the prevalence of leader standard work at old...
TRANSCRIPT
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 1
THE PREVALENCE OF LEADER STANDARD WORK AT OLD MUTUAL
A Research Report Presented to
The Graduate School of Business
University of Cape Town
in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the
Masters of Business Administration Degree
By
Keyur M. Dave (MOD542)
9 December 2011
Supervisor: Dr Anton Grutter
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 2
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ......................................................................4
LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................8 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 10
1.1 RESEARCH AREA AND PROBLEM ............................................................................................ 10 1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND SCOPE ......................................................................................... 11
1.3 RESEARCH ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................... 12
1.4 RESEARCH ETHICS.............................................................................................................. 12
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 13
2.1 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 13
2.1.1 LEAN THINKING ................................................................................... .............13 2.1.2 LEAN IN FINANCIAL SERVICES ...............................................................................16 2.1.3 SUSTAINABILITY OF LEAN INTERVENTIONS ...............................................................19 2.1.4 LEAN LEADERSHIP ........................................................................................ ......21 2.1.5 MANN’S (2010) DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPT OF LEADER STANDARD WORK .............25 2.1.6 LEADER STANDARD WORK AS A CONCEPT CONTRASTED WITH LEAN LEADERSHIP ....................29 2.1.7 LEADERSHIP ROLES AT VARIOUS ORGANISATIONAL LEVELS ...........................................30 2.1.8 PROPORTION OF TIME SPENT ON STANDARD WORK AND DEGREE OF STRUCTURE
STANDARDISATION ........................................................................................ .....35
2.2 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 36
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 38
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH AND STRATEGY ..................................................................................... 38
3.1.1 THE DEDUCTIVE APPROACH .................................................................................38 3.1.2 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ...........................................................39 3.1.3 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................41
3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN, DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS.................................. 42
3.2.1 CASE STUDY METHOD ........................................................................................43 3.2.2 SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS ...........................................................................44
3.3 SAMPLING ....................................................................................................................... 45
3.4 RESEARCH CRITERIA ........................................................................................................... 46
3.4.1 RELIABILITY, REPLICATION AND VALIDITY ................................................................46 3.4.2 TRUSTWORTHINESS ..................................................................................... ......47
3.5 ANALYSIS METHODS ........................................................................................................... 48
3.5.1 PRIMARY ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................48 3.5.2 CODING ................................................................................................... .......48
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 3
3.6 RESEARCH DESIGN SUMMARY ............................................................................49
3.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................. 52
4 RESEARCH FINDINGS ...................................................................... 53
4.1 LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOURS AND PRACTICES .............................................................54 4.2 ELEMENTS STANDARDISED THROUGH DAILY ROUTINES ..............................................57 4.3 REGULAR ACTIVITIES (WEEKLY / QUARTERLY) .........................................................61 4.4 ATTITUDES TOWARDS LSW ELEMENTS RELEVANT TO BUSINESS LEADERS........................63 4.5 INTERPRETATION OF LEAN LEADERSHIP AND LEADER STANDARD WORK ........................68
5 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS ................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
6 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 78
7 FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES .............................................. 81
8 RESEARCH PLAN ............................................................................. 82
8.1 GANTT CHART .................................................................................................................. 82
8.2 COST-BUDGET .................................................................................................................. 84
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY ..............................................................85
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE ....................................................................................89
APPENDIX 2: GLOSSARY OF SALIENT LEAN TERMINOLOGY ..........................................................90
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 4
LIST OF TABLES
1. Examples of Waste in Financial Services..................................................................18
2. Dimensions of Lean management ……………………………………………………….23
3. Leadership roles in sustaining Lean……………………………………………………...32
4. Typical Items in Leader Standard Work………………………………………………....33
5. Characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods…………………...…...40
6. Case choice considerations…………………………………………………………...….43
7. Validity and reliability considerations…………………………………………………...47
8. Research steps…………………………………………………………………………....50
9. Respondent profiles……………………………………………………………...............53
10. Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work…….........................………………….....68
11. Adoption of Leader Standard Work………………………………………………….......74
12. Budget…………………………………………………………………………….…........82
LIST OF FIGURES
1. PDCA Management ………………………………………………………………….......15
2. Results of Lean application in financial institutions………………………………..….....16
3. Lean uptake and efficiencies……………………………………………………...…........17
4. Post intervention improvement experience ……………….………………………..........19
5. Post intervention activities ......................................................................................20
6. Command and control thinking vs. Systems Thinking…………………………….....…..22
7. Percentage time spent on Leader Standard Work and degree of structure…………........35
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 5
Plagiarism declaration
I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend that it is
one’s own.
I have used a recognised convention for citation and referencing. Each significant
contribution and quotation from the works of other people has been attributed, cited and
referenced.
I certify that this submission is my own work.
I have not allowed and will not allow anyone to copy this essay with the intention of
passing it off as his or her own work
Signed: _________________________________
Keyur M. Dave
December 2011
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to sincerely thank the Higher Power, H.H. Pramukh Swami, H. H. Bhakti
Charu Swami, my Supervisor Dr. Anton Grutter for his guidance, direction and unwavering
support, the staff and students at UCT GSB, family, friends and colleagues.
I would also like to personally acknowledge the following people for their encouragement
and support Papa, Ma, Ba, Hemant, S’ruti, and in alphabetical order: Adrian, Bartley,
Belinda, Bertus, Dee, Dhevan, Dhevanya, Eran, Giselle, Hannes, Heloise, Hersheel, Jacky,
Jacus, Jasmiya, Jeeten, Jenny, Kalpana, Karen, Kavindra, Kayana, Kerryn, Las, Lebo, Lily,
Lynda, Mbali, Miles, Mogam, Mubeen, Natrisha, Nerisa, Nimol, Nirdev, Nishen, Nishkar,
Poovi, Preeya, Rajesh, Roland, Rose, Senior Leadership Group (SLG), Santuree, Shirley,
Sudhesh, Swarna, Tanya, Tejan, Thabo, Vanesan, Wha Suck, Yash.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 7
ABSTRACT
Leader Standard Work is a relatively new term in academia, derived from Lean. In order to
better understand the practical application of these practices at the senior management level,
executives from a service and administration unit committed to following Lean philosophy
were interviewed. The purpose of this report is to describe whether and if so, how, these
leaders practice elements of Leader Standard Work. This paper takes the form of a single
case study, utilising a qualitative approach coupled with deductive reasoning from the
respondent community. Leader Standard Work has not been validated empirically.
Keywords: Lean, Lean Leadership, Leader Standard Work, sustain, gemba, visual
management, culture, Executive, behaviour, practices
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 8
List of Acronyms
Acronym Description
BL Business Leader
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CI Continuous Improvement
DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
FAIS Financial Advisory and Intermediary Service Act
FMCG Fast Moving Consumer Goods
GSB Graduate School of Business at the University of Cape Town
HR Human Resources
LL Lean Leadership
LMS Lean Management System
LSW Leader Standard Work
MBA Master of Business Administration
MDP Management Development Programme
OM Old Mutual
OMSTA Old Mutual Service Technology and Administration
PA Personal Assistant
PDCA Plan, Do, Check, Act
PFA Pension Funds Adjudicator
PI Process Improvement
PM Plant Manager
SLA Service Level Agreements
SLG Senior Leadership Group
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 9
SW Standard Work
TL Team Leader
TQM Total Quality Management
UCT University of Cape Town
US United States of America
VP Vice President
VSM Value Stream Managers
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 10
1. INTRODUCTION
Experiences of firms that have adopted Lean management typically reflect a lull, slowdown
or decline in performance following initial deployment. In a 1997 survey of United States
based manufacturing plants by Industry Week, approximately 70% of respondents had
applied Lean as an improvement methodology. What the results revealed, however, was that
less than a quarter of those firms achieved significant improvements and only 2% fully
achieved their objectives (Blanchard, 2007).
While many researchers have argued reasons for the slowdown, others have conveyed a
belief in a set of attributes that can, to greater or lesser extents, leverage improvement. A
recurring topic in academic discourse is the role of Lean Leadership in this regard.
In this research report, the researcher examines the framework of Leader Standard Work in
the context of Lean, and explores its application within a significant component of the
South African financial administration services industry. In order to set context, the
literature review begins with a high-level overview of Lean thinking, followed by an
overview of Lean in financial services and then focuses on elements of leadership that
sustain organisational improvement.
This report stems from the premise that Leader Standard Work is the “engine for the lean
management system” (Mann, 2010, p.51). Mann (2010) further asserts that Leader Standard
Work is the foremost leverage tool in the Lean management system and progresses to
describe the standard elements at distinct strata of leadership. The focus of this report is on
the senior management to executive layer.
1.1 Research Area and problem
This descriptive study aims to compare standardised work practices for leaders as proposed
primarily by Mann (2010) and, to a lesser extent, Emiliani (2006) with those in existence at
Old Mutual.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 11
1.2 Research questions and scope
The researcher applied a qualitative case method to explore leadership practices in use in
OMSTA (Old Mutual Service Technology and Administration) – a core operational
segment of dual listed, London headquartered, financial services company, Old Mutual plc.
This component of Old Mutual had noted significant Rand savings, efficiency and quality
enhancements, awarded in customer servicing and administration, as well as improvements
in staff morale – which OMSTA had largely attributed to the adoption of a Lean philosophy
in 2004 (Respondent four, 2011).
The objective thus was to describe the standard elements of leader behaviour and contrast
these real world examples to the theoretical framework of Leader Standard Work, in an
environment which continued to undergo a Lean transformation, and following the premise
that leaders work towards sustaining improvements. It is however beyond the scope of this
descriptive study to test the effect of Leader Standard Work on sustainability of
organisational improvement.
Primary question:
Against this backdrop: the researcher intended to describe the role of “Leader Standard
Work” at OMSTA, within a senior leadership group.
Is there evidence of Leader Standard Work as described by Mann (2010) in Old
Mutual?
Secondary questions:
What is the level of practice of Leader Standard Work against Mann’s framework
(2010)?
How do leaders interpret Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work?
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 12
1.3 Research Assumptions
It was assumed that the researcher’s perspective and assumptions would have an influence
on the conducting of the research; this also included but was not limited to the interpretation
of the findings and the theory that emerged from the research.
From a practical research perspective, there was, furthermore, an assumption that leadership
staff in OMSTA (Cape Town) would be accessible.
1.4 Research Ethics
The research has been conducted in compliance with the UCT/GSB research guidelines.
The proposed research has no intended potential harm for the survey participants from the
financial services industry and/or the companies of the financial information used. Despite
the challenges of openness and transparency as well as accessibility of information no
methods of coercion were utilised. There is an ethical obligation to process and analyse the
data independently, accurately and without influence or bias towards the results in any way
or the other.
All analysis has taken place in line with principles outlined within the methodology and any
required deviations from the principles have been fully disclosed.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 13
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Discussion
2.1.1 Lean Thinking
Womack and Jones (2003) contend the foundation of Lean Thinking is to vastly
improve customer value while minimizing waste: doing more with less.
“Toyota’s success has inspired tens of thousands of organizations to adopt some form of a
lean program. The term was introduced in The Machine That Changed the World and later
in Lean Thinking as a new paradigm that was as monumental as the shift from craft-style to
mass production. The focus of lean is on the customer and the value stream. You can say it
is a pursuit of perfection by constantly eliminating waste through problem solving” (Liker &
Rother, 2010, p.1).
Companies adopting Lean transformation strategies understand the paramount importance
of customer value and focus their key processes to continuously foster it. The ultimate goal
is to provide perfect value to the customer through a perfect value creation process that has
zero waste (muda) (Rother & Shook, 2003).
In order to attain this goal, Lean Thinking proposes transformation: changing the focus of
management from optimizing separate technologies, assets, and vertical departments to
optimizing the flow of products and services through entire value streams that flow
horizontally across technologies, assets, and departments to customers.
“The lean producer combines the advantages of craft and mass production, while avoiding
the high cost of the former and the rigidity of the later… Lean production is ‘lean’ because
it uses less of everything compared with mass production – half the human effort in the
factory, half the manufacturing space, half the investment in tools, half the engineering
hours to develop a new product in half the time. Also, it requires keeping far less than half
the inventory on site, results in many fewer defects and produces a greater and ever growing
variety of products” (Womack et al, 1990, p.4).
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 14
Eliminating waste along entire value streams, instead of at isolated points, streamlines
productivity to a far greater extent when compared with traditional business systems.
Companies are able to expedite throughput times, along with greater variety, greater quality,
and lower cost.
Whilst Lean is concerned with reducing waste at all levels, it is also about changing
corporate culture.
Lean thinkers recognize the value of time, and its importance in judging a process. Womack
and Jones (2003) apply this thinking when illustrating the mapping of provision and
consumption processes. The rule is simple: waiting is waste.
Organisations often view Lean as a process, whereas they should embrace it as a
philosophy. The thought processes behind the actual mechanical and tactical processes are
paramount to the success of an endeavour (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006).
Hines, Holweg and Rich (2004) view Lean as a concept which has evolved over time and
will continue to do so. As a result of this, confusion has often arisen as to what is Lean and
what is not: this gap in knowledge has led to a lack of sustainability in many Lean
transformation strategies.
Yet, Meier and Forrester (2002) insist that the true benefit of Lean is the overall
strengthening of the system. If applied properly, the Lean methods will make any
shortcomings in the system appear quickly and the shortcomings will have profound
impacts. The PDCA framework is frequently referred to in Lean material, as a practical
manifestation of Lean thinking.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 15
Figure 1: PDCA Management
Source: Lean transformation-Understanding the hidden rules of engagement (Luckman,
2010)
Lean thinking and implementation represents a self-sustaining environment, with the
proviso that the value stream is identified and the cultural differences in the organisation
highlighted, and transformed. Therefore the success of a Lean programme involves not only
the technical aspects, but the embracing of Lean as a philosophy (Bhasin & Burcher, 2006),
and not simply as a means to an end.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 16
2.1.2 Lean in Financial Services
Roca et al. (2006, p.6) using the following definition of Lean, contextualise its application
in financial services:
“Lean manufacturing is a production optimization methodology that relentlessly seeks out
and eliminates activities that do not create value for customers. Its outcomes are
characterized by production systems that:
1. Minimize cycle times;
2. Optimize touch times; and
3. Generate continuous production flows.
…Lean aligns organizations to a single outcome—customer value”
The word ‘manufacturing’ was a source of much resistance in application of Lean in all
fields but Roca et al. (2006) contend there was growing recognition of Lean’s applicability
in financial services, triggered by changes in the business environment, as shown in the
graphic below.
Figure 2: Results of Lean application in financial institutions
Source: Lean manufacturing for financial services: Delivering value by eliminating waste.
(Roca, J et al, 2006, p.27)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 17
These fundamental changes in the economics of the industry led firms to experiment with
new philosophies to improve their businesses. By 2006, 38% of financial services firms in
the United States had adopted Lean, realising significant gains.
Figure 3: Lean uptake and efficiencies
Source: Lean manufacturing for financial services: Delivering value by eliminating waste.
