{"id":2645,"date":"2013-01-12T12:53:13","date_gmt":"2013-01-12T12:53:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=2645"},"modified":"2013-01-12T12:53:13","modified_gmt":"2013-01-12T12:53:13","slug":"quality-first-or-time-first","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=2645","title":{"rendered":"Quality First or Time First?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Before we explore this question we need to establish something. If the issue is Safety<\/strong> then that always goes First<\/strong> – and by safety we mean “a risk of harm that everyone agrees is unacceptable”.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

\"figure_running_hamster_wheel_150_wht_4308\"<\/a>Many Improvement Zealots\u00a0state dogmatically that the only way reach the Nirvanah of “Right Thing – On Time – On Budget” is to focus on Quality First.<\/p>\n

This is incorrect<\/strong>.\u00a0 And what makes it incorrect is the word only<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Experience teaches us\u00a0that it is impossible to divert\u00a0people to focus on quality\u00a0when everyone is too busy just keeping afloat. If they stop to do something else then they will drown<\/em>. And they know it.<\/p>\n

The critical word here is busy<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

‘Busy’\u00a0means that\u00a0everyone\u00a0is spending all their time doing stuff – important stuff – the work, the checking, the correcting, the expediting, the problem solving, and the fire-fighting. They are all busy all of the time.<\/p>\n

So when a Quality Zealot breezes in and\u00a0proclaims \u2018You should\u00a0always focus on quality first\u00a0… that will\u00a0solve all the problems\u2019 <\/em>then the\u00a0reaction they get is predictable. The weary workers listen with their\u00a0arms-crossed, roll-their eyes, exchange knowing glances, sigh, shrug, shake their heads, grit their teeth, and\u00a0trudge back to fire-fighting. Their scepticism and cynicism has been cut a notch deeper. And the weary workers\u00a0get labelled as ‘Not Interested In Quality’<\/em> and ‘Resisting Change’<\/em>\u00a0 and\u00a0‘Laggards’<\/em> by the Quality Zealot who has\u00a0spent more time\u00a0studying and regurgitating rhetoric than investing time in observing and understanding reality.<\/p>\n

The problem here is the seemingly innocuous word \u2018always<\/strong>\u2019. It is too absolute. Too black-and-white. Too dogmatic. Too simple.<\/p>\n

Sometimes<\/strong> focussing on Quality First is<\/strong> a wise decision.\u00a0And that situation is when there is low-quality and idle-time. There is some spare capacity to re-invest in understanding the root causes of the quality issues,\u00a0\u00a0in designing them out of the process, and in implementing the design changes.<\/p>\n

But when everyone is busy – when there is no idle-time – then focussing on quality first is not a wise decision because it can actually make the problem worse!<\/p>\n

[The Quality Zealots will now be\u00a0turning a strange red colour, steam will be erupting from their ears and sparks will be coming from their finger-tips as they reach for their keyboards to silence the\u00a0heretical anti-quality lunatic. “Burn, burn, burn” they rant<\/em>].\u00a0<\/p>\n

When everyone is busy then the first thing to focus on is Time.<\/strong><\/p>\n

And because everyone is busy then the person doing the Focus-on-Time stuff must be someone else. Someone like an Improvementologist.\u00a0 The\u00a0Quality Zealot is a liability at this stage – but they become an asset later when the chaos has calmed.<\/p>\n

And what our Improvementologist is looking for are queues<\/strong> – also known as Work-in-Progress or WIP.<\/p>\n

Why WIP?\u00a0 Why not where the work is happening? Why not focus on resource utilisation? Isn’t that a time metric?<\/em><\/p>\n

Yes, resource utilisation is a time-related metric but because everyone is busy then resource utilisation will be high. So looking at utilisation will only confirm what\u00a0we already know.\u00a0 And everyone is busy doing important stuff – they are not stupid – they are busy and they are doing their best\u00a0given the constraints of their\u00a0process design.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

The queue\u00a0is where an Improvementologist will direct attention first.\u00a0\u00a0And the specific focus of their attention is the cause of the queue<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This is because there is only one<\/strong> cause of a queue: a mismatch-over-time between demand and activity<\/em>.<\/p>\n

