The World's Got Talent

Among the many ways the web has changed the world, I'd like to add one more. For me, at least, it's engendered a greater appreciation for the variety and extent of human ability. Sure, some of what gets posted to the web is of questionable taste (or worse), but I can recall dozens of times reading someone's writing or watching a video and being, not just impressed, but surprised a fellow human was even capable of doing that.

David Letterman used to have a segment called Stupid Human Tricks, and maybe he still does. For the most part, they were, in fact, pretty stupid tricks. The web is full of those too.

But what I'm referring to is genuine talent: artistic and creative, athletic, literary, and intellectual. Okay, so the slip 'n slide video wasn't real.  But the web is a massive repository of human ability. And it's easily accessible through a computer and phone.

In doing this, it's helped me to realize that "ordinary" people can do "extraordinary" things. The world is full of talent. Human ability is everywhere. And never underestimate human potential.

On that note, please enjoy this video:

5 (Other) Reasons To Go To The Gemba

The gemba is the place where the work is done. Lean managers "go to the gemba" to see it for themselves (genchi genbustu). This might be done during a continuous improvement (kaizen) project. Recently, I've had the pleasure of spending many hours in the gemba with our support staff. We are going firm-wide with a new document workflow, which we've been testing with a pilot group for the last six months. During our sessions, we've identified a lot of waste and generated great ideas for improving our processes.

I've also discovered -- or maybe rediscovered -- five other reasons for going to the gemba.

1. Reaffirm respect for people. As a manager, it's easy to get preoccupied with your own work demands and forget about the day-to-day contributions others make to the organization. Seeing your people in action reminds you of their talent and dedication.
2. Communicate. Organizations usually use email, intranet posts, and large meetings to communicate their goals and plans. But one-on-one meetings and small groups allow for more frank and focused discussions. And some people aren't comfortable talking at formal meetings. The gemba might be just the right context for a critical interaction. It also gives people the chance to ask questions, in person and in real-time. Sometimes the gemba is the first chance you get to really explain why you are doing a particular project.
3. Remind people that you care. This might sound overly sentimental, but spending time with your people reminds them that you genuinely value their work and talent. It also reinforces the message that you appreciate their ideas and contributions to designing work processes.
4. See other important issues. You might observe a problem that demands an immediate response. Perhaps it's a major form of waste with a quick or even an on-the-spot solution. Sometimes a person's worklife can be radically improved just by realizing they need a new $6.00 tool. And though hopefully there aren't any safety problems, but if there are, this is a chance to correct them before someone gets hurt.
5. Learn something new. By watching and discussing the work with your people, it's guaranteed you'll learn something unexpected about your organization, your industry, and the work.

It's hard to take time away from your work to go to the gemba. But these reasons make it well worth it.

Could An Andon System Have Prevented The Gulf Oil Spill?

[caption id="attachment_527" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Image: AP and Salon. Photograph released by BP this morning. "][/caption]

Salon has a disturbing article describing what may have happened on the Deepwater Horizon before the Gulf oil spill.  It's an interesting account of possible failures that led to the disaster and full of lessons for any team that needs to react quickly and effectively to emergencies.

One item particularly caught my eye.  According to this account, the accident might have been prevented if workers hadn't delayed engaging a disconnect switch:

Steve Bertone, the chief engineer for Transocean, wrote in his witness statement that he ran up the bridge and heard the captain screaming at a worker for pressing the distress button. Bertone turned to Pleasant, who was manning the emergency disconnect system, and asked whether it had been engaged.

Pleasant told Bertone that he needed approval first, according to Bertone's sworn statement. Another manager tried to give the go-ahead, but someone else from Transocean said the order needed to come from the rig's offshore installation manager.

Ultimately who gave the order is a matter of dispute. Donald Vidrine, well site leader for BP, said he did it. But Bertone said it was Jimmy Harrell of Transocean.

By the time the workers obtained the approval and got started, Pleasant said he "got all the electronic signals but no flow on meters," meaning hydraulic fluid wasn't flowing to close the valves on the blowout preventer.