(Roca, J et al, 2006, p.27)
By adapting waste in manufacturing to the equivalent in financial services, firms were able
to reduce waste by 40% in operating costs and improve efficiency ratios. The table below
shows the link between waste concepts in manufacturing and non-manufacturing (i.e.
financial services) firms.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 18
Table 1: Examples of Waste in Financial Services
Type of Waste Examples from Manufacturing Examples from Financial
Services
Defects
- Scrap
- Rework
- Lost capacity due to mistake
- Errors and rework
- Work not meeting requirements
- Missing information
Waiting
- Machine cycle time
- Equipment downtime
- Waiting for materials and tools
- Waiting time between batch
processing
- Waiting for information,
paperwork and approval
- Equipment downtime
- Waiting time between batch
processing
Processing
- Poorly functioning machinery
- Inadequate tools
- Equipment with unbalanced flow
- Unnecessary steps
- Multiple handoffs
- Lack of standard procedures
Motion
- Repetitive and unnecessary movement
of parts
- Poor ergonomic design causing people
to make unnecessary movement
- Walking to deliver paperwork
- Chasing needed information or
data
- Lack of ergonomic workspace
design
Overproduction
- Producing more than is required to
meet customer demand
- Running machines and/or making
parts to keep people and machines busy
- Doing more than is needed
- Too many reports, reviews, or
approvals
- Batching paperwork
Inventory
- High obsolescence and write-offs
- Producing what we can versus what
the customer demands
- Excessive backlog or work to be
processed
- Too much paper to be handled,
processed, and filed
Transportation
- Long travel distances
- Unplanned premium freight
- Large batch containers
- Paper-based versus electronic data
transfer
- Inefficient interoffice mail systems
- Routing for unnecessary approvals
and processing
Source: Lean manufacturing for financial services: Delivering value by eliminating waste.
(Roca, J et al, 2006, p.35)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 19
2.1.3 Sustainability of Lean Interventions
Based on surveys of failures and successes of firms that have implemented Lean, Bhasin
and Burcher (2006) argue that the implementation record of firms reflects that those which
viewed Lean as a philosophy succeeded, while the firms that viewed Lean as “another
strategy”, process or “set of tactics”, failed.
Sheridan (2000) also infers a longer term journey in suggesting that it takes: “three years to
become competent in applying such tools as set-up reduction, standard work or cell building
and five years to instil a firm belief in all the tools”.
While Allen (2000, p. 2) likens application of Lean to systems thinking in his contention:
“that Lean manufacturing is a system approach. Each approach builds on the previous one,
anchoring the systems as a whole . . . introducing a scattering of lean tools that are not
properly used . . . simply bewilders the workforce”. The researcher’s observation from this
article is that firms either approach Lean as a tool-set driven, short-term project, to be
delegated to a group of ring fenced staff – or apply a systems approach.
In Bateman’s model of sustainability (2005, p.264), four stages contribute towards process
improvement (PI) in the aftermath of a Lean workshop: diagnostic, workshop, follow-up
and post follow-up.
Figure 4: Post intervention improvement experience
Source: Sustainability:the elusive element of process improvement (Bateman, 2005, p264)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 20
Bateman (2005) contends that the pattern of improvement (i.e. classes A-E, as depicted in
the graph above, contrasting percentage improvement over time) is directly related to the
four variables alluded to above; as contained in the schematic below.
Figure 5: Post intervention activities
Classification Improvement Maintain Close out Continuous
in workshop? new procedure technical issues? improvement?
Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E
Source: Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement
(Bateman, 2005, p. 265)
The key finding of Bateman’s research was the identification of three general enablers,
which facilitated the kind of behaviour that leads to the four conditions tabulated above,
being met.
These were described as following:
“(1) The need to follow the PDCA loop in closing out actions.
(2) The need for an enabling process to allow CI to take place.
(3) A supportive management infrastructure.” (2005, p. 272)
Mann (2010) postulates that out of a variety of tools (for improvement and sustainability in
a lean application environment), Leader Standard Work provides the most leverage. The
next section will therefore explore literature on the subject of Lean Leadership; as a
foundation for discussion of Leader Standard Work.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 21
2.1.4 Lean Leadership
“Only management by science through constant experimentation to answer questions can
produce sustainable improvements in value streams.” (Jim Womack, repeating his often
quoted mantra at the 2008 Lean Africa Summit)
In Freedom from Command and Control (Seddon, 2005), the author encourages leaders to
change the way they think about management. It introduces a fundamental characteristic of
Lean management – workers need to be in control of their work rather than being controlled
by managers.
The essence of command and control lies in top down decision making; separation of
decision making from day to day work, and the perception that management is about
managing people and budgets. It marks an evolution in thinking: starting from from
Taylorism1 (the advent of scientific management) to the development of mass production
(by Henry Ford2), culminating in Alfred Sloan’s3 quantitative and measurement-based
management paradigm. (Seddon, 2005).
The basis of Seddon’s argument is that thinking governs performance; i.e. unless you
change the way you think, your system will not change and therefore its performance will
not change. The recommendation is to manage the organisation as a system and the
differences lie in the design and management of work.
At the heart of the management challenge lies taking a systems view – from the outside in
and from the perspective of the customer rather than the organisation; managing flow as
opposed to managing by budgets which dilutes purpose; and being much closer to the work.
1 Frederick Taylor (1856-1915). Principles of Scientific Management (1911) set foundations in scientific
management and work efficiency. He devised a means of detailing a division of labour in time-and-motion
studies and a performance-based wage system. (Vanderbilt University (n.d.); (Hindle, T., 2008)
2 Henry Ford (1863-1947) , Ford Motor Company founder. His model of economic expansion and
technological progress entailed producing high volumes of standardized, low-priced products using highly
mechanized large-scale manufacturing processes and unskilled labour. (Holland, J., 2005)
3 Alfred Sloan (1875-1966) former President and Chairman of General Motors. He developed a disciplined,
professional management system that decentralized operations and coordinated centralized policy control and
administration. (Hindle, T., 2008)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 22
“In the systems solution, measures are derived from purpose (not the budget), and are used
by the people who do the work to understand and improve it… it encourages people to bring
their brains to work” (Seddon, 2005, p.xvi).
The figure below highlights the differences between the two schools of thought.
Figure 6: Command and control thinking vs. Systems Thinking
Command and Systems Thinking Control Thinking top-down perspective outside-in
functional specialization design demand, value and flow
separated from work decision-making integrated with work
budget, output, activity measures related to purpose,
standards, productivity capability, variation
extrinsic motivation intrinsic
manage budgets, management ethic act on the system
manage people
contractual attitude to customers what matters?
Source: Freedom from command and control (Seddon, J. 2005, p. xiv)
According to Hines et al (2008, 2010), leaders aim to foster change in order to thereby
create an environment where change is approached as a norm. The authors describe the
purpose of leadership as establishing direction, developing a vision, and implementing
strategic changes to achieve the vision. Hines et al (2008, 2010) contend that leader should
inspire people to welcome change, and their change strategies should thus involve: aligning
people; organisational cooperation by directing the workforce by words and deed; and
influencing and effecting the creation of teams who understand the vision and accept their
designated roles in the strategic process.
In a presentation on Lean Leadership, Jim Womack (2008) said that every organization
must address the 3Ps: purpose, processes and people. He believes that most organizations
struggle because the purpose is not clearly defined, the processes are not clearly specified
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 23
and the people are not fully engaged. In his view these are the responsibility of the leaders
and managers of Lean organizations.
The father and son duo Michael and Freddy Balle take this concept further in The Lean
Manager (2009), advocating a fairly comprehensive eight dimensioned management
approach. This approach can be applied by any level of manager, for which they describe
three distinct strata of management, namely CEO (chief executive officer) and executive
management, middle management and supervisor / first line management. The dimensions
are described in the table below:
Table 2: Dimensions of Lean Management
Name of Dimension Description of Dimension
Customers First - Treat the next person in the line as the customer
- Own and fix quality problems daily through kaizen
- Improve operations by working with staff
- Organise people to develop knowledge daily continuously
Everybody Every Day - Accompany customers on daily quality visits to understand the
quality issues to develop relationships and broaden networks
- Apply PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) consistently and liberally
- Ensure that staff confront common problems at every shift to
improve their ability to solve problems together
- Organise teams so that staff learn to work together
- Involve everybody, everyday
- Create daily opportunities to discuss what really goes on with
staff specialists
- Manage staff as individuals
Go and See -Inculcate judgement competence by testing hypotheses through
first hand, hands on experience
- Build consensus by getting people to agree on the problem
(make the problem visible)
- Achieve goals at the desired speed by checking regularly where
people are in their implementation and helping them if they run
into difficulties
- Empower people by involving people
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 24
Managing means
improving
- Look for opportunities to apply kaizen in daily practice by
reacting to daily problems
- Conduct cross functional workshops on specific subjects
- Implement visual management to help people measure and
manage their own performance and engage with their work to
improve performance
- Implement quality circles (whereby operators of one team
regularly get together to resolve a detailed problem)
- Make the right person aware of the problem being faced
Clear Direction - Link strategy deployment to shop floor visual control:
- Identify current objectives and progress against them
- Use these to compare the next periods targets against
- Assess the impact of your improvement activities against these
targets
- Decide on key activities for the year and set this up in a plan that
can be deployed by topic or department
- Provide people with a clear sense of what’s going on and where
you are taking them
- Draw out a “North Star” (method for keeping people thinking
and doing the right things by defining the key dimensions and
extent to which they should be improved)
- Convey this message via visual aid, to the shop floor
Teamwork -Stimulate cross functional teamwork
- Bring staff together to solve typical problems in gradually more
and more detail
- Create shared understanding; help people to engage together to
solve similar problems
- Capitalise on and leverage existing knowledge by encouraging
staff to share information that only they would know and is
relevant to the problem
- Grow “T” people, i.e. people who have breadth of understanding
of the whole process that surrounds them (horizontal) and possess
depth of knowledge in their specialist field
- Empower teams by providing process stop authority (i.e.
stopping the process flow when a problem is detected), and
involve staff in the design of their work environment
Mutual Trust Trust is formed when people feel that their managers take them
seriously and that they are listened to. When Managers share their
problems with operators this promotes greater involvement and
cooperation. Mutual trust must be reinforced continuously.
Source: The lean manager (Balle, M.& F. 2009)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 25
The authors complement these dimensions with a corresponding guide that informs level of
leader of the appropriate nature of management approach. Firstly, in the case of a CEO or
executive, the management required is at a strategic level, advocating a business philosophy
and applying Lean principles in strategy formulation and deployment. This fosters a culture
of respect and learning and role modelling Gemba.
Secondly, the approach of the middle manager, the authors’ contend is to ask questions,
engage and keep checking; spending approximately 80% of their time on the floor to foster
improvements. Thirdly, the approach of the supervisor / first line manager should be to
ensure standardised work and advocate and apply PDCA. (Balle, M.& F. 2009)
In contrast with this broad-based and all-encompassing approach, is the contention of
Soltani and Wilkinson (2010) that misalignment in orientation and attitudes between senior
and middle managers is the primary compromising factor associated with TQM (Total
Quality Management) – a key aspiration outcome of lean-type management.
Their findings support the Pelz Effect, which refers to the overriding influence of a senior
grouping in determining the tone and atmosphere of an organisation (Soltani & Wilkinson,
2010). Their argument is that lack of agreement between senior and middle managers stifles
behaviour and degree of support between middle and their line managers.
Hence what is of importance in their diagnosis is a clear and aligned philosophy.
2.1.5 Mann’s (2010) development of the concept of Leader Standard Work
A pragmatic view is purported in Creating a Lean Culture (Mann, 2010). Mann’s
contention is that Standard Work for Lean Leaders is the “highest leverage tool in the lean
management system” (2010, p.37). This blueprint provides continuity of best practice by
smoothing the transition from one manager to another, and by making Lean accessible to
new or inexperienced leaders.
Not unlike Seddon (2005), Mann’s (2010) view is that Leaders’ Standard Work provides
structure and routine, which facilitates the shift in focus from solely results and targets to
process and results. In a similar vein to the Balle duo (2008), Mann (2010) also
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 26
differentiates between strata of management, from Team Leaders to Supervisors, Value
Stream Managers to Plant Managers and Executives (he classifies the latter two in the same
strata).
In providing these strata, the author recommends that Leader Standard Work be layered
from the bottom up, i.e. from Team Leader standard work to that of the Executive. The
foundation of the standard, or guide, Mann (2010) suggests, cannot be delinked from what
he sees as the two primary responsibilities of a Lean Leader:
- Ensure that processes operate as “defined (and refined)” in meeting “safety,
quality, delivery and cost” goals (p.40)
- To improve the process
Mann (2010) further argues for standardisation of leaders’ work by indicating that
predictability in a process is only achieved by operators performing Standard Work, and
hence, Standard Work should be introduced for leaders and built “bottom up”, based on the
“standard work and standard procedures at the value adding level” (p.40). It brings stability
to a leader’s day and not only specifies what a leader should do, but by implication what a
leader should not. Mann also states that far from curbing a leader’s creative instincts,
Standard Work “allows them to get the routine things taken care of with less mental energy,
leaving them free to focus on making changes and improvement” (p.50).
Mann (2010) attributes instances of overlaps in Standard Work between (leadership strata)
to quality checks built into successive workstations on the work floor, “process steps in
order management, or standardised procedures at hospitals” (p.43). It strengthens rather
than weakens the system.
The twin characteristics of Leader Standard Work are also sources of sustaining Standard
Work and process improvement, according to Mann (2010):
- “Coverage of visual controls and executing the daily accountability process”
(p.46). The source of leverage lies in Mann’s assertion of the links that hold the
lean production system together. His rationale is that Leader Standard Work is
aligned to principle elements of the Lean management system; and “maintain the
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 27
health of your lean management system and you maintain the health of your lean
production system” (p.46).
- “Leader standard work includes some tasks that are specifically sequenced to
happen at indicated times” (p.46). This will vary according to the nature of the
firm, i.e. manufacturing firms’ Leader Standard Work may bear a closer
resemblance with the sequence of a production line than, for instance a
professional setting such as an investment bank.
The principle teaching tool of a Lean leader is the gemba walk, which Mann (2010)
describes as a “master-apprentice model” (p.48); he elaborates in the following
manner:”…the master shows the apprentice how, gives the apprentice the opportunity to
practice, observes the result and gives feedback, often critique mixed with encouragement”.
This is in line with the gemba approach advocated in “Managing to Learn” (Shook, 2008).
Mann reinforces the point by explaining that training can be tailored to an individual’s level
when delivered in a gemba walk through the master-apprentice learning model.
According to Lean pioneer Masaaki Imai (1997, p.87):
"Gemba in Japanese means the place where all activities are actually taking place; in other
words, the place where value is added. In case of the manufacturing industry, gemba is the
shop-floor; for the hotel industry, it is the place where the food is actually being cooked; and
in case of the service industry; it is everywhere. Gemba is thus the most precious place for
the management."
Imai describes Gemba Kaizen as “continuous improvement”: In production terms it would
be on the shop floor and in management terms Gemba is the workplace, the place where
value is added and the work of the business is done. While it may be where you work,
Gemba is not your desk only. As Imai says “the key is to be inquisitive.”
Murli (2009) asserts that management in a Lean world, engages in “repetitive activities that
are designed to identify abnormal situations” (i.e. management standard work), where the
work takes place (i.e. the gemba). Murli goes on to summarise the relationship between
Leader Standard Work, in conjunction with the use of visual displays (and gemba) as
follows (p.26):
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 28
“Lean leadership is based on setting direction and building organizational capability.
Visual management systems are based on the value stream map and determining which
questions need to be answered at each pulse point.
Management standard work is based on walking the gemba, observing abnormalities,
asking questions, and supporting the improvement process.
Visual management without management standard work turns into wallpaper.
Management standard work without visual management turns into a social event!”
Mann (2009, p.22) states that “leader standard work ensures execution of standardized
processes”. Mann (2010) elaborates by reasoning that for organisations involved in Lean
transformations, Leader Standard Work presents “a clearly stated recipe” of the “standards
for expected behaviours for leaders” which allows organisations to raise the level of
management performance and also highlight those managers unable to make the transition.
In creating and maintaining stability, Leader Standard Work shows what is to be done, and
what not to do (Mann 2010). By following Leader Standard Work, managers maintain the
principle elements of the Lean Management System.
In addition to certifying that performance-tracking data are well and faithfully recorded,
Leader Standard Work, in accountability processes, ensures assignments for problem
solving and corrective action are converted. Thus, reliable execution of the resulting
improved process is ensured.
