Question

1. For this question, you will review a process, identify problem areas ( such as wastes, cycle time inefficiencies, etc), and suggest an improved process. Open and read the Process Improvement (Final Q 1)

document which describes the process steps in words and also includes a process map as a visual tool for understanding what's going on in each step. You will need to respond to the following three subquestions:

a. Of the 9 process steps in the Process Improvement (Final Q 1) document, which specific steps in that process are experiencing lean wastes and/or process cycle time issues (please note, there is more than one step experiencing issues). In your response, name the process step, and/or the transfer interface between steps, and what waste(s) or cycle time issue is involved. Be sure to use standard lean/six sigma terminology that we used in the course when referring to any of the quality concepts; e.g., transportation waste when referring to situations involving a lot of moving around from one place to another. When writing about a lean waste, this would be excellent place for including your citation reference for question 1.

b. Which of the process steps you identified in part a do you believe could benefit from process improvement and why?

c. What changes would you institute in the process to improve the steps you cited in part b of this question and describe how those changes improves the process. Be specific about which process step(s) your improving and thoroughly describe the improvement to that step. [Note: This question ties to what you decided was important in part b question above.] Also, when answering how you would improve a given process step, assume you have an unlimited budget and personnel resources and you can do mostly anything you want as long as it doesn't violate the laws of physics or the judicial system. Be cautious though because process improvement is designed to save time, money, and resources in doing the needed work.For example, automation is good, and also potentially expensive, so is it worth it for the improvement? - you will have to be the judge of that.

2. What is the relationship between learning and continuous improvement? Identify at least two characteristics or traits that an organization’s leadership needs to posses to support a learning environment. Remember to include at least one citation.

3. Review the video in Module 10 which is titled Learn What 5S is and How it Applies to Any Industry. Think about an organization with which you are familiar and how the 5S principle could (or does, if they already have it) apply to that organization? Specifically, cite one or more of the five concepts of the 5S principle that you believe would be most important for that organization's 5S initiative and why.Don't forget to include a citation reference.

Answer 1

Continuous improvement programs are sprouting up all over as organizations strive to better themselves and gain an edge. The topic list is long and varied, and sometimes it seems as though a program a month is needed just to keep up. Unfortunately, failed programs far outnumber successes, and improvement rates remain distressingly low. Why? Because most companies have failed to grasp a basic truth. Continuous improvement requires a commitment to learning.

How, after all, can an organization improve without first learning something new? Solving a problem, introducing a product, and reengineering a process all require seeing the world in a new light and acting accordingly. In the absence of learning, companies—and individuals—simply repeat old practices. Change remains cosmetic, and improvements are either fortuitous or short-lived.

A few farsighted executives—Ray Stata of Analog Devices, Gordon Forward of Chaparral Steel, Paul Allaire of Xerox—have recognized the link between learning and continuous improvement and have begun to refocus their companies around it. Scholars too have jumped on the bandwagon, beating the drum for “learning organizations” and “knowledge-creating companies.” In rapidly changing businesses like semiconductors and consumer electronics, these ideas are fast taking hold. Yet despite the encouraging signs, the topic in large part remains murky, confused, and difficult to penetrate.

Meaning, Management, and Measurement

Scholars are partly to blame. Their discussions of learning organizations have often been reverential and utopian, filled with near mystical terminology. Paradise, they would have you believe, is just around the corner. Peter Senge, who popularized learning organizations in his book The Fifth Discipline, described them as places “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together.”¹ To achieve these ends, Senge suggested the use of five “component technologies”: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. In a similar spirit, Ikujiro Nonaka characterized knowledge-creating companies as places where “inventing new knowledge is not a specialized activity…it is a way of behaving, indeed, a way of being, in which everyone is a knowledge worker.”² Nonaka suggested that companies use metaphors and organizational redundancy to focus thinking, encourage dialogue, and make tacit, instinctively understood ideas explicit.

Sound idyllic? Absolutely. Desirable? Without question. But does it provide a framework for action? Hardly. The recommendations are far too abstract, and too many questions remain unanswered. How, for example, will managers know when their companies have become learning organizations? What concrete changes in behavior are required? What policies and programs must be in place? How do you get from here to there?

Most discussions of learning organizations finesse these issues. Their focus is high philosophy and grand themes, sweeping metaphors rather than the gritty details of practice. Three critical issues are left unresolved; yet each is essential for effective implementation. First is the question of meaning. We need a plausible, well-grounded definition of learning organizations; it must be actionable and easy to apply. Second is the question of management. We need clearer guidelines for practice, filled with operational advice rather than high aspirations. And third is the question of measurement. We need better tools for assessing an organization’s rate and level of learning to ensure that gains have in fact been made.

Once these “three Ms” are addressed, managers will have a firmer foundation for launching learning organizations. Without this groundwork, progress is unlikely, and for the simplest of reasons. For learning to become a meaningful corporate goal, it must first be understood.

What Is a Learning Organization?

Surprisingly, a clear definition of learning has proved to be elusive over the years. Organizational theorists have studied learning for a long time; the accompanying quotations suggest that there is still considerable disagreement (see the insert “Definitions of Organizational Learning”). Most scholars view organizational learning as a process that unfolds over time and link it with knowledge acquisition and improved performance. But they differ on other important matters.

Some, for example, believe that behavioral change is required for learning; others insist that new ways of thinking are enough. Some cite information processing as the mechanism through which learning takes place; others propose shared insights, organizational routines, even memory. And some think that organizational learning is common, while others believe that flawed, self-serving interpretations are the norm.

How can we discern among this cacophony of voices yet build on earlier insights? As a first step, consider the following definition:

A learning organization is an organization skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights