Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 3

By Pascal Dennis (bio)

Last blog we began to build a SIPOC analysis around a high level Jury Selection process:

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

What can mess up the process?

Last time we discussed an important Direct Cause: Poor information flow at step 1

Here's a possible Five Why Analysis:

Why is there poor information flow to Jury Panel members at step 1?

Because people working in the Jury Panel Selection process do not know critical information such as:

• How many cases are in the pipeline?
• How many courts openings are available?
• How many Jury Panel members do we need to fill these cases -- (i.e. what's our standard)?
• How many Jury Panel members have we called?
• What's the gap? Are we ok or not okay?
• What's the countermeasure?

Why do they not know this? Inadequate visual management... (I saw almost no evidence of visual management in my three days in court)

My guess is this critical info is "in the computer" -- invisible...

If so, then Jury Panel members are called with little knowledge of how many are actually needed.

(For Production Physics aficionados: Are we not, thereby, buffering variation with inventory?)

Effect? Over-processing, delay & defect waste. Frustration, hassle & anxiety for Jury Panel members.

Longer & longer queues in the court system, and ultimately, bad guys go free.

Regular readers will recognize the importance of making the invisible, visible.

Best,

Pascal



In case you missed our last few blogs... please feel free to have another look…

The Role of Senior Leaders (Part 1)
Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 2
Ambidexterity - How to Get Started
Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 1

Can Lean & Agile Help to Fix Our Courts? Part 3

By Pascal Dennis (bio)

Last blog we began to build a SIPOC analysis around a high level Jury Selection process:

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

What can mess up the process?

Last time we discussed an important Direct Cause: Poor information flow at step 1

Here's a possible Five Why Analysis:

Why is there poor information flow to Jury Panel members at step 1?

Because people working in the Jury Panel Selection process do not know critical information such as:

• How many cases are in the pipeline?
• How many courts openings are available?
• How many Jury Panel members do we need to fill these cases -- (i.e. what's our standard)?
• How many Jury Panel members have we called?
• What's the gap? Are we ok or not okay?
• What's the countermeasure?

Why do they not know this? Inadequate visual management... (I saw almost no evidence of visual management in my three days in court)

My guess is this critical info is "in the computer" -- invisible...

If so, then Jury Panel members are called with little knowledge of how many are actually needed.

(For Production Physics aficionados: Are we not, thereby, buffering variation with inventory?)

Effect? Over-processing, delay & defect waste. Frustration, hassle & anxiety for Jury Panel members.

Longer & longer queues in the court system, and ultimately, bad guys go free.

Regular readers will recognize the importance of making the invisible, visible.

Best,

Pascal

July Duty, Part 3

By Pascal Dennis

Last blog we began to build a SIPOC analysis around a high level Jury Selection process:

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

What can muck up the process?

Last time we discussed an important Direct Cause: Poor information flow at step 1

Here's a possible Five Why Analysis:

Why is there poor information flow to Jury Panel members at step 1?

Because people working in the Jury Panel Selection process do not know critical information such as:

• How many cases are in the pipeline?
• How many courts openings are available?
• How many Jury Panel members do we need to fill these cases -- (i.e. what's our standard)?
• How many Jury Panel members have we called?
• What's the gap? Are we ok or not okay?
• What's the countermeasure?

Why do they not know this? Inadequate visual management... (I saw almost no evidence of visual management in my three days in court)

My guess is this critical info is "in the computer" -- invisible...

If so, then Jury Panel members are called with little knowledge of how many are actually needed.

(For Production Physics aficionados: Are we not, thereby, buffering variation with inventory?)

Effect? Over-processing, delay & defect waste. Frustration, hassle & anxiety for Jury Panel members.

Longer & longer queues in the court system, and ultimately, bad guys go free.

Regular readers will recognize the importance of making the invisible, visible.

Best,

Pascal

Pascal Dennis Bio

July Duty, Part 3

Jury Duty - Part 3

By Pascal Dennis

Last blog we began to build a SIPOC analysis around a high level Jury Selection process:

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

What can muck up the process?

Last time we discussed an important Direct Cause: Poor information flow at step 1

Here's a possible Five Why Analysis:

Why is there poor information flow to Jury Panel members at step 1?

Because people working in the Jury Panel Selection process don't know the current condition.

Why? Because of inadequate visual management...

Were we to do a deep dive, would the following information be visible?

• How many cases are in the pipeline?
• How many courts openings are available?
• How many Jury Panel members do we need to fill these cases -- (i.e. what's our standard)?
• How many Jury Panel members have we called?
• (What's the gap? Are we ok or not okay? What's the countermeasure?)

My guess is this critical info is "in the computer" -- invisible...

If so, then Jury Panel members are called with little knowledge of how many are actually needed.

(For Production Physics aficionados: Are we not, thereby, buffering variation with inventory?)

Effect?

Over-processing, delay & defect waste. Frustration, hassle & anxiety for Jury Panel members.

Longer & longer queues in the court system, and ultimately, bad guys go free.

Regular readers will recognize the importance of making the invisible, visible.

Best,

Pascal

Is Five Why Analysis Too Simplistic for Complex Problems?

By Pascal Dennis

A common question, especially in industries that are just now learning the Lean Business System.

Problem solving is a kata - a set of core forms that we practice over & over, hopefully under the guidance of a capable sensei.

(At Lean Pathways we try to reinforce the problem solving & related katas through our Brain Booster pocket cards & apps)

When practicing the problem solving kata, we pull in the tools we need including, Five Why, Ishikawa, Process Flow Diagrams, SIPOC etc.

It's a mistake to structure any problem solving discussion in either/or terms.

It's not Five Why OR Ishikawa OR Process Flow Diagram OR FMEA.

To paraphrase Hemingway, "it's all true." We pull in what we need. Another common mistake is underestimating Five Why.

"Five Why is too simple for me. I want a more complex tool, because this is a complex problem. (And I am a very complex guy!)"

In consulting practice we've used Five Why to get to the root cause of complex design, supply chain and organizational problems.

Five Why is especially helpful when we've clearly defined a Direct Cause.

Often there are multiple causes, and we need to apply Five Why sequentially to get to the root cause of each.

A common failure mode is not understanding the three types of Root Causes - Inadequate Standard, Inadequate Adherence to Standard, Inadequate System.

These are derived from the splendid NASA and Loss Control literature & are invaluable because they point to actionable root causes.

In summary, problem solving is a kata and not unlike trying to hit a curve ball, shoot hoops, or hit a golf ball.

(All of which baffle me...)

You practice, practice, practice the core skills & movements.

Then, if you're very lucky, the day comes you can do it unconsciously.

Best regards,

Pascal