Mann (2010) also supports that Leader Standard Work is developed with intentional partial
redundancy upward through the chain of command; task-orientated personnel spend almost
100% of their time following standardised procedures, whereas department managers’
Standard Work might comprise 25% of their time in spot checks, and reviewing documents
etc. Directors and above also have Standard Work, yet their elements are more infrequent,
and tend to include checklists of departmental progress. These independent variables are
important in ensuring a well-run initiative: if these are constant, outcomes should be
predictable, and when they are not, causes can be easily identified and corrected.
Emiliani (2008) supports this redundancy view, but also proffers many managers
misunderstand or misapply standardized work. They incorrectly view it as a “coercive,
never-changing, set-in-stone” method to work that robs workers of their creative abilities. If
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 29
better and creative ideas are found for work performance, or in event of conditions
changing, standardised work can also change, and can be a catalyst for further
improvements in a Lean initiative.
2.1.6 Leader Standard Work as a concept contrasted with Lean Leadership
The concept appears relatively young and underdeveloped in literature. A superficial
interpretation pits the concept as a schedule of tasks that must be performed to sustain the
Lean management system. These tasks typically include audits, meetings (daily
accountability) and continuous improvement projects that primarily focus on the production
process. The rationale is that these tasks enable the leader to continuously contrast the
business to a baseline and prompt continual improvements.
The views of Flinchbaugh and Carlino (2006) relating to Lean Leadership are frequently
adopted in corporate training presentations available on the internet. According to
Flinchbaugh and Carlino (2006), Lean Leaders aim to define the organization’s vision in a
way that highlights the values of their group. It must support people’s efforts to achieve the
shared vision through coaching, feedback and role modelling. Lean Leadership should also
recognize and reward success.
Flinchbaugh and Carlino (2006) articulate five leadership actions that a leader can perform
to provide leadership on the Lean journey, these are quoted widely:
1. Leaders must be teachers
2. Build Tension, not stress
3. Eliminate fear and comfort
4. Lead through visible participation, not proclamation
5. Build Lean into personal practice
Sourced from www.leanceo.com
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 30
By contrasting interpretations of the concepts of Leader Standard Work and Lean
Leadership, it appears “Lean Leadership” revolves more around how leaders create an
environment that is conducive to Lean principles and practices. It is the governance,
structure and corporate culture that is created at all levels within an organisation, with the
primary aim of reducing waste in the system by closing the gaps between management
expectations and employee performance.
Leader Standard Work on the other hand is the set of tasks and procedures that enable the
Lean management system and thus supports Lean Leadership within the organisation.
Leader Standard Work is the enabler for Lean Leadership. Leader Standard Work enables
management to monitor, evaluate, identify and close the gaps in the system in a quick and
efficient manner. It is this continuous evaluation and monitoring process that leads to
continuous improvements and thus ultimately leads to Lean Leadership within the
organisation.
Lean Leadership as a concept appears to be fairly extensively researched, as evidenced by
the approximately two hundred and thirty two results obtained when a search is conducted
on Google Scholar; whereas the concept of Leader Standard Work (sixteen results on
Google Scholar) appears to be a relatively young concept and underdeveloped framework
that is debuting in the Lean academia circles. This framework and discussion has emanated
from a need to understand how exactly Lean Leadership can be supported and developed
within an organisation and more importantly what the levers are that can be used to
continually improve and develop Lean Leadership.
2.1.7 Leadership roles at various organisational levels
Mann in The Missing Link-Lean Leadership (2009) describes leaders at three organisational
levels who must play complementary roles in order to sustain a Lean initiative within a
functional organisation. The organisational levels and their primary contributions are as
follows:
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 31
1. Strategic (Senior) CEO, Senior VP – Governance, Steering, Oversight
“A senior executive governance process is the first step. The second is an
accountability and exception management structure.”(p.19). The aim of the
governance process should be to create recognition of and commitment to a sense of
common purpose across organisational boundaries, in order to sustain value-stream
improvement projects.
2. Programmatic (Function) VPs, Directors – Accountability
Straightforward and scalable measures of process performance typically consist of
safety, quality, delivery, and cost - concrete measures of collaboration and
commitments. Responsibility for accountability overlaps between the top two rungs
of the organisational levels, and the latter two, indicating that all levels should be
disciplined in the execution of their functions for a Lean initiative to be effective.
3. Tactical (Department) Managers, Supervisors – Tactical Lean management system
The focus of the Lean Management System (LMS), this is where the tactical
approaches of Lean are clearest, with its emphasis on disciplined Lean execution.
This system of “leadership practices, tools, and behaviours create a closed loop
system for focusing on process and driving process improvement .... It has three core
elements: visual controls, consisting of frequently updated process performance
charts; standard accountability processes; and standard work for leaders” (p.22).
It is the researcher’s contention that business leaders within OMSTA straddle between
organizational levels two and three: playing both a tactical, Lean management role as well
as undertaking a degree of accountability for strategic programmes.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 32
Table 3. Leadership Roles in Sustaining Lean
Organization Level
Primary Contribution
Tasks Secondary contribution
Tasks
Strategic: Senior
(CEO, Sr. VP)
Governance;
Steering and
oversight
Support for a cross
boundary
perspective
Measurement;
Adherence to post-
project processes
Monitor
intersection
measures; Gemba
walks
Programmatic:
Function (VPs,
Directors)
Accountability Meet project
commitments;
Manage
intersection
performance
Disciplined
adherence;
Commitments to
processes post-
project
Collaborate in
process
management;
Gemba walks
Tactical:
Department
(Managers,
Supervisors)
Tactical Lean
Management
System
Disciplined
adherence; Gemba
walks
Associate
engagement;
Continuous
improvement
Teach, practice
root cause
problem solving
Source: The missing link-Lean leadership (Mann, D. 2009, p.16)
This dual role play of business leaders was also evident to the researcher by interpreting
Mann’s practical example of a manufacturing or enterprise business (2010) in the OMSTA
context.
The table below serves as a practice guideline for leadership of a plant:
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 33
Table 4. Typical Items in Leader Standard Work
Frequency Team Leaders (TL)
Supervisors (Supe)
Value Stream Managers
(VSM)
Plant Manager (PM), Execs
(When in Plant)
Once daily,
typically
repeated
each day
(or each
occasion
for plant
managers
and
executives)
Check call-ins
Adjust labour plan
Shift change
Coordination
Daily admin
tasks
Daily admin
tasks
Review
performance
trend charts
(or each
occasion
for plant
managers
Lead team start-up
(tier 1) meeting
(5-10 min)
Attend a TL
start-up
meeeting
Night shift
Gemba walk
Spot-check, sign
off pitch charts,
other visual
controls
and
executives)
Floor check
production
start-up
Floor check
production
start-up
Lead value
stream task/
improvement
(tier 3) meeting
(10-20 min)
Lead weekly
plant
performance /
improvement
review meeting
(PM)
Supe-TLs (tier 2)
meeting (5-15
min)
Lead (tier 2)
meeting with
TLs
-Misses, issues,
improvements
-Daily task
board due and
new items
Daily gemba
walk with one
Supe
Spot-review
process and
product
improvement
work
Gemba walk with
Supe
Attend weekly
recurring plant-
level meetings
Formal audit of
one area
Verify leaders’
standard work
Supe-TLs meet
Accountability,
Improvement (5-
15 min)
Gemba walk
with TLs one-
on-one
Attend weekly
recurring plant-
level meetings
Verify TL, supe
on floor
Or why not?
Daily (weekly)
continuous
improvement
meeting with team
Spot-check
Buzzer-to-
buzzer work
Next day planning
-Labour plan
-Prep for team
start-up meeting
Spot-check, sign
off each pitch
chart
Review status of
all other visuals
Gemba walk each
VSM, staff
manager weekly
(PM)
Table continues on next page...................
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 34
Frequency Team Leaders (TL)
Supervisors (Supe)
Value Stream Managers
(VSM)
Plant Manager
(PM), Execs (When in
Plant)
Many times
daily, often
specified by
time of day
Monitor buzzer-
to-buzzer work
before, after
breaks
Spot-check
standardised
work in each
TL’s area
Spot-check buzzer-
to-buzzer work
Floor time
or number of
times
Verify pitch by
performance
-Record reasons
for variation
-Note, act on
flow
interrupters
Floor time Spot-check, sign
off pitch charting
in each
department. Spot-
check other visuals
Monitor
standardised
work in each
station
-Check
compliance
-Reinforce,
correct
performance as
needed
Spot-check
standardised work
in each department
Revise
production
standard work
as needed
Floor time
Train operators
as needed
Source: The missing link-Lean leadership (Mann, D. 2010, p.41)
The researcher interpreted the first two columns (i.e. Team Leader and Supervisor) as being
encapsulated in OMSTA’s Team Leader role. In 2005, the roles of Department Head and
Supervisor were collapsed into “Team Leader” (Old Mutual intranet). The third column
(Value Stream Manager) and some part of the second is roughly equivalent to an Operations
Manager. While the fourth column (Plant Manager Exec) and part of the VSM function for
those that manage end-to-end value chains is roughly equivalent to Business Leader.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 35
The degree of overlapping of tasks cements continuity of support for new and existing
practices in order to maintain the integrity of Lean tool implementations and Lean
Management Systems. Mann (2010) describes this redundancy as “interlocking of layers”
(of leadership). Mann also prescribes that Leader Standard Work be built from the bottom
(layer of management) to the top layer, reasoning that a leader in a production environment
is responsible for ensuring that processes are run as designed (as well as improved).
Therefore, he asserts, building Leader Standard bottom up based on Standard Work or
procedures at the value adding level, verifies that the “chain of standard work is being
upheld and the production process is being supported for stability and growth”.
2.1.8 Proportion of time spent on Standard Work and degree of structure
standardisation
Mann asserts that every staff member at every level of the organisation should do Standard
Work and provides guidelines per strata of staff. The researcher interpreted Mann’s
guidelines (2010) as to the percentage of time and degree and scope of standard content in
terms of Leader Standard Work at various management levels, by means of the following
depiction:
Figure 7: Percentage time spent on Leader Standard Work and degree of structure
Source: Researcher’s interpretation from Mann (2010)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 36
The depiction the researcher interpreted from Mann’s research (2010) indicates the
following:
10-25% of work time of Executives should be standard
50% for Support/Operations Managers
80% for Team Leaders
95+% in respect of front line staff (operators)
Mann elaborates on structure through the following components:
% of time standard
Specific sequence
Specific time of day
More time for discretionary tasks
Hence, Mann’s guidelines to building standard work schedules for executives are: 10-25%
of their time be standard; that the structure of the work content be less constrained by
sequence or specific time (of day); and that a larger proportion of their time be permitted for
discretionary tasks.
2.2 Summary of Literature Review
Successful Lean initiatives rely on ideas and knowledge, thus implying the need for
experiential learning (from both successes and failures); garnering the knowledge of a vast
pool of participants at different structures and appropriately utilising this wealthy resource.
The vast literature on Lean, from principles, to process, to identifying and suggesting ideas
on how to expunge waste, provides us with the knowledge required to effect a successful
transformation; with the proviso that we recognise that the process is a long-term strategy
requiring people who are like-minded- allowing for a collaborative organisational approach
and strategy.
Henderson et al. (1999) argue that it is essential for the right culture to exist amongst the
organisation’s employees in order for the business to enjoy the full benefits of Lean.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 37
Lean Thinking according to Seddon (2005, p. 187): “It is the philosophy behind the tools
that is the key”. Many view it as a philosophy (Bateman, 2005; Bhashin & Burcher, 2006;
Liker, 1996, 2004).
This “Lean Philosophy” requires key role players: Lean Leaders at all levels, with
motivation, clarity of purpose and vision, and developing leaders who live the system from
top to bottom. To secure the philosophy requires promoting Lean Leadership at all levels
(Pullin, 2002), leaders with a clarity of vision (Hines, Lemming, Jones, Cousins, & Rich,
2000) and developing leaders who live the system from top to bottom (Liker & Meier,
2006).
From the literature reviewed, the researcher identified the following items of Leader
Standard Work (Mann 2010) as being applicable at the Business Leader level:
- Review performance trend charts
- Spot-check visual controls
- Weekly performance improvement review meetings
- Spot review product and process improvement work
- Verify Leaders’ Standard Work
- Floor Time
- Gemba walks
The following list summarises the defining characteristics of Leader Standard Work (Mann,
2010), as abstracted from the literature:
Translates vague Lean principles into unambiguous performance evaluation criteria.
Provides a repeatable, manageable, systematic way to get managers to consistently
focus their attention on both:
- Results, and...
- The Process (that yields the results)
Provides continuity of best practices through leadership transitions -
allowing incoming leaders to benefit from the preserved experience of their
predecessors.
Enables average leaders to consistently yield above average results.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 38
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Taylor and Bogdan (1984) stated that the term methodology is a reference to the manner in
which we approach problems and seek answers. They elaborated further, indicating that in
respect of the social sciences, the term applied to how research is conducted (i.e. ones
assumptions, interests, and purposes shape choice of methodology).
3.1 Research approach and strategy
Choice of research methodology is dictated by the nature of the question. The nature of the
question is evidence based but philosophy driven. This study thus commenced with a
review of the theory surrounding Lean (the philosophy that underpins Leader Standard
Work), implementation experience in financial services firms (OMSTA’s organisational
context), sustainability factors were highlighted and the concept of Leader Standard Work
was thus developed.
3.1.1 The Deductive Approach
According to Bryman & Bell, (2007, p11) the deductive approach involves the researcher
deducing a hypothesis based on available theory and subject to empirical scrutiny. In
addition, Collis and Husey (2003) assert that the deduction process, using research to test a
body of theory, allows for the development of phenomena, which can be controlled and
replicated. This is in contrast with the action to induce, which infers to draw a conclusion
from one or more particular facts or pieces of evidence (Cooper & Schindler, 1998, p.31).
Furthermore the deductive approach is different to the inductive approach, precisely
because it does not result in theory being the output of the research by the process of
drawing generalisable inferences from the observations (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p14).
The Advantages of the Deductive Approach
The deductive approach has the following advantages (Saunders et. al, 2009):
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 39
- Allows one to study relationships between variables.
- Utilises structured methodologies to facilitate replication.
- Allows for generalisation - it would be acceptable to infer characteristic traits about a
population by studying a small sample of that population.
Suitability of the Deductive Approach
In this study, the deductive method was most appropriate as theories were not formulated,
but extent of the implementation of these theories was examined; leadership practices were
assessed with the background of sound leadership methods employed (Lean); and the aspect
of generalisation was apt given the sample population was a group of leaders.
In addition, the structured nature of the deductive process fostered the use of semi-
structured interviews, possibly facilitating the replication of the study in the future.
3.1.2 Quantitative and Qualitative Research
According to Bryman & Bell (2007, p.28), many researchers find it helpful to distinguish
between quantitative and qualitative research. “It is common to describe qualitative
research as concerned with the generation rather than the testing of theories; however, there
are examples of studies in which qualitative research has been employed to test rather than
to generate theories”.
The distinguishing features of qualitative research are primarily attributed to the principal
orientation of the role of theory in relation to research as inductive and set on establishing a
theory. Furthermore, being generational the epistemological orientation is natural science,
positivism and not interpretivist.
Taylor and Bogdan (2005) elaborate on these two major theoretical perspectives. “The
positivists seek the facts or causes of social phenomena apart from the subjective states of
individuals and the interpretivist is committed to understanding social phenomena from the
actors own perspective and examining how the world is experienced”. Thirdly, the
ontological orientation is centred on objectivity and not ‘constructionist’ (Bryman & Bell,
2007, p.28).