So, the critical first step to\u00a0diagnosing the cause of a queue is to make the flow visible – to plot the time-series charts of demand,\u00a0activity and WIP.\u00a0 Until that is done then no progress\u00a0will be made with understanding what is happening and it wil be impossible to decide what to do. We need\u00a0a diagnosis before we can treat. And to get a diagnosis we need\u00a0data from\u00a0an examination of our\u00a0process; and we need data on the history of how it has developed. And we need to know how to convert that data into information, and then into\u00a0understanding, and then into design options, and then into a wise<\/strong> decision, and then into action, and then into improvement.<\/p>\n

And we\u00a0now know how to spot an experienced Improvementologist because the first thing they will look for are the\u00a0Queues not the Quality.<\/p>\n

But why bother with the flow and the queues at all? Customers are not interested in them! If time is the focus then surely it is turnaround times and waiting times that we need to measure! Then we can compare our performance with our ‘target’ and if it is out of range we can then apply the necessary \u2018pressure\u2019!<\/em><\/p>\n

This is indeed what we observe. So let us\u00a0explore\u00a0the pros and cons of this\u00a0approach with an example.<\/p>\n

We\u00a0are the manager of a support department that receives requests, processes them and delivers the output back to the sender.\u00a0We could be one of many support departments in an organisation:\u00a0\u00a0human resources,\u00a0procurement, supplies, finance,\u00a0IT, estates and so on. We are the Backroom Brigade. We are the unsung heros and heroines.<\/em><\/p>\n

The requests for our service come in different flavours – some are easy to deal with, others\u00a0are more complex.\u00a0\u00a0They also come with different priorities – urgent, soon and routine. And they arrive as a mixture of dribbles and deluges.\u00a0 Our job is to deliver high quality work (i.e. no errors) within the delivery time expected by the originator of the request (i.e. on time). If\u00a0 we do that then we do not get complaints\u00a0(but we do not get compliments either).<\/em><\/p>\n

From\u00a0the outside things look mostly\u00a0OK.\u00a0 We deliver mostly on quality and mostly on time.\u00a0But on the inside our department is in chaos! Every day brings a new fire to fight. Everyone is busy\u00a0and the pressure and chaos\u00a0are relentless.\u00a0We are keeping our head above water – but only just.\u00a0\u00a0We do not enjoy our work-life. It is not fun.\u00a0Our people are miserable too. Some leave – others complain – others just come to work,\u00a0do stuff, take the money\u00a0and\u00a0go home – like Zombies. They comply.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"three_wins_agreement\"<\/a>Once in the past\u00a0we were were seduced by the sweet talk of a Quality\u00a0Zealot.\u00a0We were promised Nirvanah.\u00a0We were advised to look at the quality of the requests that\u00a0we get. And this suggestion resonated with us because\u00a0we were very aware that the requests were of variable quality. Our\u00a0people had to spend time checking-and-correcting them before\u00a0we could process them.\u00a0 The extra checking had improved the quality of what\u00a0we deliver – but it had increased our costs too. So the Quality Zealot told us we should work more closely with our customers and to\u00a0\u2018swim upstream\u2019 to prevent the quality problems getting to us in the first place. So\u00a0we sent some of our most experienced and most expensive Inspectors to\u00a0paddle upstream. But our customers\u00a0were also very busy and, much as they would have liked,\u00a0they did not have time to focus on quality\u00a0either. So our Inspectors started doing the checking-and-correcting for our customers. Our\u00a0people are now working for\u00a0our customers but\u00a0we still pay their wages.\u00a0And\u00a0we do not have enough Inspectors to check-and-correct all the requests at source so\u00a0we\u00a0still need to keep a skeleton\u00a0crew of Inspectors in the department.\u00a0And these stay-at-home Inspectors \u00a0are stretched too thin and their job is too pressured and too stressful. So no one wants to do it.And given the choice they would all rather\u00a0paddle out to the customers first thing in the morning to give them as much time as possible to check-and-correct the requests so the days work can be completed on time.\u00a0 It all sounds\u00a0perfectly logical and rational – but it does not seem to have worked as promised. The stay-at-home Inspectors can only keep up with the more urgent work,\u00a0\u00a0delivery of the less urgent work suffers and the chronic chaos and fire-fighting are now aggravated by a stream of interruptions from customers asking when their ‘non-urgent’ requests will be completed.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"figure_talk_giant_phone_anim_150_wht_6767\"<\/a>The Quality Zealot\u00a0insisted we\u00a0should always answer the phone to\u00a0our customers – so\u00a0we take the calls –\u00a0we expedite the requests –\u00a0we solve the problems – and\u00a0we fight-the-fire.\u00a0 Day, after day, after day.<\/em><\/p>\n

