Kanban India 2023: Reflections on Kanban Awareness

I had an opportunity to present a 90-min workshop on boosting business agility leveraging Kanban principles in the Kanban India 2023 conference organized by Innovation Roots in Bengaluru, India. This conference was represented by various types of people from many industries but mainly from project management offices and information technology professionals. So, it was not surprising for me to see the diverse roles of project manager, product manager, product owner, director or project management office, agile coaches, scrum masters, and a small percentage of resource managers and senior leaders. However, what surprised me largely was the complete unawareness of the Kanban principles by almost all the 30+ members that sat in my workshop across all these previously represented roles!

First, Kanban is not a framework or methodology! It is a method because Kanban can be adopted within any plan-driven or adaptive framework as well as the organization specific methodology adaptations of these frameworks specifically within their organizations! Without understanding these distinctions among framework, methodology, and methods, people have rushed to the same thought process of how they conceived waterfall methodology when the original author never even promoted the concept of such linear waterfall thinking (Rajagopalan, 2014). Instead, Kanban has been conceived as a set of cards organized in status-driven swim-lanes such as "To Do", "Doing" and "Done". 

Figure 1: Dr. Rajagopalan's synthesis of value flow

Contrary to popular thinking of Kanban cards in such statuses reducing the Kanban implementation as a tactile execution, Kanban has a set of principles that promote business level systems thinking among the team members for strategic value delivery. Since value itself flows both vertically across projects, programs, and portfolios (and hence the notions of benefit management in programs, value stream mapping in product management, and expanding these concepts with risk management in programs and portfolios), Kanban applied the lean manufacturing concepts combining managerial (efficiency) and leadership (effectiveness) with a concerted qualification efforts (efficacy) applying five important principles. Without all these five thoughts, business agility with both horizontal and vertical value delivery simply does not exist!

Figure 2: Dr. Rajagopalan's adaptation of Kanban Principles

First among these principles is the Andon thinking promoting the notion of team accountability through a transparent visual factory. While the Andon thinking emphasized team level ownership by allowing the team members to self-organize using the visual cards and queue buildups towards better documentation and training as needed to ensure cost of quality! 

This team accountability was supplemented with Jidoka that ensured people thought value delivery from an overall system (not just tactical cards like how people conceive of tasks and subtasks) but the combined influence of all these tasks towards benefits (requirements, specifications, design, quality, etc.). This "systems thinking" thought process also elevated people to relieve themselves of mundane tasks (for the sake of doing them - remember being busy is not being productive) by intelligent automation wherever possible. 

This simultaneous concept of thinking both from a systems perspective and automating mundane activities intelligently also was supported by teams and their line managers (hence project managers, product owners, scrum masters, agile coaches, managers) thinking of Heijunka bringing the resource optimization principles of reducing unevenness and minimizing overburden in distributing work for people or load with systems and processes. The entire notions of the total quality management (focusing on muda, mura, and muri) emerge from these Heijunka thinking for cost of quality!

As people owned the processes (means to end) that supported in delivering products (evaluating value for customers), the focus on Kaizen emerged on continuously improving the processes (simplifying documentation, training, reducing errors (Poka Yoke, for instance), risk management, etc.) and evaluating customer success factors and business benefits. This is when objectives and key results (OKR) were evaluated with the right level of key performance indicators (KPIs) along with built-in quality thoughts of critical success factors (CSF). 

Just to ensure that Kaizen thinking itself didn't apply to product and process increments in a monotonous way, the systems thinking was further advanced by radical innovations of continuous experiments. This thought process led to Kaikaku ensuring that everyone contributed researching market trends in augmenting business value by doing something innovative avoiding the notion of "this is how it is done here" (Kotter & Rathgeber, 2016)

As Kotter & Rathgeber (2016) very nicely discuss the using of meerkat colonies organizing differently to deal with emerging threats to their survival, it is pivotal to understand the principles of Kanban rather than bring it down to its knees by reducing them to a set of nice visuals (cards and swim-lanes) limited to the tools used! If all these principles are not understood and practiced, no tool or technology can help the teams to swarm, self-organize, and survive!