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 40
However, the distinction between qualitative and quantitative is not a hard and fast one and
studies that have broad characteristics of one type of research may have a characteristic of
the other, and many writers argue that the two can be combined within an overall research
project (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p.40). A comparison is made below of the two different
methods.
Table 5. Characteristics of qualitative and quantitative research methods
Question Quantitative Qualitative
What is the purpose
of the research?
- To explain and predict
- To confirm and validate
- To test theory
- To describe and explain
- To explore and interpret
- To build theory
What is the nature of
the research?
- Focused
- Known variables
- Established guidelines
- Predetermined methods
- Somewhat context-free
- Detached view
- Holistic
- Unknown variables
- Flexible guidelines
- Emergent methods
- Context-bound
- Personal view
What are the data
like, and how are they
collected?
- Numeric data
- Representative, large
sample
- Standardised instruments
- Textual and/or image-based
data
- Informative, small sample
- Loosely structured or non-
standardised observations and
interviews
How are the data
analysed to determine
their meaning?
- Statistical analysis
- Stress on objectivity
- Deductive reasoning
- Search for themes and
categories
- Acknowledgement that
analysis is subjective and
potentially biased
- Inductive reasoning
How are the findings
communicated?
- Numbers
- Statistics, aggregated data
-Formal voice, scientific style
- Words
- Narrative, individual quotes
- Personal voice, literary style
Source: Practical research: Planning and design (Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J. E., 2010).
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 41
3.1.3 Qualitative research
The nature of this research study promoted the use of a qualitative method to gather data.
Gummesson (2000) highlighted an advantage of using qualitative methods - by using open-
ended questions and probing, participants were given the opportunity to freely respond in
their own words, rather than choosing from fixed responses, as utilised in quantitative
research methods.
The responses to open-ended questions are potentially more meaningful to the participant,
are more explanatory especially in view of the experience of the participants, and can be
unanticipated by the researcher, allowing for exploration and room for improvements.
Suitability of the Qualitative Research Method
A qualitative research strategy was appropriate, given the sample population and the nature
of the research study with its use of open-ended questions in relation to leadership.
Gummesson’s (2000) advantages of qualitative research include:
- The depth and detail of responses looks deeper than analysing ranks and counts by
recording attitudes, feelings and behaviours
- New topic areas not initially considered can be created when respondents open up
- Individual experiences allow us to learn from their behaviour
- It attempts to avoid pre-judgements
The disadvantages of qualitative research (Gummesson, 2000) are:
- Fewer people are usually studied. Data collection is generally more time consuming:
unless time, staff and budget allows, it is thus generally necessary to include a smaller
sample size
- Data is less easy to generalise because fewer people are usually studied. Usually exact
numbers are reported rather than percentages
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 42
- Data gathering is dependent on the skills of the researcher, particularly in the case of
conducting interviews. Semi-structured questions were used in an attempt to deal with
this limitation.
3.2 Research design, data collection methods and research instruments
While Voss et al (2002, p.197) state that case research “has its roots in the broader field of
social sciences, in particular ethnographic studies and anthropology”, it has been widely
used for other management disciplines such as organisational behaviour and strategy. Yin
(1994) has in detail described case research design, and Glaser and Strauss (1967) described
the grounded theory method.
Johnston et al (1999) states that strength of any confirmatory research method depends on
two factors: the relationship between theory and method, and how the researcher attends to
the potential weaknesses of the method. Johnston et al contend that the case method is an
appropriate tool to conduct confirmatory business-to-business research. They go on to say
that confirmatory case method overcomes these factors when three elements are adequately
addressed: the research is founded on a hypothesis (that is theory based), the design is
conducted in a systematic manner and the findings are independently evaluated.
In terms of the first element, this research paper is based on a hypothesis developed by
Mann’s theory (2010), that leadership Standard Work is the foremost leverage tool in Lean.
“Like with all other research methods, it is the degree to which theory and related
hypotheses have been developed prior to data collection that allows for the testing of the
theory.” (Johnston, Leach, & Liu, 1999, p.204)
The second element of a confirmatory case method necessitates the development of a
research design in order to rigorously examine the hypotheses. “When developing the
research design, there are three important considerations: (1) one must define the unit of
analysis, (2) select the appropriate cases to study, and (3) decide on what data to collect and
how to collect it.”(Johnston et al., 1999, p.206)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 43
Table 6: Case choice considerations
Choice Advantages Disadvantages Single cases Greater depth Limits on the generalisability of
conclusions drawn. Biases such as
misjudging the representativeness
of a single event and exaggerating
easily available data.
Multiple cases Augment external validity, More resource needed, less depth
help guard against observer per case
bias
Retrospective cases Allow collection of data on May be difficult to determine cause
historical events and effect, participants may not
recall important events
Longitudinal cases Overcome the problems of Have long elapsed time and thus
retrospective cases may be difficult to do
Source: Case research in operations management (Voss et al., 2002, p.211)
3.2.1 Case Study Method
The researcher employed the case study method to conduct the interviewing process. “Case
study research excels at bringing us to an understanding of a complex issue or object and
can extend experience or add strength to what is already known through previous research”
(Soy, 1997, p.1).
This research comprised a single case - the leadership practices of OMSTA, supported by a
number of subordinate cases. The subordinate cases were comprised of a proportional
representation of the constituent business units. There business units were responsible for
operational delivery of administration and servicing, strategic transformation of
administration and servicing and human resource management thereof. The ten leaders I
interviewed were from a pool of approximately fifteen Business Leaders. The span of
control and responsibility of a Business Leader in a large operational unit within OMSTA is
roughly equivalent to what Mann (2010) describes as an Executive Leader, Vice President
or Director.
A fairly typical form of such research is when the researcher employs unstructured
interviewing or semi-structured interviewing with a number of people. (Bryman & Bell,
2007).
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 44
3.2.2 Semi Structured Interviews
Primary data was gathered through semi structured interviews and analysed by means of
qualitative analysis techniques. Leedy & Ormrod (2010) assert that interviews in a
qualitative study are rarely as structured as the interviews in a quantitative study. Semi
structured interviews offer topics and questions to the interviewee, but are carefully
designed in order to elicit the interviewees’ own ideas and opinion on the topics of interest.
Semi-structured interviews are thus appropriate when the researcher relies on interactions
with people, to speak with and to listen to leaders so as to gain access to accounts and
articulations (Manson, 1996). With semi-structured interviews, the researcher has a list of
questions on fairly specific topics that he/she wishes to cover during the interview – this is
usually referred to as the interviewer’s guide (Bryman & Bell, 2007).
The interviews were face-to-face as the researcher was based in Cape Town and the senior
leadership group was also based in Cape Town. The interviewer was the researcher and the
interviewees the senior leaders. The researcher aimed to conduct two to three interviews per
business unit, which amounted to ten in total. This approach was intended to reduce
respondent bias. The format and the questions for the interview were sent to the interviewee
three days prior to the actual interview. The interviews were based on what is practiced in
reality.
Data collected in qualitative research is frequently termed soft (i.e. rich in description of
places, people and conversations, but not readily assessable by statistical procedures).
Bogdan and Biklen, (1992) recommend that researchers do not approach their subjects with
specific questions to answer or hypotheses to test, but rather aim to understand behaviour
from the subject's own frame of reference. Our interactions and interpretation thereof
frames our experience, hence reality is socially constructed (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).
According to King (2004), semi-structured, in depth interviews work very well with
qualitative research methods. Interview questions were focussed on leaders’ actual practices
and behaviour, attitudes towards Leader Standard Work elements as espoused by Mann
(2010), and understanding of Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work. (See Appendix
1 for interview questions.)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 45
3.3 Sampling
Qualitative samples should be large enough to ensure that most or all of the perceptions that
might be important are uncovered. Samples for qualitative studies are generally
significantly smaller than those used in quantitative studies. There is a point of diminishing
return to a qualitative sample—as the study progresses, more data does not necessarily lead
to more information (Ritchie, Lewis & Elam, 2003). This is known as the saturation
principle.
Curtis, Gesler, Smith and Washburn (2000) provide the following sampling guidelines:
1. The sampling strategy should stem logically from the conceptual framework and
research questions being addressed by the study.
2. The sample should be able to render a thorough database on the type of phenomena
under study.
3. The sample should allow the possibility of drawing clear inferences from the data:
the sample should allow for credible expectations.
4. The sampling strategy must be ethical.
5. The sampling plan should be feasible.
6. The sampling plan should allow the research team to transfer/generalise the
conclusions of the study to other settings or populations (i.e. generalisable)
7. The sampling scheme should be as efficient as is practical.
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2010, p.147), qualitative researches conduct sampling in a
“purposeful” manner. This implies that sampling is deliberately non random. Keeping the
above mentioned sampling principles in mind, OMSTA was chosen out of the various Old
Mutual business segments in South Africa as the population due to the following
consideration: 1) they are one of the largest in terms of employee/head count, thus the
population and sample will have a wider range and variety; 2) multinational segment with
branches in South Africa and collaboration across emerging markets; 3) embarked on a
formal Lean training drive in 2004 which has subsequently taken the form of structured
training and policies.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 46
The pool of Business Leaders sampled has been trained in Lean and have managed
departments with a sizable staff complement. At the time of interviewing, approximately
eighty percent (80%) of these leaders oversaw well over seventy staff; while the remainder
possess experienced managing similar staff contingents due to deliberate manager rotation.
3.4 Research criteria
3.4.1 Reliability, replication and validity
Bryman & Bell (2007) contend that reliability, replication and validity must be assessed
when evaluating business and management research. Joppe (2000) defines reliability as “the
extent to which results are consistent over time and an accurate representation of the total
population under study is referred to as reliability and if the results of a study can be
reproduced under a similar methodology, then the research instrument is considered to be
reliable”. Reliability is thus concerned with the question of whether the results of the study
are repeatable; while replication is concerned with the ease of replication of the study
(Bryman & Bell, 2007). Validity is concerned with the integrity of the conclusions that are
generated from a piece of research.
Karlsonn et al. (1998) refer to three practices in order to enhance reliability; defined as
demonstrating repeatable data collection procedures, data from interviews, open
discussions, and observations:
1. Directly taken field notes (from interviews and observations),
2. Expanded typed notes made as soon as possible after the fieldwork. (This includes
comments on problems and ideas that arise during each stage of the fieldwork and
that will guide further research),
3. A running record of analysis and interpretation
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 47
Table 7: Validity and reliability considerations
Test Case Study Tactic Phase of research in
which tactic occurs
Construct validity Use multiple sources of evidence
Establish chains of evidence
Have key informants review
draft case study report
Data collection
Data collection
Composition
Internal validity Do pattern matching or
explanation
Data analysis
External validity Use replication logic in multiple
case studies
Research design
Reliability Use case study protocol
Develop case study database
Data collection
Data collection
Source: Case study research (Yinn 1994, p.33)
3.4.2 Trustworthiness
“Although some qualitative researchers have argued that the term validity is not applicable
to qualitative research, they have realised the need for some qualifying check for their
research. As a result, many researchers have developed their own concepts of validity and
have often generated or adopted what they consider to be more appropriate terms, such as,
quality, rigor and trustworthiness” (Davies and Dodd, 2002, p.283). “ If the validity or
trustworthiness can be maximised or tested the more credible and defensible result may
lead to generelizability which is one of the concepts suggested by Stenbacka (2001) as the
structure for both doing and documenting high quality qualitative research. Therefore the
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 48
quality of a research is related to generelizability of the result and thereby to the testing and
increasing the validity or trustworthiness of the research” (Golafshani, 2003).
Triangulation of data collection and data interpretation facilitates validity and reliability:
“triangulation entails using more than method or source of data in the study of social
phenomena.” (Bryman & Bell, 2007, p. 412). The method used in this research consisted
primarily of in-depth interviews. The interviewees proportionately represented the extent of
their staff compliment within OMSTA, and were randomly selected. The researcher
attempted to complement interviews, to a limited extent, through insights gleaned from two
Senior Leadership Group (SLG) workshops. SLG consists of monthly full day sessions
involving Business Leaders, General Managers and key support staff aimed at addressing
leadership development and key strategic themes.
Respondent validation supported validity and reliability of the data interpretation. Bryman
& Bell (2007, p. 411) describe respondent validation as a “process whereby the researcher
provides the people on whom he or she has conducted research with an account of his or her
findings”. The preliminary findings were sent to the respondents for review and comment.
3.5 Analysis methods
3.5.1 Primary Analysis
Primary analysis is confined to evidence assessment relating to Leader Standard Work
within the Business Leader strata of leadership.
3.5.2 Coding
Integral to effective case research is the coding of the observations and field data (Voss et
al., 2002). Hardy and Bryman (2009) state that coding in relation to social surveys arise
mainly in relation to two types of situations: firstly, during the course of designing a
structured interview or self-administered questionnaire, researchers frequently employ pre-
coded questions. The second type of context arises in relation to the post-coding of open
ended questions. Both contexts of coding were applied for the purpose of this research. In
terms of pre-coding, a portion of the questionnaire had close ended questions (with an
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 49
option of answers with codes attached). Post coding occurred with the semi structured
interviews and the portions of the questionnaire that had open ended questions.
Furthermore the coding process was divided into open coding and axial coding. According
to Leedy and Omrod (2007), open coding refers to the coding or labelling of words or
phrases found in the text and axial coding to creating themes or categories by grouping the
codes or labels given to the words or phrases.
3.6 Research Design Summary
In terms of the evaluation element, Johnston et al (1999) argues that systematic design
procedures aimed at confirming a pre-specified set of hypotheses, serve to decrease the
potential for researcher bias.
It is worthwhile to reiterate that this was a descriptive study: the researcher attempted to
research “Leader Standard Work”, which is a relatively new term in the literature, and
attempted to observe and see what happened in practice. A business was selected that had
over the prior seven years developed and implemented a Lean training and practice
framework and in which a Lean leadership module was in development. The question was
to what extent, if any, Leader Standard Work existed.
"The researcher enters the world of the people he or she plans to study, gets to know, be
known, and trusted by them, and systematically keeps a detailed written record of what is
heard and observed. This material is supplemented by other data such as [artifacts], school
memos and records, newspaper articles, and photographs" (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992).
Method
The following table describes the researcher’s methodology using the case study method.
The steps outlined below emanate from the research of Simons (1980).
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 50
Table 8: Research steps
1. Determine and define the
research question(s).
Is there evidence of Leader Standard Work as
described by Mann (2005) in Old Mutual?
2. Select the cases and
determine data gathering
and analysis techniques.
The researcher used a single case study approach,
investigating a single component of Old Mutual, i.e.
OMSTA (a financial services firm that applies Lean).
Analysis techniques will be mentioned in more detail
further in this document.
3. Prepare to collect the
data.
The researcher already had access to the company
wherein the primary source of interview data would
be procured, and secured timeslots with the
participants to engage in the interview process.
4. Collect data in the field.
The researcher conducted interviews with participants
from the services and administration area of Old
Mutual.
5. Evaluate and analyse the
data.
Data analysis techniques included data
categorisation, unitisation, summarizing (Saunders et
al., 2009)
6. Prepare the report
Data results were compiled and tested against the
theory. The final results have been documented in the
final report.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 51
Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques
The researcher analysed the data from interviews and this data was coded using a system of
family coding suggested by Strauss and Corbin (1990). Using this method, the data was
arranged into various categories and sub-categories.
Advantages of Using Interviews as a Data Collection Method
“The use of interviews can help you gather valid and reliable data that are relevant to your
research question(s) and objectives” (Saunders et. al., 2009, p.318). Interviews allow for
the collection of in-depth, rich information that add to the validity of the data collected
through the use of questionnaires. With interviews, there is a greater degree of validity as
opposed to using questionnaires. With questionnaires, the researcher cannot be sure that
the person answering the questions is the intended recipient. Since the interview was
conducted in person, the researcher was able to get the required information from the
required individual(s) (North et al., 1983, cited in Healey, 1991).
