Why Do We Learn More from Failure?

By Pascal Dennis

Why do we learn from more failure than success?

Seems to me, it's because failure illuminates more of the design space than success.

Supposing we're testing the structural integrity of say, a hard hat, by dropping a heavy weight on it.

If we test to the standard, (say 20 kg) and the hard hat remains intact, you've learned something about what sort of blow it can sustain.

But suppose we keep dropping heavier & heavier weights, and vary the angle of the blows - until the hard hat shatters.

Our analysis of the fragments, breakage pattern, of the slow motion video and so on, will teach us far more about the nature of hard hats.

That's why experienced labs & design teams test to failure.

A caveat, as my colleague, Al Norval, suggests, is that we fail quick & fail often, so as to minimize hassle & transaction cost.

A second caveat: our failures are controlled & buffered so nobody gets hurt!

These same principles apply in strategy, product & process design and problem solving.

That's why we say 'problems are gold'.

We have to be comfortable, of course, with experimentation & ambiguity. Which means we need a strong foundation built on the fundamentals.

The fundamentals – Value & Waste, Standardized Work, Visual Management etc. – anchor us, so we feel comfortable with the inherent instability of rapid experimentation.

In my experience, the best leaders teach the fundamentals, then create a sense of free-wheeling energy & opportunity.

"Let's try some stuff -- and see what happens!"

"Holy cow, who would have thought...!?"

Best,

Pascal

Pascal Dennis Bio

Jury Duty, Part 4

By Pascal Dennis

The past several blogs we've looked at how to improve the Jury Selection process:

1. Jury Panel Selection --> 2. Jury Selection --> 3. Court Case

Our purpose is to increase flow and reduce overall cycle time. In other words, jurors get picked quicker, and court cases get processed quicker.

What can muck up the process? Last blog we inferred an important root cause: poor visual management.

Today we'll look to Little's Law for more insight:

Lead Time = Loading/Capacity

To reduce Lead Time we'd need to either:

• Increase capacity, or
• Reduce loading

How might we increase capacity?

Here are some ideas:

• Run court rooms over two shifts - day & night,
• Reduce delay, defect & over-processing waste by level-loading the Jury Selection process
◦ Enablers: visual management: Target vs. Actual -- Jury panel members, Jury members, cases, courtrooms & other relevant value stream data

How might we reduce case loading on the court system?

• More cases heard by a judge (sans jury), as in some European jurisdictions

One final suggestion, from my friend & colleague, Al Norval, who has been a juror a number of times:

Move to a professional jury system.

Rationale:

• Quicker & better decisions
◦ Many jurors lack the experience & knowledge to understand much testimony
◦ Paid jurors would likely be older, wiser and more motivated to effect justice

• Reduces burden on citizens who are unable to serve because of family or work commitments

Let me conclude as I began in part 1 of this series:

The problems in the system, and not the people, who I found to be courteous & capable.

How to preserve the integrity of our humane & splendid 19th century system -- while satisfying the needs of a 21st century society?

I believe the principles of the Toyota Production System can help.

Best regards

Pascal

Pascal Dennis Bio