References

Kotter, J. & Rathgeber, H. (2016). That's Not How We Do It Here!" Plantation, FL: J.Ross Publishing.

Rajagopalan, S. (2014). Review of the myths on original software development model. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 5(16), 103-111.

Management Debt: Costs of Non-delivery and Non-conformance

The principles of lean have always focused on maximizing the value delivery. In fact, the Japanese term Muda (Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005) refers to the seven different types of wastes that one should remove. Expanding on this, practitioners have added the non-utilization of talents introducing the mnemonic or memory aid, DOWNTIME, to capture these eight types of waste an organization or project should closely monitor to increase efficiency. These eight types of wastes are:

1. Defects
2. Over-production
3. Waiting
4. Non-utilized Resources
5. Transportation
6. Inventory
7. Motion
8. Excess Processing

It should be noted that the non-utilization of resources was not part of the original Lean Manufacturing concepts that were formulated based on Toyota Production Systems value chain thinking (Sutherland and Bennett, 2007). However, as the ways of working emerged shifting the focus towards value creation applicable from all levels of the organizational hierarchy such as the open systems thinking (Scott, 1981), non-utilization of resources was added as the eight types of waste! In my opinion, this is applicable in any industry as resources can be both human resources (people's time, skills, talent, experience, competency, etc.) but also non-human resources (facilities, equipment, materials, infrastructure, supplies, etc.)

Often, these eight principles are considered an academic exercise and practitioners have lost connection with these principles. Unless these principles are related in terms of the management language, money, these principles don’t gain the limelight. In this blog article, I would like to synthesize some of these principles in terms of two types of costs as follows that relate to the cost of poor quality. When these two costs are not managed appropriately, it is management debt to the project.

Cost of non-delivery

This principle refers to the “…measure of the costs associated with preventing, testing for, or correcting defective items,” according to Carr (1992, p. 72). The cost of poor quality comes from both the internal and external failure costs where poor-quality costs are associated with rework, redesign, retesting, failure in or shortage of specifications in requirements, bugs arising from poor development practices or myopic understanding of or inaccuracies in requirements or design, or unplanned delays in monitoring the dependencies. All these relate to elements mentioned in the DOWNTIME factors and could lead delivered work that is still not production ready unacceptable for customers. Say, if any of the above factors contributed to a schedule slip of 10% on a project that cost $100,000. At a minimum level, this slip means $10,000 (10% of $100,000) is now an additional cost to the project that could have been effectively controlled.

Cost of non-conformance

Non-conformance means the rules of engagement for a specific development or management methodology are not completely adhered to. For example, not following the integrated change control mechanism to use a tool that is not approved by the organizational policies, not adequately preparing for the specific meetings increasing the cost of a meeting, taking missteps that lead to the escaped defects increasing customer’s bad will, or over-engineering a feature beyond the fitness for use. When these things happen, it often involves more time spent in corrective actions introducing increased testing, executing recalls and incurring expenses on the performing company’s time and money, or attempts at various levels to restore customer satisfaction. The cost of non-conformance retraces its roots to the cost of quality examples on lack of adherence to existing policies.

Summary

Therefore, middle management focusing on delivering products or projects, whether they operate through traditional or agile approaches, should evaluate the cost of non-delivery and cost of non-conformance to ensure that all these waste producing efforts are eliminated. Management is obligated to monitor these patterns that lead to the management debt like the technical debt. Only when this management debt is controlled, does the concept of efficiency grow with the seeds of cost of good quality. 

References

Arnheiter, E.D. and Maleyeff, J. (2005) ‘The integration of lean management and Six Sigma’, The TQM Magazine, 17(1), pp. 5–18. 

Carr, L. P. (1992, Summer). Applying cost of quality to a service business. Sloan Management Review, 33(4), 72.

Scott, R.W. (1981). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Sutherland, J., & Bennett, B. (2007). The seven deadly wastes of logistics: applying Toyota Production System principles to create logistics value. White paper, 701, 40-50.