In accordance with the saturation principle, the researcher stopped at the 10th interview, as
little new or different insight emanated following the 8th interview.
Access to Interview Subjects
The researcher leveraged association with the employer Old Mutual. The benefit of
working with this company was that the researcher had extensive access and freedom with
regard to interviewing employees (Gummesson, 2000).
Limitations of the Interview Process
Interviewing, unlike questionnaire-based analyses, is an intrusive process and takes up a lot
of the subject’s time. This has the potential of creating a reduction in the willingness of
some individual(s) to participate in the interviewing process. The researcher had an
established relationship with OMSTA which ensured sufficient levels of access to the
employees in the company (Gummesson, 2000); there was thus a degree of certainty with
regard to securing subjects’ availability for interview purposes.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 52
3.7 Limitations of the study
1. The data gathered from interviews may not be completely objective due to
respondent bias
2. Due to time constraints the researcher applied a single method of data collection
(semi-structured interviews), which restricted method triangulation.
3. Sustainability could not be tested. The scope of the study, and the inherent
limitations due to time availability and performance data, did not lend itself to
quantitative research methods.
4. The evidence presented by respondents could not be reliably verified.
5. The researcher’s interpretation of data is inherent in the coding process, notably in
respect of categorisation and coding
6. The respondents have varying extent of Lean management implementation
experience and expertise.
7. The findings are applicable to the relevant leadership layer (i.e. Business Leader
level) within OMSTA; and may not be generalizable to equivalent leadership strata
outside of administration and servicing components of other financial services
organisations.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 53
4 RESEARCH FINDINGS
Introduction and context
The purpose of this section is to relay respondents’ feedback as accurately, completely and
reliably as possible. The interview transcripts are available from the author.
As stated in the previous chapter, applying the saturation principle the researcher stopped at
the 10th interview. The table below provides a high level overview of the respondent
profiles:
Table 9: Respondent profile
Element Description
Gender profile Six male and four female
Racial profile Eight white, one black and one Indian
Experiential range Experience range of seven to twenty eight years
Staff contingents The leaders managed business units ranging from thirty to
approximately three hundred staff
Tertiary qualifications In terms of qualifications, all of the respondents held university
degrees while the majority held MBA qualifications (Master of
Business Administration). Two respondents held professional
qualifications (both Legal) and one respondent possessed a
business related Masters Degree.
Lean training All respondents had undergone accredited in-company Lean
training over a period of three to five years, and all held
accountability for implementation of Lean within their business
units. Two respondents attended advanced Lean training in the
United Kingdom.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 54
4.1 Leadership behaviours and practices
Since Leader Standard Work is a relatively new term, the researcher deliberately started
with a fairly open ended question, asking respondents what they did because it worked for
them – the researcher kept it open ended to try and elicit behaviours and practices that they
have standardised.
These findings are therefore respondents’ feedback of the behaviours and practices that
helped them function better over time and sustain organisational improvement. Most
respondents outlined their personal leadership philosophy and strategy. Indeed, much of the
feedback in this section may appear esoteric.
Themes that emerged from the respondents include:
- The use of Gemba walks to facilitate communication and as a learning tool
- Utilising appropriate Lean tools and techniques to deliver on strategic initiatives
- Understanding strengths and weaknesses, empowering and motivating team members
and increasing responsibility
- Having balanced teams who bought into objectives, thus fostering accountability
- Regular collaboration of key role players and stakeholders
- Hands-on approach
- Adaptability; learning from others and being an example to others
- Direction setting and planning
- Self renewal resulting in organisational renewal and improvement
- Understanding data, knowing your customer
Respondent 10 greatly endorsed Lean principles: from the context of the strategic initiative,
the appropriate module to support the objective, the pursuance of the tools and techniques to
help deliver on that strategy; the leader emphasised the involvement of the necessary people
to drive motions forward and the importance of collaboration of role players. The role of
management support was highlighted, and gemba walks were advocated as a learning tool.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 55
Respondent 1 believed that all members of a team, regardless of rank, should be engaged in
finding solutions to problems, advocating bottom-up responsibility in a non-threatening
manner, thereby finding that solutions to problems were more attainable. The respondent
regularly collaborated with business leaders and with stakeholders.
In contrast, the following two respondents’ leadership behaviour was guided by a people
management philosophy based on three constructs: structure, let them do (empowerment),
support them (“show them, let them do, praise them” - Respondent 2).
Respondent 2 contended that motivation of staff (more of a governance philosophy than
standard work elements) was vital. People wanted direction and clarity in a leader; they
wanted structure and reason and wanted to be aware of potential challenges and obstacles.
The respondent concluded by indicating specific practice preferences in respect of Obeya4,
gemba and visual boards.
Respondent 4’s people-based philosophy lay in understanding strength and limitations
(staffs’ and your own) and achieving a balanced team who bought into the objectives.
Again, clarity around objectives came through strongly, as did stakeholder engagement.
Respondent 3 took a more pragmatic approach with a philosophy of “rotation and a lot of
movement”. The respondent identified and placed trusted in the “strong people” in teams,
and would address any frustrations on their part. Respondent 3 stressed the need to be
adaptable and resilient, and to get ‘buy in’ from people, especially when change was
4 Obeya in Japanese means simply “big room.” At Toyota it has become a major project
management tool, used especially in product development, to enhance effective and timely
communication. Similar in concept to traditional “war rooms,” an Obeya will contain highly visual
charts and graphs depicting program timing, milestones and progress to date and countermeasures to
existing timing or technical problems. Project leaders will have desks in the Obeya as will others at
appropriate points in the program timing. The purpose is to ensure project success and shorten the
plan-do-check-act cycle. (Lean Enterprise Institute, n.d.)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 56
involved, ascribing this approach to situational leadership5; a style of leadership shared by
respondent 7, who also believed in setting high standards and striving for excellence, whilst
“showing confidence and having belief in your team”.
There was a strong sense of an advocated and decisive approach from respondent 5. The
primary management objective was to ensure the team was motivated to contribute to the
maximum of its ability.
Respondent 5’s preferred style of operating was to set up a flat management structure:
getting involved and being hands-on, going directly to the TL’s and administrators, rather
than going through reports, and allocating most time on the gemba.
Respondent 5 also raised the predicament of over-governance, feeling constrained by rules
preventing a leader from leading. The respondent’s personal leadership style showed dislike
for time wasting – proclaiming to be “opinionated and direct”, but willing to change if
someone had a better rationale about something. Yet this individual exhibited a sense of
balance and context: “I try as best I can to make work fun. Because we have a profound
responsibility (looking after people’s life saving).” (Respondent 5).
Respondent 6, who had at one stage been an architect of the modular Lean training, stressed
the importance of a metrics based approach: “proper measurement is the crucial underpin in
management.”
1) Understand what business is about; 2) measure key things to show you whether
business is successful; 3) don't expect you'll get it right up front, learn and adjust as
you go along and 4) get the management hierarchy “to work together in a rhythm”
5 The fundamental underpinning of the situational leadership theory is there is no single "best" style
of leadership. Effective leadership is task-relevant and that the most successful leaders are those that
adapt their leadership style to the maturity ("the capacity to set high but attainable goals, willingness
and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience of an
individual or a group for the task) of the individual or group they are attempting to lead/influence.
That effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influenced, but it
will also depend on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished. (Hersey & Blanchard,
1977)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 57
Specific mention was made of Leader Standard Work in response to this question (the first
question of the interview). “Managers don’t want to do standard work.” Respondent 6 felt
that managers needed standard elements to stay involved with the work and to be an
example to the front line people regarding their interest in the work.
This respondent’s view was that there is a disproportionate emphasis on process redesign.
“The truth is you get 30% benefit through the process improvement and then the bulk over
inculcating problem solving through the business – thereby raising the skills and
competencies. And getting staff to feel they are making a contribution” (Respondent 6).
Respondent 9 subscribed to a philosophy of “business toughness and people fairness.” This
respondent felt by undergoing the process of personal self renewal; this ultimately leads to
organisational renewal. This leader advocates learning from others and “applying the
insights and lessons to your own organisation; setting ‘audacious’ targets, and knowing
what you want as a leader by setting leadership SOP’s”.
Respondent 8 seeks a compelling vision, “making a difference to peoples’ lives comes
before being first”. The leader sought to ensure motivated people at work, a team involved
in goal setting and line of sight with organisational objectives. This respondent strove to
ensure knowledge was kept relevant by reading extensively and registering for
developmental courses.
As with respondent 9, respondent 8 also sought to learn from the “wisdom of others”.
Emphasis was also placed on understanding data as a basis for decision making; and on the
four elements of the businesses balanced scorecard, i.e. people, processes, financial and
customer.
4.2 Elements standardised through daily routines
Given that the field of Leader Standard Work is relatively new – to reiterate, many
managers associated the word “standard” with processes and “leadership” with
“management philosophy and style” – this was a necessary question to probe further into
habits that had been formed for personal effectiveness in sustaining organisational
improvement.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 58
The majority of responses indicated a broad macro pattern, typically involving an early start
to the day to prepare mentally, and scheduled activities to optimise effectiveness.
Themes that emerged from a behavioural preference perspective were:
- early starts to maximise time,
- blocking out preparation and planning time in their diaries, and
- trying to eliminate waste in terms of the management of meetings,
- thinking time
From a standard work element perspective,
- gemba walks
- one-on-ones with staff and
- time for strategy and planning, governance and policy related emerged.
Some displayed more set routines.
Early starts and high planning orientation
Respondent 10 presented perhaps the most standardised approach to the daily routine, and
in the process also elaborated on activities that were staggered during the week and could
thus occur on any given day.
Arriving at work at 7am and ending the day at 5pm, this leader as a rule did not hold
meetings before 8am or after 4pm, in order “to allow for reading, responding and acting on
emails”. Respondent 10 also held two distinct types of meetings:
- weekly one-on-ones with direct reports to discuss strategic execution (with the
objective of establishing how best to support the respondent’s Managers),
- stakeholder meetings (such as project management boards, workshops etc.)
Furthermore, scheduled time was also blocked out to engage in specific activities (including
time at the call centre to listen to customer calls).
Respondent 10 tried to minimise the wasted capacity that emerged from meetings, with
fewer representatives from this individual’s domain in cross functional meetings, improved
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 59
preparation for meetings, and by ensuring information was distributed beforehand to “to aid
execution”.
Two respondents had established early morning routines, but with little else standardised.
Respondent 9 started the day at 04h00 to optimise waking hours with family. After personal
working time between 4-6am, the respondent held a teleconference at 8am on “key strategic
initiatives across (the) value chain” aimed at addressing risks and issues. “This is anything
key strategic and high level.” The remainder of the work day was dedicated to management
boards for projects the respondent sponsors. At a macro level the respondent indicated
dedicating approximately 30% of the day towards changing the business and “a large chunk
toward running the business”.
Respondent 4 started the day at 05h30: “look at diary to plan for day, into office at 8:30am
leave at 5:30pm. No set formats. But like to have the first 30minutes for thinking”. This
respondent would take a key break in the middle of the day, either to work out at the on-
premises gym or to take a walk, explaining “It gives me energy for the afternoon”.
Two other respondents also favoured blocking the first 30-60 minutes of their diaries in
order to attend to email and set up meetings and discussions. One of these respondents
would further block the final 30 minutes of the day to plan for the next day: “Be prepared,
plan ahead and be disciplined enough to block out time to do that.” (Respondent 2).
A respondent who oversees a significant staff complement spanning across the nine
provinces, starts short term planning the night before, assessing the next day and providing
the Personal Assistant with instructions accordingly. The leader also holds one-on-one
sessions with provincial managers every two weeks early in the relevant week (Mondays
and Tuesdays), with weekly sessions involving operational reports (support) being held
towards the end of the week. These sessions were intended to follow up on any
commitments that needed to be driven down. “I then set meetings at a higher level to
prepare for Boards and Executive Committee meetings. I know where my direct reports are,
we have a shareholder plan with their monthly plans, what they do and where they are
visiting.” (Respondent 3).
Planning thus emerged as a high priority activity in many interviews.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 60
“Critical thing is planning. I’m very structured and organised; I use lists. Make sure
meetings have actions and follow up thereon. My ideal day is one where I understand what
is required, what meetings there will be and that I prepare for that meeting. Even if I’m just
a stakeholder, I do the readings and prepare questions. I also make sure meetings end with
clear outcomes and that everybody understands what the actions are. (I) document them
myself if I’m leading” (Respondent 4).
Use of technology to leverage time and efficiency
One respondent showed how the availability of technology such as the iPad and smartphone
allowed for more time “on the floor” interacting with staff. This leader elaborated that while
there was little routine and structure to this approach, there was much planning, and
managing (your) own calendar and diary ensured discipline. (Respondent 5).
Respondent 5 specified that technology allowed for improved efficiency and productivity:
work was not separated from personal life, thereby more flexibility was achieved in the day.
Additionally, not needing to “switch off” and doing “what’s convenient” allowed this leader
to work from anywhere. “This is why when I’m at work I spend my time talking to people.”
The routine element of the day consisted of time spent with clients, almost on a daily basis,
or at least three to four times a week. These would typically take place at the clients’
premises and were aimed at “identifying their top of mind issues and managing that
relationship” (Respondent 5).
Applying Lean philosophy
Respondent 8 adopted a Lean ‘best practice approach’ which the leader believed
necessitated “more regular, but shorter interactions with your team.”
The leader believed that there was too much activity and “fire-fighting” (a term which
managers use to describe dealing with symptoms of problems). “The ‘busyness’ we subject
ourselves to, and don’t give ourselves time to think... I don’t book time to think, try to do as
much as I can but realise in doing so I’m not being as effective as I could be. I sometimes
work from home or annexe a meeting room as a quiet space to think.” (Respondent 8).
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 61
4.3 Regular activities (weekly / quarterly)
The researcher set this question at this point of the questionnaire in order to capture any
standard element the respondents may have missed in the previous questions. It was
therefore an attempt to elicit actual practices as completely as possible.
Themes included:
- Quarterly review sessions
- Regular one-on-ones
- Weekly preparation and planning
- Measures and metrics, quality assurance
- Stakeholder meetings, to sustain improvements in the value chain
- Regular reading and learning
- Gemba walks
“I hold formal quarterly review sessions with the entire division. (I) unpack my scorecard
and present my performance appraisal rating. Collaborate to get a richness of input, develop
people and be in touch.” (Respondent 9).
“I do week by week prep, on a Thursday I look at my diary and plan ahead.” (Respondent
8).
Respondent 8 reduced the frequency of staff updates from monthly to quarterly to empower
direct reports to take the message to his/her own staff in more intimate settings. “In the past
I would have my business unit structure and set goals, meet monthly with management
team. Use outputs and share with whole business in a face to face interaction. But by having
monthly sessions, the operations managers abdicate their responsibility. You disempowered
them.”
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 62
A contingent factor to the suitability of such practices was integrity of business metrics.
“Big focus on measures and metrics, we now monitor quality and SLA6 on a daily basis”
(Respondent 5).
Stakeholder meetings were also a recurrent theme, given the integrated nature of global
operations. Stakeholder management was described by Respondent 1 as "hugely
underestimated but massively important". This leader aimed to become closer to external
stakeholders in order to sustain improvements across the value chain.
“External stakeholder management was not a proactive approach; we turned the relationship
around by instituting quarterly and ad hoc meetings with FAIS7 and PFA8..... Don't wait for
them to tell you if something is wrong, you tell them. Be proactive and open about what the
problem is, what we are doing about it and what the response will be” (Respondent 1).
Most of the respondents held regular one-on-ones. They commented on the essence and
effectiveness of these in the next question, merely listing their activities in this question.