We\u00a0now know what Purgatory means. Retirement with a\u00a0pension\u00a0or\u00a0voluntary redundancy with a package are looking more attractive – if only\u00a0we can keep going long enough.<\/em><\/p>\n

And\u00a0the last thing<\/strong>\u00a0we need\u00a0is more external inspection, more targets<\/em>,\u00a0and more expensive Quality Zealots telling us what to do!\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

And when\u00a0we go and look we see a workplace that\u00a0appears just as chaotic and stressful and angry as\u00a0we feel. There are heaps of work in progress everywhere – the phone is always ringing – and our people are running around like headless chickens, expediting, fire-fighting and getting burned-out: physically and emotionally. And\u00a0we feel powerless to stop it. So we hide.<\/em><\/p>\n

Does this fictional\u00a0fiasco\u00a0feel familiar? It is called the Miserable Job Purgatory Vortex.<\/p>\n

Now we know the characteristic pattern of symptoms and signs:\u00a0\u00a0constant pressure of work, ever present threat of quality failure, everyone busy, just managing to cope, target-stick-and-carrot management, a miserable job, and demotivated people.<\/p>\n

The issue here is that the queues are causing some of the low quality<\/strong>. It is not always low quality\u00a0that causes all of the queues.<\/p>\n

\"figure_juggling_time_150_wht_4437\"<\/a>Queues create delays, which generate interruptions,\u00a0which force investigation, which generates expediting, which takes time from doing the work,\u00a0which consumes required capacity, which reduces activity, which increases the demand-activity mismatch, which increases the\u00a0queue, which increases the delay – and so on. It is a vicious circle. And interruptions are a fertile source of internally generated errors which generates even more checking and correcting which uses up even more required capacity which makes the\u00a0queues grow even faster\u00a0and longer. Round and round.\u00a0 The cries for ‘we need more capacity’ get louder. It is all hands to the\u00a0pump\u00a0– but even then eventually there is a crisis. A big mistake happens.\u00a0Then Senior Management get named-blamed-and shamed, \u00a0money magically appears and is thrown at the problem, capacity increases,\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0symptoms settle, the cries for more capacity go quiet\u00a0– but productivity has dropped another notch. Eventually the financial crunch arrives.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

One\u00a0symptom of this ‘reactive fire-fight design’<\/strong> is that people get used to working late to catch up at the end of the day so that the next day they can start the whole rollercoaster ride again. And again. And again. At least that is a form of stability. We can expect tomorrow to be just a s miserable as today and yesterday and the day before that. But TOIL (Time Off In Lieu) costs money.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0way\u00a0out of the\u00a0Miserable Job Purgatory Vortex<\/strong> is to diagnose what is causing the queue – and\u00a0to treat that first.<\/p>\n

And that\u00a0means focussing on Time first – and that means\u00a0Focussing on Flow first.\u00a0 And by doing that\u00a0we\u00a0will improve delivery, improve quality and improve cost\u00a0because chaotic systems generate errors which need checking and correcting which costs more.\u00a0Time first\u00a0is a win-win-win strategy too.<\/p>\n

And we already have everything we need to start. We can easily count what comes in and when and what goes out and when.<\/p>\n

The first step is to plot the inflow over time (the demand), the outflow over time (the activity), and from that\u00a0we work out and plot the Work-in-Progress over time. With these three charts we can start the diagnostic process and by that path we can calm the chaos.<\/p>\n

And then we can set to work on the Quality Improvement.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

13\/01\/2013<\/span> – Newspapers report that 17 hospitals are “dangerously understaffed”<\/span>\u00a0 Sound familiar?<\/p>\n

Next week we will explore how to diagnose the root cause of\u00a0a queue using\u00a0Time charts.<\/p>\n

For an\u00a0example to explore\u00a0please\u00a0play the SystemFlow Game<\/strong> by clicking\u00a0here<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Before we explore this question we need to establish something. If the issue is Safety then that always goes First – and by safety we mean “a risk of harm that everyone agrees is unacceptable”. Many Improvement Zealots\u00a0state dogmatically that the only way reach the Nirvanah of “Right Thing – On Time – On Budget” … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Quality First or Time First?”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,7,15,17,20,24,30,32,33,41,42,44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-6m-design","category-baseline","category-design","category-examples","category-flow","category-improvementology","category-operations","category-productivity","category-quality","category-stories","category-how","category-three-wins-r"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}