Nicolas Tang's Blog

Optimism bias is the demonstrated systematic tendency for people to be over-optimistic about the outcome of planned actions. People tend to see the future through “rose-colored glasses,” as the saying goes. Optimism bias applies to professionals and laypeople alike. Optimism bias arises in relation to estimates of costs and benefits and duration of tasks. It must be accounted for explicitly in appraisals, if these are to be realistic. Optimism bias typically results in cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and delays, when plans are implemented.

In a study in search of the brain regions responsible for optimism, researchers noted that “humans expect positive events in the future even when there is no evidence to support such expectations. For example, people expect to live longer and be healthier than average, they underestimate their likelihood of getting a divorce, and overestimate their prospects for success on the job market.”

In a debate in Harvard Business Review, between Daniel Kahneman, Dan Lovallo, and Bent Flyvbjerg, Flyvbjerg (2003) – while acknowledging the existence of optimism bias – pointed out that what appears to be optimism bias may on closer examination be strategic misrepresentation. Planners may deliberately underestimate costs and overestimate benefits in order to get their projects approved, especially when projects are large and when organizational and political pressures are high. Kahneman and Lovallo (2003) maintained that optimism bias is the main problem.

Former President of India APJ Abdul Kalam : ‘A Leader Should Know How to Manage Failure’

India Knowledge@Wharton: Could you give an example, from your own experience, of how leaders should manage failure?

Kalam: Let me tell you about my experience. In 1973 I became the project director of India’s satellite launch vehicle program, commonly called the SLV-3. Our goal was to put India’s “Rohini” satellite into orbit by 1980. I was given funds and human resources — but was told clearly that by 1980 we had to launch the satellite into space. Thousands of people worked together in scientific and technical teams towards that goal.

By 1979 — I think the month was August — we thought we were ready. As the project director, I went to the control center for the launch. At four minutes before the satellite launch, the computer began to go through the checklist of items that needed to be checked. One minute later, the computer program put the launch on hold; the display showed that some control components were not in order. My experts — I had four or five of them with me — told me not to worry; they had done their calculations and there was enough reserve fuel. So I bypassed the computer, switched to manual mode, and launched the rocket. In the first stage, everything worked fine. In the second stage, a problem developed. Instead of the satellite going into orbit, the whole rocket system plunged into the Bay of Bengal. It was a big failure.

That day, the chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, Prof. Satish Dhawan, had called a press conference. The launch was at 7:00 am, and the press conference — where journalists from around the world were present — was at 7:45 am at ISRO’s satellite launch range in Sriharikota [in Andhra Pradesh in southern India]. Prof. Dhawan, the leader of the organization, conducted the press conference himself. He took responsibility for the failure — he said that the team had worked very hard, but that it needed more technological support. He assured the media that in another year, the team would definitely succeed. Now, I was the project director, and it was my failure, but instead, he took responsibility for the failure as chairman of the organization.

The next year, in July 1980, we tried again to launch the satellite — and this time we succeeded. The whole nation was jubilant. Again, there was a press conference. Prof. Dhawan called me aside and told me, “You conduct the press conference today.”

I learned a very important lesson that day. When failure occurred, the leader of the organization owned that failure. When success came, he gave it to his team. The best management lesson I have learned did not come to me from reading a book; it came from that experience.

“Am I the only guy in this country who’s fed up with what’s happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We’ve got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we’ve got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can’t even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, “Stay the course.” Stay the course? You’ve got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I’ll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

~ Lee Iacocca, Where Have All the Leaders Gone?

Theory of Constraints (TOC) is an overall management philosophy. Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt introduced the theory of constraints in his seminal 1984 book entitled ‘The Goal’. It is based on the application of scientific principles and logic reasoning to guide human-based organizations. The publicity and leadership behind these ideas has been dominated by Dr. Goldratt through a series of books, seminars and workshops.

According to TOC, every organization has – at any given point in time – at least one constraint which limits the system’s performance relative to its goal. These constraints can be broadly classified as either an internal constraint or a market constraint. In order to manage the performance of the system, the constraint must be identified and managed correctly (according to the Five Focusing Steps below). Over time the constraint may change (e.g., because the previous constraint was managed successfully, or because of a changing environment) and the analysis starts anew.

The Five Focusing Steps

One of the most important process of the Theory of Constraints is based on the premise that the rate of goal achievement is limited by at least one constraining process. Only by increasing throughput (flow) at the bottleneck process can overall throughput be increased.

The key steps in implementing an effective process of ongoing improvement according to TOC are:

0. (Step Zero) Articulate the goal of the organization. Frequently, this is something like, “Make money now and in the future.”

1. Identify the constraint (the thing that prevents the organization from obtaining more of the goal)

2. Decide how to exploit the constraint (make sure the constraint is doing things that the constraint uniquely does, and not doing things that it should not do)

3. Subordinate all other processes to above decision (align all other processes to the decision made above)

4. Elevate the constraint (if required, permanently increase capacity of the constraint; “buy more”)

5. If, as a result of these steps, the constraint has moved, return to Step 1. Don’t let inertia become the constraint.

Six Sigma is a business management strategy, originally developed by Motorola, that today enjoys wide-spread application in many sectors of industry.

Six Sigma seeks to identify and remove the causes of defects and errors in manufacturing and business processes. It uses a set of quality management methods, including statistical methods, and creates a special infrastructure of people within the organization (“Black Belts” etc.) who are experts in these methods. Each Six Sigma project carried out within an organization follows a defined sequence of steps and has quantified financial targets (cost reduction or profit increase).

DMAIC is used to improve an existing business process; DMADV is used to create new product or process designs.

DMAIC

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

* Define process improvement goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise strategy.
* Measure key aspects of the current process and collect relevant data.
* Analyze the data to verify cause-and-effect relationships. Determine what the relationships are, and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered.
* Improve or optimize the process based upon data analysis using techniques like Design of Experiments.
* Control to ensure that any deviations from target are corrected before they result in defects. Set up pilot runs to establish process capability, move on to production, set up control mechanisms and continuously monitor the process.

DMADV

The basic methodology consists of the following five steps:

* Define design goals that are consistent with customer demands and the enterprise strategy.
* Measure and identify CTQs (characteristics that are Critical To Quality), product capabilities, production process capability, and risks.
* Analyze to develop and design alternatives, create a high-level design and evaluate design capability to select the best design.
* Design details, optimize the design, and plan for design verification. This phase may require simulations.
* Verify the design, set up pilot runs, implement the production process and hand it over to the process owners.

5S is a method for organizing a workplace, especially a shared workplace (like a shop floor or an office space), and keeping it organized. It’s sometimes referred to as a housekeeping methodology, however this characterization can be misleading because organizing a workplace goes beyond housekeeping (see discussion of “Seiton” below).

The key targets of 5S are workplace morale and efficiency. The assertion of 5S is, by assigning everything a location, time is not wasted by looking for things. Additionally, it is quickly obvious when something is missing from its designated location. 5S advocates believe the benefits of this methodology come from deciding what should be kept, where it should be kept, and how it should be stored. This decision making process usually comes from a dialog about standardization which builds a clear understanding, between employees, of how work should be done. It also instils ownership of the process in each employee.

In addition to the above, another key distinction between 5S and “standardized cleanup” is Seiton. Seiton is often misunderstood, perhaps due to efforts to translate into an English word beginning with “S” (such as “sort” or “straighten”). The key concept here is to order items or activities in a manner to promote work flow. For example, tools should be kept at the point of use, workers should not have to repetitively bend to access materials, flow paths can be altered to improve efficiency, etc.

The 5S’s are:

Seiri – Sorting. Refers to the practice of going through all the tools, materials, etc., in the work area and keeping only essential items. Everything else is stored or discarded. This leads to fewer hazards and less clutter to interfere with productive work.

Seiton : Set in Order. Focuses on the need for an orderly workplace. “Orderly” in this sense means arranging the tools and equipment in an order that promotes work flow. Tools and equipment should be kept where they will be used, and the process should be ordered in a manner that eliminates extra motion.

Seisp: Sweeping, Systematic Cleaning, or Shining. Indicates the need to keep the workplace clean as well as neat. Cleaning in Japanese companies is a daily activity. At the end of each shift, the work area is cleaned up and everything is restored to its place, making it easy to know what goes where and to know when everything is where it should be are essential here. The key point is that maintaining cleanliness should be part of the daily work – not an occasional activity initiated when things get too messy.

Seiketsu: Standardising. This refers to standardized work practices. It refers to more than standardized cleanliness (otherwise this would mean essentially the same as “systemized cleanliness”). This means operating in a consistent and standardized fashion. Everyone knows exactly what his or her responsibilities are. In part this follows from Seiton where the order of a workplace should reflect the process of work, these imply standardised work practice and workstation layout.

Shitsuke: Sustaining. Refers to maintaining and reviewing standards. Once the previous 4S’s have been established they become the new way to operate. Maintain the focus on this new way of operating, and do not allow a gradual decline back to the old ways of operating. However, when an issue arises such as a suggested improvement or a new way of working, or a new tool, or a new output requirement then a review of the first 4S’s is appropriate.