However, at a macro level one-on-ones were focussed on deliveries and people
development.
Focus was also placed on regular reading and learning. Respondent 5 remarked:
“I spend a lot of time learning. Focus attention on the things that are broken. But (I) also
(spend) a fair amount of time reading widely. Follow people on twitter. Things that trigger
thoughts about how we can do things better: technology, managing people etc.”
The frequency of Gemba walks ranged from daily, to weekly, to monthly. Links were often
made to data integrity and efficiency of visual measurement. “Crisp measurement capability
that goes to executive management” (Respondent 6).
Respondent 7 felt gemba was only applicable to operational areas, but ironically adopted the
spirit of gemba through daily walkabouts across their areas.
6 SLA : Service Level Agreements 7 FAIS : Financial Advisory and Intermediary Service Act 8 PFA : Pension Funds Adjudicator
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 63
One item that had not been mentioned before was managing the expectations with staff
regarding constant changes required in an environment of Lean continuous improvement.
Respondent 4 felt that change was occurring at an unprecedented rate that required
expectation management to be a standardised practice by colleagues.
4.4 Attitudes towards LSW elements relevant to Business Leaders (i.e. gemba
walks, visual management, one-on-one’s, performance improvement review meetings,
spending time on the floor, ensuring and verifying standard work.)
The researcher intended to gauge respondents’ attitudes and feelings towards specific Lean
practices; and for those who favoured and applied them extensively, to understand why, and
how they applied these practices with the goal of sustaining organisational improvement.
Eighty percent (80%) of respondents provided answers and elaborations to parts of this
question.
Gemba
The majority of respondents viewed Gemba walks in a positive light, and were motivated to
apply it in different ways:
- Keep in touch regularly: “People are the key to any organization-this personal
approach has furthered cooperation across structures. Where teams worked
disparately, now there is more cohesion.” (Respondent 6).
- Refocus and align: “I found gemba not only helpful in understanding and solving
problems, but helpful in building relationship and improving accessibility. I make
sure the guys have their own PDCA9 process. Make people accountable; let them
carry on with their work.” (Respondent 1).
9 PDCA: Plan, Do, Check, Act (Lean Enterprise Institute, n.d.)
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 64
- Bringing accessibility, understanding and fostering goodwill: “people see that you
are interested” (Respondent 7).
Values associated with gemba were respect and trust. “Respect is my number one value. I
treat every colleague the same way, regardless of who interrupts the conversation my
attention stays with the gemba colleague”.(Respondent 1).
Respondent 4, to whom over one hundred people report indirectly, insists that these walks
are critical in engaging and connecting with people meaningfully. This helps understand the
depths of issues and the requisite details required for influence and improvements.
Increasing accessibility helped build relationships. Individual and subsequently team
motivation, efficiencies and quality improved, enabling faster turnaround times in response
to tasks. As respondent 1 said “people feel more accountable”...“...let’s them carry on with
their work...” This is further strengthened by a more dynamic operating climate where
recognition is acknowledged and valued. Respondent 1 added further: “climate10 improved
from 58% (2008) to 88% (2011).”
A business leader of African Operations, respondent 6 regards the key to “getting Gemba
walks right”, is by considered “sustainable organizational development”. The respondent
recommends taking a “rhythm of visiting the floor” i.e. Scheduling and undertaking visits to
the people involved in doing the work, visiting team scoreboards, having “Captains” visit
scoreboards to evaluate progress and measure results in the quest for continuous
improvement - “Gemba kaizen” as Imai’s (1997) title aptly suggests.
An improvement cycle based on the scientific method of proposing a change in a process,
implementing the change, measuring the results, and taking appropriate action. It is also known as
the Deming Cycle after W. Edwards Deming who introduced the concept in Japan in the 1950s. The
PDCA cycle has four stages:
1. Plan: Determine goals for a process and needed changes to achieve them.
2. Do: Implement the changes.
3. Check: Evaluate the results in terms of performance.
4. Act: Standardize and stabilize the change or begin the cycle again, depending on the results. 10 “Climate” is a measure of staff morale
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 65
Respondent 9, a corporate business leader believes that “you have to go to the data to know
the business, not the floor.” This respondent however admitted that the right questions must
be asked during Gemba walks and mentions that “every escalation is a Gemba walk” and
insists that such exercises must be “supplemented by data and data analysis to be effective.”
A lateral thinker, respondent 10, undergoes regular Gemba walks in areas other than their
own unit to focus on modules being implemented that apply to the respondent’s area. The
respondent has further shown initiative by examining non-financial services industries such
as manufacturing and FMCG11 industries with a major focus on measurement. They attempt
to ensure all activities are practically measurable from team leader level to execution owner
per module at business level to achieve what respondent refers to as “cross pollination.”
They find that the regular reviews against plans and targets have shown a notable
improvement upon prior plans in addition to external input from appropriate consultants.
Respondent 10 has further extended Gemba walking outside the bounds of the office
environment onto the doorstep of key suppliers: this collaborative “meeting of the minds”
approach is intended to co-opt and embrace suppliers to help align and execute and achieve
their plans.
Respondent 8, currently involved in a strategic cross-functional business transformation,
was unequivocal in maintaining that “there is value in seeing how others are doing the same
or similar things that you have to do.” The respondent has seen the benefits of the Gemba
walk “opt-in” approach: discussing how people run their businesses and develop best
practices. These interactions along with exposure with other similar leaders have helped the
respondent avoid similar mistakes; learnt how to do things better and led to sustained
improvement.
However, the same respondent has noticed that some operations managers have not
advanced the Lean approach amongst their teams. The respondent noted that the apparent
tokenistic Lean approach needs to be addressed from a leadership perspective to ensure
managers encourage this approach to be practiced downstream.
11 FCMG refers to the market known as Fast Moving Consumer Goods
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 66
Visual management (at the gemba)
Visual management as a Lean technique allows for rapid assessment of a situation. Visual
scoreboards indicating performing and non-performing areas in their quest to “change
behaviours, raise awareness about efficiency and customer centricity” (Respondent 8) are
extensively and effectively utilised.
Posey (2011), describes visual management as
- Supporting “integration and alignment” of organizational systems
- Providing “mechanisms for continuous improvement through system alignment,
goal clarity, engagement of people in the process, and improved communication and
information sharing throughout the organization”
- Simplifying and improving the “means of delivery of information and results”;
thereby highlighting and bring to the fore critical information
Respondent 2 emphasised consistency and reassessment: “if you’re teaching team leaders to
be coaches, be mentors yourself”. Using the example of replicating the morning meetings
(in front of white boards): “Institutionalize it by ensuring (the) same supporting component
of Leader Standard Work is done at every level”, this leader adopted the approach at
executive (business leader) level by employing obeya (as described in respondent feedback
earlier in findings).
In a show of consistency of principles, the leader further advocates that the CEO should also
focus on an area to have a monthly Gemba walk-through with Business Leaders.
Respondent 4 explains that appropriate visual management techniques tend to be more
effective in operational areas where work is of a repetitive nature, but hastens to add that it
differs according to the circumstances especially where cycles are longer term. It is critical
to develop plans, highlight key performance requirements and track, evaluate and deliver in
line with the plan.
Respondent 5, managing director of a large local business unit, acknowledges the “niceties”
of visual management techniques, but states that “the biggest challenge is data”. Why?
Some techniques can get dated quickly. In such high volume data units as these, the
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 67
respondent says it is essential in maintaining daily quality assurance practices. This also
helps preserve data integrity and security.
Regarding team-building, one can be an enabler when dealing with different cultures by
being mindful and showing respect. Respondent 6 states that it is crucial to “ask questions
demonstrating commitment to being part of the team”...showing that... “the team can rely on
you for support” while maintaining the organization’s aims in the context of the global
workplace. Additionally, as other respondents have admitted, scoreboards are irrelevant
without “recognition by visiting captains.”
Respondent 6 additionally elaborates
“Supporting the team doing the work and the management to be able to manage and vestige
the queues, baskets and flows is often the key to finding sustained organizational
improvement”...“management has thus recognised that it must empower people up the
hierarchy to sustain improvements, deal with operational issues and reduce fire-fighting”.
Adept management operational capability in addition to employing prudent visual
management aides, furnishes good, clear processes in such financial environments. The
experience of respondent 6 indicates that managing the value chain and providing feedback
and support and reducing meetings to focus on the core issues, increases productivity.
According to Posey (2011), “Information overload is reduced allowing employees to see
their results. This makes the work more meaningful and fun!”
One-on-one’s
Respondents did not elaborate extensively on one-on-ones in this question, having
addressed it in describing their leadership philosophy and scheduled activities. Almost
without exception, each respondent adhered to regular one-on-ones with their direct reports.
Respondent 8 intends on balancing team and individual meetings: having monthly meetings
with the full team complement in addition to regular one-on-ones with direct reports.
Despite not yet practicing this, the respondent values having frequent informal, shorter
interactions.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 68
Respondent 3, who manages a customer facing operation across South Africa was
methodical in planning one-on-ones with subordinate managers: “usually at the beginning
of the week to be able to act on issues during the same week.”
Respondent 6 sought to derive the following outputs from one-on-ones:
“Plan things that need to be done, book time for yourself and schedule during the day. Be
clear on roles and responsibility and approach to how we will do the work. Define the
approach, pitfalls, and then monitor on a regular basis. Team members must be honest. Find
out what makes people tick etc, part of the operational management up-skilling. Extent to
which that leads to discontentment, pre and post implementation.”
4.5 Interpretation of Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work
I concluded each interview with this question in order to assess how these leaders (many of
them experienced lean practitioners) interpreted these two terms. The concept of Lean
Leadership was familiar to all respondents but not consistently described. Leader Standard
Work, however, appeared to have low concept recognition.
The table below contrasts the interpretation of each respondent.
Table 10: Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work
Lean Leadership Leader Standard Work
Respondent One
Sees Lean Leadership as “an adjustment of
leadership behaviour. It’s about visiting the
Gemba (going to see, ask why, supporting the
front line) and coaching to build a system of
thinking people.
The ‘personal “framework” they follow to ensure
they deliver to standards they have signed up and
agreed to.
“It’s about regularly tracking the delivery,
understanding what is or isn’t going well and
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 69
It allows us to build a structured and integrated
approach to see and solve problems by using tools
and methods to deliver improved business results.
Lastly, it’s about respect."
building plans in cases where we have fallen
short or where we want to improve even further
(i.e. having a counter measure)....it merely
relates to the constant pursuit of ever
improvement and the key role the leader plays in
driving the organisation to achieve this.”
Respondent Two
“Lean Leadership is predicated on Lean standard
work. What leaders do at all levels of the
organization that helps develop a culture of Lean
Thinking and behaviour reinforcement.”
“At the higher levels...understanding the big
value chains and what leaders can do to ensure
that the business model supports Lean Thinking
and institutionalization of Lean behaviours, i.e
working with the whole system to ensure that
flow of value across the value chain is
understood and that systems-thinking is applied
in the improvement of the system.
At lower levels, leaders work with systems and
processes that support the value chain: reinforce
and execute approaches adopted at the systems-
level. Examples include problem solving
techniques, opportunity identification, clear
measures and visual tracking and reporting.”
Respondent Three
“Lean Leadership consists of two aspects: The
first being the role models when it comes to Lean.
So if we say Lean is about managing in a certain
way so as not to have waste, the leadership should
“Per role if we have gone through what is
expected at a certain a certain level (i.e. MDP12),
without standardising it… it might be difficult to
standardise a leader’s work. As long as you
12 MDP refers to Old Mutual’s in-house Management Development Programme
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 70
demonstrate this/ the role modelling is not
happening if we have a lot of duplication.
Especially with regard to take on’s. It talks to
talking your talk.
The second is driving the approach called Lean.
At a certain level it means we need to
implement/roll out a Lean approach in your area.
It talks to walking your talk.”
know what’s expected at a certain level. Try not
to operate at a lower level. And push people to
the correct level as well. A lot more is expected
of business leaders today, at a strategic level.
You just don’t have the time to work at an
operational level, set parameters and equip your
reports to work at the correct level.”
Respondent Four
“It is critical to have buy-in at the highest level to
the Lean philosophy and role modelling. Lean
Leadership is about understanding the detail,
monitoring the right things and you instilling the
culture through the way you work. Empowering
people to do their jobs, giving them the freedom,
by sharing decision making power.”
“Leader Standard Work? I have not heard the
term, but interpret this to mean you yourself as a
person understand how you work best and then
do it to deliver well. But it’s not about creating
‘Minnie-me’s’ to follow how you work, what
you want is to ensure results are at a certain
required standard. Once we’ve met one standard,
we push each other to progress to the next one.
So people are pushing themselves to
continuously improve.”
Respondent Five
“A leader who leads the Lean journey by example
and is able to make the theory real for the people
that do it. Someone that can get through to people
and help them understands the philosophy and
how it can make a difference in their daily lives
and work.”
“The standard work that a leader does. Difficult
to come up with standard work for a leader as a
big component of leadership is personality. The
danger is standard work could become tick box
as opposed to addressing a certain outcome. If
we are not clear about the end.”
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 71
Respondent Six
Lean Leadership is the broader term that refers to
the way you approach strategy in the organisation
and how you are building Lean Capability and
Problem Solving etc, etc.
Leader Standard work is basically the practice of
trying to standardize as much as possible of what
a leader does on a daily basis – i.e. following
standard operating procedures. Hopefully many
of the procedures will be founded in Lean
Leadership principles…
Respondent Seven
“Lean principles, philosophy, role model it,
implement it, understand and support it. It is a
philosophy, not mechanistic.”
“…do’s and don’ts. This is a framework that can
improve performance.”
Respondent Eight
“For me it is about recognising that we’re here for
the benefit of the customer. And then it’s about
understanding how the work works and flows so
that you are always adding value to the
customer.”
“What I would understand from that is taking the
concept of standard operating processes for
administrative people should in theory apply to
leaders as well. All the things we have been
talking about, if it works for more people than
most, if we adopted that can we become better
leaders..?”
Respondent Nine
“…it’s about really understanding your business
from customer to customer, whether it’s in your
area or not, and creating the right interactions to
simultaneously improve customer experience and
reduce costs.”
“Leader Standard Work: the management
process should give you the right outcome. Not
the person. I do think there need to be more
leader management practices. I don’t think we
have enough management resources that we
reuse.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 72
There is a lot of leadership waste because we are
not clear about what we want. There needs to be
a purpose to what we do. I think the biggest issue
we have is disciplined execution, which is why
this will be hard to do. We need a starting point,
80% of what we need should be there. But the
guys should be willing to learn from each other
and be disciplined to go to a resource centre.”
Respondent Ten
“Operates on two levels: strategic and operational
Strategic: transformational - leading significant
changes, on a global stage, operating cross
boundaries, learning from the best, dealing with
complexities; commercialisation, benchmarking;
allowing time to think; in essence walking the talk
Operational: about how you as a manager
effectively utilise your own time. Eliminating
waste and improving processes, but at a lower
scale; managing your diary effectively so that the
time works for you rather than things happening
to you, i.e. booking time to think. Being better in
control in a world of chaos. Incremental rather
than transformational changes”
“Not familiar with the term. But practically do it.
Introduction..plan to any new team leader or ops
manager (very detailed in terms of the level of
your responsibility). Do think that a
guide/reference could assist the new folk coming
in at Business Leader level.”
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 73
5 ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Adoption of Leader Standard Work items
While there is no instituted Leader Standard Work guideline for Business Leaders,
OMSTA’s fourteen Lean training modules do provide behavioural guidelines that are
audited half-yearly in order to test compliance and monitor maturity of business units. They
are audited against five maturity levels which have elements of Leader Standard work
inherently built in, ranging from:
1. “Unawareness” (level 1), which is characterised by a change resistance.