A distress button and emergency disconnect system might be considered  part of an andon system, a Lean tool that allows line level workers to signal for help, and if necessary, stop production in order to correct a defect or problem.  The traditional "andon cord" in a Toyota factory could be pulled by any worker to request help from a team leader.  Buffer spacing was built into the line to allow for problem solving, but if the issue couldn't be resolved quickly, the line would stop.

But on the Deepwater Horizon there may not have been enough buffer between the initial signal for help and the time to shut down the operation completely.  Salon also quotes an engineer on when workers may signal for help:

Gene Beck, a petroleum engineer at Texas A&M at College Station, said companies typically have criteria that allow any worker to engage the system if problems get bad enough.

The ambiguity of what constitutes "bad enough" might prevent workers from engaging the system in time. If there's insufficient buffer in the process, workers will be reluctant to signal for help, knowing it will halt production. And if the organization lacks a culture of respect (e.g. screaming at workers for hitting a distress button), employees may be unwilling to risk making those sorts of decisions, even when their own lives are at risk.  Tragically, that may have been the case here.

Lean and Daylight Savings Time: Beware The Ides Of March

I've never liked Daylight Savings Time. It's antiquated and disruptive. This humorous post sums it up well, and links to a Daylight Savings Hub for understanding how it's observed internationally with resources for IT administrators. The cited justifications just don't make sense.  For example, via Bill Petro, this Department of Energy study (PDF) found that the time change saves only about .02 percent of total U.S. energy consumption.

The change unnecessarily creates the chance for error. How many people forget to change their clocks and miss appointments on Sunday or Monday morning? Not that many, maybe, but enough to cause damage to a good number of relationships and measurable financial harm to companies. It's true that most clocks change automatically or are synced to a network. But globalization also increases the opportunity for cross-border disconnection. Economies are increasingly urban, exacerbating the problem of being an hour late. And how much money do we spend just reminding people to reset their clocks?

And resetting clocks -- or writing software to automatically reset clocks -- is not a value-added process. It's waste. On a national scale.

It's also bad for workplace safety. Based on data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Michigan State University researchers Christopher Barnes and David Wagner concluded that the number of workplace accidents jumps after Daylight Savings Time:

In two separate studies, they found that the March switch to Daylight Savings Time resulted in 40 minutes less sleep for American workers, a 5.7 percent increase in workplace injuries and nearly 68 percent more work days lost to injuries.

....

But can losing one hour of sleep really make a difference? “Yes,” said Barnes, “it can. Especially for those engaged in jobs requiring a high level of attention to detail. Studies have shown that lost sleep causes attention levels to drop off.”

....

There is other research available that tends to support Barnes and Wagner. A University of British Columbia study, using data from the Canadian Ministry of Transport, found that when Canada went into daylight savings time, there was an 8 percent increase risk of accidents on the Monday after the changeover. A similar study, using information from the U. S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, cited sleep deprivation as the most likely cause of a 17 percent increase in accidents on the Monday following the time change.

Daylight Savings Time disrespects human physiology, and therefore people. It subordinates humans to machines. And this study, if accurate, makes the case even stronger by pointing to real human costs in the form of injuries and death.

If this post sounds a little snarky, I blame the time change.

Race to Nowhere: How Are Tomorrow's Lawyers Being Educated?

Several weeks ago, I saw Race to Nowhere, a film screening to small audiences in the San Francisco Bay area. This movie documents the incredible demands we place on elementary and high school children. Many of these kids spend over seven hours a day at school, followed by two or more hours doing activities such as sports, music, or clubs. They visit with tutors. When they return home, they have several hours of homework. This over-scheduling is compounded by an incredible amount of time spent consuming media.

Despite these time commitments, children aren't learning more. Educators must increasingly prepare children for standardized tests in order to comply with state and federal mandates, lest they incur penalties and further budget cuts. Teachers spend less time teaching critical thinking skills, problem solving, and instilling a love of learning. Those passionate about teaching lose interest and burn out. Students cram material for the tests, then purge it from memory.

As a result, kids are a mess. They're stress out and sleep-deprived. Boys get frustrated, begin to dislike school and learning, and alarming numbers drop out.  Girls get depressed, and some develop eating disorders and resort to suicide.

