Better !! 

It is so very important for us to help our people to connect to and visualize the bigger picture. If we do so, I am sure it would help us contribute a far higher value to our work as leaders.