2. “Awareness“ (level 2) where there is knowledge and understanding of key concepts,
inclination to adapt as well as evidence of behaviour, but in isolation and not
necessarily effectively practice.
3. “Fitness” (level 3) is a state of maturity whereby practices are being applied and
there is evidence of improvement in terms of four broad balanced scorecard type
indicators (value, quality, delivery, energised people – a tailored adoption of the four
perspectives developed by Kaplan (1992) internal process, people, financial,
customer). Staff and leadership within a business unit at this level would typically
coach other business units who are at lower maturity levels.
4. “Sophistication” (level 4) indicates that the level of application and history of results
is so established and the cross value chain efforts so beneficial to other business
units, that this business unit is recognised as the gold standard with regard to the
module/modules rated level 4 within the organisation.
5. “World class” (level 5) is the aspirational level for business units.
Elements of Leader Standard Work as prescribed by Mann (2005, 2009, 2010) are
incorporated within at least four of these fourteen Lean training modules: high
performance teams, quality, standardisation and capacity utilisation.
To reiterate the alignment of Business Leader within the strata of leadership provided by
Mann (2009) as conferred in the literature review, the researcher contends that Business
Leaders operated at both a tactical and programmatic level. The Leader Standard Work
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 74
items include Mann’s (2010, p.41-42) description of Leader Standard Work which
straddle the Value Stream Manager and Plant Manager Level. The items below have
been reflected accordingly in the comparative below:
Table 11: Adoption of Leader Standard Work
Leader Standard Work Item (Mann 2010)
Application interpretation within
OMSTA context
Extent of practice
Review performance trend
charts
Review service levels against client
agreed standards
10/10
Spot-check visual controls Spot-check visual displays 6/10
Weekly performance
improvement review
meetings
Same – though can apply to both an
operation and a project
10/10
Spot review product and
process improvement work
Meet project commitments; Manage
intersection performance,
commitments to processes post-
project
5/10
Verify leaders’ Standard
Work
Disciplined adherence to standards 4/10
Floor time Associate engagement 7/10
Gemba walks Teach, coach, practice root cause
problem solving, recognise
9/10
There appears to be evidence of Leader Standard Work among Business Leaders in
OMSTA. Gemba was a key element in this regard, although applied inconsistently and
motivated in different ways. Most respondents viewed it as a coaching philosophy and a
few others as a recognition tool. There was extensive indication of activity at the primary
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 75
level in the form of managing project performance and intersection performance (i.e.
stakeholder management across the value chain) as per Mann’s earlier iteration (2009).
Less mention was made explicitly in terms of verifying subordinate leaders’ Standard
Work. This practice was instituted in Lean training modules in respect of standardisation
and quality, which prescribed monthly reviews of standards and standard operating
procedures. These were tasks that appeared more in line with the duties of Business
Leaders’ immediate subordinates (the Operations Managers). This may also indicate a lack
of recognition, or perhaps awareness and understanding, of intentional partial redundancy
(Mann, 2010) as a key underpin to LSW.
Standardised application
While standard elements may not appear to be applied in a consistent way, or supported by
the same motivations, the respondent community were inclined to the theory that the
adoption of a guideline may be beneficial. During the interview process, respondents would
mostly arrive at this view upon further discussion of the concept, and in almost all cases
when the researcher had elaborated on the less structured approach, characterised by a lower
proportion of standard elements for senior leaders, espoused by Mann (2010, p.46): “as
organisational level increases, fewer elements need to be performed, in a specific sequence,
or at specified times of day”.
There appeared to be confusion between standardization and consistency. If each executive
practiced their own set of Lean Leadership behaviours they may certainly be consistently
applying their own practices over time; but may not necessarily be a set of standardized
practices across Lean Leadership.
Evolved Standards
Respondents cited a number of behaviours outside of Mann’s (2010) guidelines, which the
researcher has inferred as evolved standards – i.e. sufficiently indicated behaviours and
practices within the sample population. Most typical would be direction settings and
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 76
strategic planning. These traits were consistent with the dimension of clear direction as
described in the framework eschewed by Balle (M. & F., 2009).
Other commonly cited elements included time allocation for the express purposes of
preparation and reflection. Respondents reasoned that these aspects were critical success
factors towards facilitating their ability to operate at a strategic level, and, in order to avoid
inadvertently investing a disproportionate focus at operational level.
Proportion of time spent on leader standard work
The proportion of time leaders spent on activities deemed standard according to Mann
(2010) is approximately 10%-20% at the Executive level. The researcher estimates, based
on responses to question two and three of the interviews wherein which Business Leaders
were asked to relay events of a typical day (question two) as well as regular
weekly/monthly behaviours, that application of Leader Standard Work items may be
roughly within that territory.
Understanding and interpretation of Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work
Lean Leadership came across almost as an aspirational ideal or philosophy among the
respondent community. Many saw Leader Standard Work as a dovetailing in order to
manifest Lean Leadership.
The respondents spoke of role modelling, and practicing in a consistent way which
pointed towards an intuitive approach. This resonated with what Mann (2009, p.26)
stated: “Lean provides the templates and practices that enable leaders to learn, and then
look for, ask about, and reinforce leadership behaviours that sustain the gains”.
Although some respondents were not aware of the term “Leader Standard Work”, almost
all appeared inclined to its benefits. While it could be argued that if these managers have
not heard of the concept of Leader Standard Work, they presumably also did not work to
a particular set of practices associated with Lean Leadership
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 77
Respondents recognise of the benefits of standardisation, unsurprising given the extent of
Lean training at OMSTA. The researcher however, interpreted a degree of scepticism in
terms of adopting Leader Standard Work, with respondents weary of colleagues missing
the intent and approaching it as a tick box exercise.
Standard Work is predominantly applied in technical processes driven by front line staff. At
least two respondents perceived Leader Standard Work as curbing their management style.
Those that were disinclined revealed a superficial understanding of the concept;
misinterpretting LSW as coercive and limiting to their creative ability (Emiliani, 2006).
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 78
6 CONCLUSIONS
The intent of this research report was to describe the role (if any) of Leader Standard Work
within a proportionately large division of Old Mutual that had established Lean as a guiding
philosophy.
Is there evidence of Leader Standard Work as described by Mann (2010) in Old Mutual?
There were no formal Leader Standard Work guidelines at the Business Leader level within
OMSTA, but respondents’ accounts of their practices aligned with a high proportion of
Leader Standard Work elements, as expressed in Mann’s (2009 & 2010) guidelines. At least
60% of all respondents indicated adoption of five out of the eight elements of Leader
Standard Work relevant to the Business Leader strata of leadership. Furthermore, the
rationale supporting existing behaviour within OMSTA bore similarities to a number of
defining characteristics of LSW as summarised in the literature review.
What is the level of practice of Leader Standard Work against Mann’s framework (2010)?
Although there was evidence of LSW application, it was not necessarily practiced in
consistent ways. A key example being Gemba walks, which are generally used by Business
Leaders, but standardised routines are not. This poses several questions, the implications of
which are unclear. If standard routines are not part of what Business Leaders do then what
are the potential consequences? Are standardised routines unnecessary? Does Mann's model
require modification, or is Mann's model correct and by implication the low usage of
standard routines will impact negatively operational performance?
How do leaders interpret Lean Leadership and Leader Standard Work?
The consensus view regarding Lean Leadership was that of an integrated management
philosophy supported by a framework of principles. Leader Standard Work was seen as an
example of such a framework (principles). While many interpretations of the latter were
relevant, understanding was somewhat superficial in certain areas. A key factor the
researcher did not find evident was appreciation of intentional partial redundancy which, if
absent in the design of a future LSW framework, may impact its efficacy.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 79
It is the researcher’s contention that an institutionalised Leader Standard Work framework
may bolster OMSTA’s efforts at imbibing the Lean philosophy that has brought it
significant gains. A further implication is potentially, to provide staff at subordinate levels
with a tangible example of Business Leaders commitment of Standard Work. To apply an
overused corporate parlance, this may send a signal to staff that senior leadership is walking
the talk, and influence the adherence to standards through vertical hierarchies and across in
the value chain.
There is a compelling opportunity to introduce it currently, through incorporation into the
Lean Leadership module currently in development.
Research Evaluation
Transferability of the data
Transferability refers to the extent to which the findings of a study can be applied to more
generally to other situations (Shenton, 2004). In order to address transferability, I
emphasised the context of my research as a component of an industry, with an established
background of Lean application. I also ensured a diverse cross section of respondents within
the relevant leadership strata.
Credibility of findings
In terms of qualitative research, credibility refers to the ability and effort on the part of the
researcher to portray a true a picture of the area under study (Golafshani, 2003). In order to
address this, I interviewed a suitably large sample and developed early awareness of the
organisation.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 80
Research limitations restated
The limitations were originally stated as follows (section 3.6):
1. The data gathered from interviews may not be completely objective due to the
respondent bias
2. Due to time constraints the researcher applied a single method of data collection (semi-
structured interviews), which restricted method triangulation.
3. Sustainability could not be tested. The scope of the study, and the inherent limitations
due to time availability and performance data, did not lend itself to quantitative research
methods.
4. The evidence presented by respondents cannot be reliably verified
5. The researcher’s interpretation of data is inherent in the coding process, notable in
respect of categorisation and coding
6. The respondents have varying extent of Lean management implementation experience
and expertise.
7. The findings are applicable to the relevant leadership layer (i.e. Business Leader level)
within OMSTA; and may not be generalizable to equivalent leadership strata outside of
administration and servicing components of other financial services organisations.
Additional limitations emerged during the course of this research:
8. Due to time limitations, there was a potential conflict in assessment between time-
intensive depth of examination and breadth of domain coverage needed for
generalisabilty of construct interpretation (Messick 1995)
9. These assessments were done according to the researcher’s judgement. Ideally inter-
rater reliability tests (Saal et al, 1980) could have been performed, but time constraints
did not permit this.
10. The researcher cannot make assertions regarding applicability of findings (to other
organisations within the financial services and administration domain which have
established Lean as their operations philosophy – supported by a formal training and
implementation programme.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 81
7 FUTURE RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
This research covers a broad range of management topics (such as Lean, leadership,
sustainability, business culture); there are a number of avenues that could be explored.
There are a number of research possibilities that emanate from the role of Leader Standard
Work.
Firstly, it could branch off to describe Leader Standard Work in other leadership layers
within the financial sector. A further opportunity may lie with the exploration of Leader
Standard Work in industries other than financial services.
Future research can be expanded in scope, and take on a quantitative element, through an
investigation of the effect of Leader Standard Work on business performance. This may in
turn, present a compelling opportunity, to assess the leveragability of Leader Standard
Work.
Furthermore, a different angle can be explored – leader standards espoused by other
management philosophies can be contrasted with those of Lean Leader Standard Work.
There indeed appears a magnitude of potential research permutations that emanate from this
topic.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 82
8 RESEARCH PLAN
8.1 Gantt chart
Month July August September October November December
Week 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Preliminary research
proposal
Feedback from
supervisor
Final research proposal
(Submission)
Develop questionnaire
and obtain Supervisor
feedback
Conduct interviews
Analyse findings and
obtain Supervisor
feedback
Interpretation and
review of findings
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 83
Draft document
compilation
Submit draft research
report
Feedback from
supervisor
Revision of draft
document
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 84
8.2 Cost-budget
The research methodology required many hours in collecting/gathering, capturing and analysis. In
addition conducting an industry based survey.
The costs were as follows:
Table 11: Budget
Activity Cost
Telephone calls R500
Transport R1000
Printing, packaging & courier costs R500
Editing R1000
Total R3000
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 85
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, J.H. (2000). Making lean manufacturing work for you. Journal of Manufacturing
Engineering, 2000(6), 1-6.
April, K., Katoma, V., & Peters, B.K.G. (2009). Critical effort and leadership in specialised virtual
networks. Annual Review for High Performance Coaching and Consulting, 187-215.
Balle, M., & Balle, F. (2009). The Lean Manager – a Novel of Lean Transformation. Lean
Enterprise Institute, Cambridge.
Bateman, N. (2005). Sustainability: the elusive element of process improvement. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(3), 261-276.
Bhasin, S., & Burcher, P. (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 17(1), 56 – 72.
Blanchard, D. (2007). Census of U.S. Manufacturers - Lean Green and Low Cost. Industry Weekly,
Retrieved August 31, 2011 from: http://www.industryweek.com/articles/census_of_u-s-
_manufacturers_--_lean_green_and_low_cost_15009.aspx?SectionID=10.
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2007). Business Research Methods (2nd edition.). Oxford University Press.
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and
postgraduate students (2nd edition.). Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative Research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health
Research, 12(2), 279-289.
Emiliani, M. L. (2006). Standardized work for executive leadership. Organization Development
Journal. doi:10.1108/01437730810845289
Flinchbaugh, J., & Carlino, A. (2006). The Hitchhiker's Guide to Lean: Lessons from the Road.
United States: Society of Manufacturing Engineers.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The
Qualitative Report, 8(4).
Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative methods in management research (2nd edition.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hines,P., Holweg,M., & Rich,N. (2004). Learning to evolve: A review of contemporary lean
thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(10), 994 - 1011
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 86
Hines,P., Found, P., Griffiths, G., & Harrison, R. (2008). Staying lean: Thriving, not just surviving
(1st ed). Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff University.
Hines,P., Found, P., Griffiths, G., & Harrison, R. (2010). Staying lean: Thriving, not just surviving
(2nd ed). Productivity Press, New York.
Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: utilizing human
resources (3rd ed.). New Jersey/Prentice Hall
Hindle, T. (2008) The Economist Guide to Management Ideas and Gurus. London:
Profile Books, 307-310.
Holland, J. (2005) Globalization and Autonomy Online Compendium. Retrieved October 19, 2011
from http://globalautonomy.ca/global1/servlet/Glossarypdf?id=CO.0021
Imai, M. (1997). Gemba Kaizen: A commonsense, low cost approach to management (1st ed).
McGraw-Hill.
Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., & Liu, A. H. (1999). Theory testing using case studies in. Industrial
Marketing Management, 213, 201-213.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance.
Harvard Business Review, Jan – Feb, p. 71–80
King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research, in C. Cassell and G. Symon (Eds.)
Essential guide to qualitative methods in organisational research. London: Sage, 11-22.
Liff, S., & Posey, A. (2007). Seeing is believing: How the new art of visual management can boost
performance throughout your organisation. Amacon.
Liker, J., & Rother, M. (2010). Why Lean Programs Fail. Lean Enterprise Institute, 1-5. Retrieved
August 20, 2011 from www.lean.org.
Luckman, J. (2010). Lean transformation: Understanding the hidden rules of engagement, April.
Retrieved September 16, 2011 from
http://www.lean.org/downloads/Transformational_Leadership_April_2010.pdf
Leedy, P., & Ormrod, J. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design (9th ed). Pearson
Education, New Jersey: Merrill.
Mann, D. (2005). Creating a lean culture: Tools to sustain lean conversions. New York:
Productivity Press.
Mann, D. (2009). The missing link: Lean leadership. Frontiers of Health Services Management,
26(1), 15-26.
Mann, D. (2010). Creating a lean culture: Tools to sustain lean conversions (2nd ed). Boca Raton,
London, New York: CRC Press, 37-51.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 87
Meier, H., & Forrester, P. (2002). A model for evaluating the degree of leanness of manufacturing
firms. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13, 1-7.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons'
responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist,
50(9),741-749.doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741, Retrieved October 17, 2011 from
(http://mres.gmu.edu/readings/PSYC557/Messick1995.pdf)
North et al. (1983). Monitoring industrial change at the local level: Some comments on methods
and data sources. In M.J. Healey (ed.) Urban and Regional Industrial Research: The Changing
UK Data Base. Norwich: Geo Books, 11-29.