And to what end? While U.S. elementary students perform slightly better on tests than those in other countries, this advantage disappears by high school. Tellingly, even the most academically selective universities - think Harvard, Yale, Stanford -- must remediate half their incoming students. That is, fifty percent of entering freshman at our best colleges lack basic reading, writing, and math skills.

How does this affect the legal profession?

Lawyer Sara Bennett, featured in the film, is co-author of The Case Against Homework: How Homework is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It. She left the legal profession partly out of frustration that incoming members of the bar couldn't do the work without extraordinary levels of handholding.  She argues we are creating generations of adults lacking critical thinking skills and the ability to work independently.  Today's adults are still "studying for the test."

Bennett invites us to consider what might have happened to a kid like David Boies today and references this excerpt from his biography.

And then there's this depressing vinette from Ralph Losey.

If our educational system is as infirm as reported, what type of lawyers will lead in twenty years? Will we be equipped to deal with the future's increasingly complex problems.

I've written about the importance of nuturing creativity in young people so that we can solve humanity's emerging problems. We don't seem to be on track.

Our professional institutions also reinforce the problems in our educational system. Law school admissions still fixate on standardized test scores -- despite being a poor measure of lawyerly ability -- draining the pool of legal talent. Associates are "over-scheduled" with billable hour requirements. The work frequently lacks the depth and intellectual content that promotes growth and satisfaction. Attrition rates were high (at least until the recent economic downturn).

What's the lesson here? Recognize that test scores are not the full measure of a person. Acknowledge the human limits on how long we can work, especially when humans are still growing and developing. Provide nourishment and allow time for rejuvenation. Understand that physical and mental health are prerequisites to academic and professional excellence.

And lawyers, and indeed all professionals, should remember their fundamental responsibility: to resolve society's most difficult problems though -- yes, hard work -- but also though creativity, compassion, and other unquantifiable traits that make us human.

Respect For Teachers

The New York Times had an interesting article earlier this week about Diane Ravitch, an education historian and former official with the U.S. Department of Education.  She recently went public with dramatically changed views on standardized testing and charter schools. It's a nice story about a person's willingness to examine core opinions and basic assumptions in the face of adverse career and political consequences. The article also raises the issue of Respect for People. This quote particularly caught my attention:

“Nations like Finland and Japan seek out the best college graduates for teaching positions, prepare them well, pay them well and treat them with respect,” she said. “They make sure that all their students study the arts, history, literature, geography, civics, foreign languages, the sciences and other subjects. They do this because this is the way to ensure good education. We’re on the wrong track.”

I think educators are highly respected for what they do, but our system doesn't reflect it by providing good compensation, career opportunities, and autonomy. I wonder how many of the problems in our educational system can be traced back to this fundamental problem.

Would focusing on this single flaw -- one that is highly interrelated to other elements in the system -- make a big difference?

D. Mark Jackson

Respect for Associates

Ben W. Heineman, Jr., and David B. Wilkins pen a must read article in the American Lawyer entitled "The Lost Generation?"  The authors present a compelling argument as to why, despite ever increasing associate salaries at big firms, retention rates are plummeting.  Among the factors they cite:

• Too much drudge work
• Large teams and too little individual responsibility
• Little opportunity to see the big picture
• Inadequate time for communication between partners and associates
• Unwillingness of corporate clients to take risks

What caught my eye, however, was this observation:

The answer is not late-night dinners from The Palm on silver servers. It is a stimulating, mind-expanding experience at the beginning of their professional careers that treats associates as adults, gives them responsibility, and, most of all, communicates the intellectual and practical excitement of confronting the significant issues that the best partners enjoy.

At least according to these authors, it sounds like what may be missing is "Respect for People."  In other words, rather than being cultivated as professionals, associates are treated primarily as variables in the billable hours equation. Respect for people, of course is the fundamental philosophical foundation for any lean enterprise.

Solutions? The authors recommend loaning of associates to corporate clients and public agencies, more time for pro bono work, and more focus on professional development.

I would add that firms should ask themselves some uncomfortable questions. On important matters, how often are junior members given the opportunity to contribute meaningfully? How often are they part of transforming internal business processes?

While law practice has the potential for drudgery, it's no worse than in manufacturing? If Toyota can retain line workers for their entire careers, surely law firms can find a way to keep associates satisfied and productive too.

D. Mark Jackson

Lean Writing

Can lean improve your writing?  Let's take two essential lean concepts and see how they apply.

Minimize Waste

Eliminating unnecessary words makes for good writing. Ask any editor or writing coach. Removing unneeded words is reducing waste in your writing.

Think of editing as a form of kaizen, the process of continuous improvement.

Respect for People

How often do litigators exchange briefs or letters filled with invective and hyperbole?  By all accounts, judges hate this. This style of writing may satisfy the emotional needs of lawyers and their clients, but it rarely serves their interests. Yet many lawyers persist in thinking that diligence requires them to be mean and disrespectful. As Gary Kinder teaches, judges want to be fair and are more likely to be persuaded by your writing if it is fair too. Therefore, showing respect for your adversaries and their lawyers makes you a better advocate.

D. Mark Jackson

Lean Document Review

Bruce MacEwen of Adam Smith, Esq., shares his interview with Ray Bayley, co-founder of NovusLaw. You'll likely walk away with a much different view of business process outsourcing. One of the major concerns about outsourcing legal work, including document review, is quality. Case managers wonder whether contract lawyers can provide the same quality output as highly paid associates working at law firms, in particular large law firms with plenty of resources. Bayley responds:

"Quality is one of our 'cornerstone' initiatives, along with ethics, security, and business continuity planning—all of which report directly to me.   In fact, we started our quality program before we even started the company.  But now our 'lean six Sigma' processes and quality control programs are certified by Underwriters' Labs, with full-time six sigma black belts on board that do nothing else but focus on quality.  'Lean,' which is a term that comes from the Toyota Production System, stands for the methodology used to eliminate non-value-added time and activity, a/k/a waste.  'Waste,' in turn, has a very simple definition:  Anything the client wouldn't want pay for if they were given a choice.

"Six Sigma is what we use to eliminate defects as we measure and analyze our work processes.  Typically, undocumented processes will yield 20,000—60,000 defects per million opportunities.  Six Sigma is designed to get that down to fewer than 4/million.  On our most recent document review we performed at Five Sigma, or approximately 200 defects per million.  By the way, that's about 200 times better than the average in the legal industry today."

As I wrote recently, this is the first time I've read about an entity applying lean production concepts to legal services.  And the document review process, of course, has the potential for involving a great deal of waste, making lean a good approach. At least as important as minimizing waste, however, the Toyota Production System emphasizes the value of respect for people.  Bayley also outlines his approach on this issue:

"Obviously it starts with who we hire: with recruitment.  The average lawyer at  NovusLaw has approximately eight years of experience, and we believe we've been able to attract talent on a par of those in AmLaw 100 firms with comparable experience.  Everyone interviews with me and each of my partners, as well as going through nearly a half dozen other interviews to ensure cultural compatibility.  NovusLaw is not for everyone.  If you can work independently, have a strong work ethic, and if you're smart about BPO—and if you have a sense of adventure—then you're a good candidate for us.  And I think our attrition statistics bear this out:  Only 3-4%/year.  It's a tough process to get in, but once you're in, you're in."

These are good numbers. Bayley's recruitment method reminds me of Toyota's when it opened its facility in Hebron, Kentucky. His organization obviously is taking a different approach to working with its people.

Now, these statements raise a lot of questions. How do you define "defect" in the ambiguous world of identifying relevance and privilege?  This measure doesn't easily translate from the manufacturing context. What specific processes do they use to minimize waste? What kind of waste is it? How do you show respect for people, while tasking them with some of the most repetitive and least glamorous work in the legal field?

But the real lesson here has nothing to do with business process outsourcing. It's that lean has something to offer the world of legal services. Indeed, nothing prevents lawyers and law firms from changing their own processes -- directly -- and using lean principles to improve their work.

D. Mark Jackson