Posey, P. (2011). Eyes on performance: Visual strategies for organisations. Retrieved November
29, 2011 from http://www.eyesonperformance.com/aboutvm.html.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In Jane Ritchie & Jane
Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and
researchers, (77-108), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roca, J., Barriale, A., Luja, M., Mullooly, K., Tse, L., Varner, R., Bourgeois, M., et al. (2006).
Lean manufacturing for financial services: Delivering value by eliminating waste. London:
Corporate Executive Board.
Rother,M., & Shook, J. (2003). Learning to see: value stream mapping to create value and eliminate
muda. 1(3), Lean Enterprise Institute, Inc.
Saal, F.E., Downey, R.G., & Lahey, M.A (1980). Rating the ratings: Assessing the psychometric
quality of rating data. Psychological Bulletin, 88(2), 413–428.
Seddon, J. (2005). Freedom from command and control: Rethinking management for lean service.
New York: Productivity Press.
Shook, J. (2008). Managing to learn: Using the A3 management process. Lean Enterprise Institute,
Inc.
Simons, H. (1980). Towards a science of the singular: Essays about case study in educational
research and evaluation. Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia, Centre for Applied
Research in Education.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed).
Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
Soy, S. K. (1997). The case study as a research method. Unpublished paper, University of Texas at
Austin. Retrieved September 30, 2011, from
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~ssoy/usesusers/l391d1b.htm
Soltani, E., & Wilkinson, A. (2010). Stuck in the middle with you: The effects of incongruency of
senior and middle managers' orientations on TQM programmes. International Journal of
Operations and Production Management. 30(4), 365-397.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 88
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management
Decision, 39(7), 551-555.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd ed). Sage Publications: London.
Vanderbilt University, College of Arts and Science, Anthropology Department. (n.d.) Taylorism
and Fordism (see Antonio Gramsci’s Notebook 22) Retrieved October 19, 2011 from
www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/Anthro/Anth101/taylorism_and_fordism.htm
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195-219.
doi:10.1108/01443570210414329
Vorberg, D., & Ulrich, R. (1987). Random search with unequal search rates: Serial and parallel
generalisations of McGill's model. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 31(1), 1-23.
Womack, J., & Jones, D. (2003). Lean thinking-Banish waste and create wealth in your corporation
(2nd ed). New York, NY: Free Press, Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Womack, J., & Jones, D. (2005). Lean solutions - How companies and customers can create value
and wealth together. Free Press, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Womack, J., Jones, T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. Free Press,
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Womack, J.P., & Shook, J. (2008). Lean management and the role of lean leadership.
http://www.lean.org/Events/WebinarHome.cfm
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Other sources:
http://www.lean.org/WhoWeAre/NewsArticleDocuments/Capsule%20summaries%20of%20Key%
20Lean%20Concepts%20B.doc Retrieved 20 November 2011, 02:23
http://www.leanceo.com/training-presentations/details/lean-leadership/leader-standard-work-
powerpoint-presentation Retrieved: 6 December 2011, 14:00
http://leanceo.com/training-presentations/details/lean-enterprise/lean-leadership-powerpoint-
presentation Retrieved: 6 December 2011, 13:20
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 89
Appendix 1: Interview guide
Question 1
Please take me through typical practices and behaviours that you as a leader have adopted (due to
their positive effect on sustainable organisational improvement)?
i.e. I wanted to keep this section open ended to allow for open exchange of views – so as not to
restrict them to tools, but rather to feel free to express their beliefs, behaviours, processes, methods
and competencies
Question 1(a)
Request elaboration where necessary
Question 2
Please take me through a typical day: what do you do and why?
i.e. this attempts to elicit what activities are prioritised and for what reason
Question 3
Please talk about the things you do on a regular basis, i.e. certain weekly, monthly, quarterly, half-
yearly activities?
i.e. gives the leader an opportunity to talk about aspects he/she may not have covered previously in
terms of gemba walks, one-on-ones etc.
Question 4
What your views regarding elements such as: gemba walks, visual management, one-on-one’s,
performance improvement review meetings, spending time on the floor, ensuring and verifying
standard work.
Question 5
What to you understand by the terms “Lean Leadership” and “Leader Standard Work?
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 90
Appendix 2: Glossary of Salient Lean Terminology
Checklist - A form used as a reference to assure all of the key steps in a process have been completed.
Check lists are often integrated into the standard work for an operation.
Cross-functional Team - A team comprised of individuals representing different functions within a given
process. The team may be formed for a specific activity (e.g. a Kaizen Event), or the team may be more
permanent in nature (a cross-functional team, co-located and cross-trained, put in place to support a specific
product or customer).
Cycle Time - The frequency, or interval, of work being completed.
Downstream - As viewed from a reference point, downstream processes are activities that take place
after the reference point (e.g. transmitting a quote to the customer is a downstream process from writing the
quote). Contrast with Upstream.
Five “Whys” - A root-cause analysis tool used to identify the true root cause of a problem. The question
“why” is asked a sufficient number of times to find the fundamental reason for the problem. Once that cause
is identified, an appropriate countermeasure can be designed and implemented to eliminate reoccurrence.
Gemba - A Japanese word for the “real place” or the “actual place” where the real work/action occurs, that
is where products or services are performed. To understand the real issues that affect a process it is critical
to go to gemba in order to see what is actually happening.
Genchi Genbutsu - A Japanese term that refers to seeing for yourself. Genchi Genbutsu is the act of going
to gemba: Going to the source to see the facts for oneself and make the right decisions, create consensus, and
make sure goals are attained at the best possible speed.
Genjitsu - A Japanese term that refers to the “actual facts” or reliable and observed data required to
understand what the actual situation/problem is.
Hoshin Kanri - A strategic decision-making tool for a firm’s executive team that focuses on resources on
the critical initiatives necessary to accomplish the business objectives of the firm. By using visual matrix
diagrams similar to those employed for quality function deployment, three to six key objectives are selected
while all others are clearly deselected. The selected objectives are translated in specific strategies and
deployed down to the implementation level in the firm. Hoshin Kanri unifies and aligns resources and
establishes clearly measurable targets against which progress towards the key objectives are measured on a
regular basis.
Kaikaku - Radical / breakthrough process improvement over a short period of time; innovation. Changes of
these type are often implemented during the course of a Kaizen Event.
Kaizen - Continuous improvement (CI) of an entire value stream or an individual process to create more
value with less waste. This is a philosophy of frequently reviewing processes, identifying opportunities for
improvement and implementing changes to get closer to perfection. There are two levels of kaizen: (1)
System or flow kaizen focuses on the overall value stream and (2) process kaizen focuses on individual
processes. When applied to a business enterprise, it refers to ongoing improvement involving the entire
workforce including senior leadership, middle management and frontline workers. Kaizen is also a
philosophy that assumes that our way of life (working, social or personal) deserves to be constantly
improved.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 91
Kaizen Event (Kaizen Blitz and Rapid Improvement Event) - A structured, team-based, problem-solving
activity of short duration used to improve processes throughout an organization. Activities typically include:
team training, current state analysis, future state design, prioritization of improvements, train on new
process, and implementing the selected improvements. Duration is typically 1-5 days. The event team is
focused on the process 100% of time during the event and is cross-functional in composition.
Lead Time (Turnaround Time; Throughput Time) - The amount of time it takes for a product (or
service) to go through the system, from the first operation to the final operation, including processing,
delays, movement, queues, etc. At a process level, the process lead time begins when the work is received,
and ends when the work is delivered to the next downstream customer.
Leader Standard Work (LSW) – LSW is a pillar of the lean management system. "It provides a structure
and routine that helps leaders shift from a sole focus on results to a dual focus on process and results"
(Mann, 2010, p.37). It seeks to determine whether standards are being adhered to and whether they are
sufficient to sustain lean gains and develop a lean culture.
Lean - The philosophy of aggressive continuous improvement based executed through; defining value from
the customer’s perspective; mapping the value streams; creating flow; working at the pull of the customer;
and, pursuit of perfection.
Lean Leadership (LL) – Good leaders motivate people in a variety of ways, three of which are the basis to
the “lean” approach:- Lean leaders must : Define the organization’s vision in a way that highlights the
values of their group; Support people’s efforts to achieve the shared vision through coaching, feedback, and
role modeling; Should recognize and reward success. Moves or actions a leader can perform to provide
leadership on the lean journey: Leaders must be teachers; Build tension, not stress; Eliminate fear and
comfort; Lead through visible participation, not proclamation; Build lean into personal practice
Lean Production - A business system for organizing and managing product development, operations,
suppliers, and customer relations that requires less human effort, less space, less capital, and less time to
make products with fewer defects to precise customer desires, compared with the previous system of mass
production. Lean production was pioneered by Toyota after World War II and, as of 1990, typically required
half the human effort, half the manufacturing space and capital investment for a given amount of capacity,
and a fraction of the development and lead time of mass production systems, while making products in wider
variety at lower volumes with many fewer defects. The term was coined by John Krafcik, a research
assistant at MIT with the International Motor Vehicle Program in the late 1980s. Also refer to Toyota
Production System
Lean Thinking - A 5-step thought process proposed by James Womack and Dan Jones in their 2003 book
Lean Thinking to guide managers through a lean transformation. The steps are: Specify value from the
standpoint of the end customer; (2) Identify all the steps in the value stream; (3) Make the value creating
steps flow toward the customer; (4) Let customers pull value from the next upstream activity; (5) Pursue
perfection
Muda (Non-value-adding; Waste) - A Japanese word for waste. Any activity that consumes resources but
does not provide value as defined by the customer. The eight common types of waste are: overproduction;
over-processing; waiting; inventory; defects; motion (by people); transportation (of product / material);
under-utilization of people.
Multi-functional Workers - Individuals trained and qualified to perform a variety of tasks. In a lean
operation, the focus is to have workers cross-trained on operations upstream and downstream of their
primary work so they can support the Value Stream should problems occur.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 92
Necessary Non-value-added - Activities that add no value from the customer’s perspective but are required
in order to operate the business. This could include legal and regulatory requirements as well as certain
internal business processes which would put the business at risk if eliminated in today’s environment.
Non-value-adding (NVA) - A task that the customer does not care about and would be unwilling to pay for
if he/she knew the incremental cost of that task. The attribute of a task or activities that can be eliminated
from a process without deterioration of the function, performance or quality of a product or service, as
viewed by the customer. Two types of Non-value-adding activity exist: Necessary NVA and Unnecessary
NVA.
Nichijo Kanri - Daily fundamental management. This is the opposite of Hoshin Kanri or Policy
Deployment, which is the direction setting management or strategic planning function.
Obeya - This Japanese word means “big room.” At Toyota it has become a major project management tool,
used especially in product development, to enhance effective and timely communication. Similar in concept
to traditional “war rooms,” an Obeya will contain highly visual charts and graphs depicting program timing,
milestones and progress to date and countermeasures to existing timing or technical problems. Project
leaders will have desks in the Obeya as will others at appropriate points in the program
timing. The purpose is to ensure project success and shorten the PDCA cycle.
PACE Chart - A graphic used to help quickly prioritize a list of improvement ideas based on ease of
implementation and anticipated benefit.
Pareto Principle (80% Rule) - The concept that most of the effects in a situation can be traced back to a
small number of contributors. In the early 1900’s Wilfred Pareto observed that 80% of the property in
Italy was held by only 20% of the population. Joseph Juran later observed that this 80/20 relationship is in
fact quite common, and coined this phenomenon as “The Pareto Principle.”
Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) - The basic steps to be followed in making continuous incremental
improvements (kaizen): It is an improvement cycle based on the scientific method of proposing a change in a
process, implementing the change, measuring the results, and taking appropriate action. The PDCA cycle
has four stages: (1) Plan: Determine goals for a process and needed changes to achieve them; (2) Do:
Implement the changes; (3) Check: Evaluate the results in terms of performance; (4) Act: Standardize and
stabilize the change or begin the cycle again, depending on the results.
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) - A problem-solving approach whereby the underlying cause of a problem is
first identified and only then is the corrective action or solution designed. The intent of RCA is to reduce or
eliminate recurrence of the same problem. RCA tools include Five Why’s, Cause-and-effect
Diagrams, Check Lists and Pareto Charts.
Standard Work (SW) - Documentation of the best known method for completing a task or activity with the
least amount of waste at the current time. SW reduces variation and increases consistency that is need for
first-time quality. This becomes the way for everyone working on that process to perform the work. This
also becomes the baseline for future work. In the words of Taiichi Ohno (the developer of TPS), “where
there is no standard, there can be no kaizen (improvement).”
Three Gen Principle - When solving a problem, the combination of going on the Gemba, to observe the
Genbutsu in order to obtain Genjitsu. With these three “Gen’s” a problem can be properly solved.
Total Quality Management (TQM) - A Quality Control System focused on the correction of quality issues
before they are permitted to subsequently be passed on for further processing. TQM systems are often "built-
in" to manufacturing processes.
Copyright UCT
MBA Research Report Page 93
Toyota Production System (TPS) - The production system developed by Toyota Motor Corporation to
provide best quality, lowest cost, and shortest lead time through the elimination of waste. TPS is comprised
of two pillars, just-in-time production and jidoka(autonomation). TPS is maintained and improved through
iterations of standardized work and kaizen, following the scientific method of the PDCA cycle.
Development of TPS is credited to Taiichi Ohno, Toyota’s chief of production in the post-WWII period.
Widespread recognition of TPS as the model production system grew rapidly with the publication in 1990 of
The Machine That Changed the World (Womack, Jones, Roos), the result of 5 years of research led by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The MIT researchers found that TPS was so much more effective
and efficient than traditional, mass production that it represented a completely new paradigm.
Upstream - As viewed from a reference point, upstream processes are activities that take place prior to the
reference point (e.g. receiving a request for a quote from the customer is upstream to writing the quote).
Contrast with Downstream.
Unnecessary Non-value-adding - Activities that add no value from the customer’s perspective nor are they
necessary to properly run the business. These activities are often legacy in nature (“we’ve always done it
that way”).
Value-adding (VA) - Any activity, which, from the ultimate customer’s perspective is of value, such that
the customer is willing to pay for that activity, or that that activity is a condition of doing
business with that customer.
Value Stream - All of the actions, both value-creating and nonvalue-creating, required to bring a product
from concept to launch and from order to delivery. These include actions to process information from
the customer and actions to transform the product on its way to the customer. The specific activities required
to design, order, and provide a specific product or service from the point of product (or service) concept,
through launch, ordering raw materials, production and placing the product (or service) in the hands of the
customer. From a shareholder’s perspective the Value Stream could also include the steps and time required
until the receipt of revenue.
Value Stream Map (VSM) - A high-level, visual representation of all of the process steps (both value-
adding and non-value-adding) required to transform a customer requirement into a delivered good or service.
A VSM shows the connection between information flow and product flow, as well as the major process
blocks and barriers to flow. VSMs are used to document current state conditions as well as design a future
state. One of the key objectives of Value Stream Mapping is to identify non-value adding activities for
elimination. Value Stream Maps, along with the Value Stream Implementation Plan are strategic tools used
to help identify, prioritize and communicate continuous improvement activities.
Visual Management - An approach to managing product, people and processes using low-cost, easy to
understand visual devices. These devices, when properly utilized, will quickly and effectively communicate
objectives, performance, operating conditions and problems.
Sources:
Gembutsu Consulting. (n.d). Lean manufacturing glossary, definitions and terms. Retrieved November 16,
2011 from http://www.gembutsu.com/articles/leanmanufacturingglossary.html
Karen Martin & associates. (n.d.). Lean terminology. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from
http://www.ksmartin.com/resources/terminology.html#p
Technical Change Associates. (n.d.) Lean terms and definitions. Retrieved November 16, 2011 from
http://www.technicalchange.com/manufacturing-terms-definitions/index.html