Establishing Visual Management in Office & Services

Implementing visual management techniques is a critical component of any lean

enterprise. An oft asked question is “why is visual management so important?” Also

heard is “what does visual management really mean?” In this article we will answer both

questions, and provide the reader with numerous examples along the way.

Background

It is important to understand the reasoning behind utilizing visual management

techniques. Humans tend to be very visible creatures. There are expressions in our

everyday language that supports this premise. “Seeing is believing”, “A picture is worth

a thousand words” are just two such examples. Studies have shown that people retain

information as follows:

 What we read: 10%

 What we hear: 20%

 What we see: 40%

 What we hear and see: 50%

 What we say ourselves: 70%

 What we do ourselves: 90%

Therefore, it only makes sense to use more visual techniques that are 40% effective as

opposed to strictly verbal or written techniques which are 10-20% effective. In addition,

visibility provides other benefits. These include, but are not limited to: improved

probability of sustaining standard work practices; a greater sense of belonging,

accountability, and pride; increased confidence in the organization within customers,

suppliers or other “guests” to the organization.

Now there are true challenges to the application of visual management

techniques in any work environment, and in particular office and services. First and

foremost is the reluctance of people in general to accept “transparency” in the workplace.

Why would people be reluctant? There are several possibilities. One is a fear of the

response that they may receive (e.g. non-supportive, punitive). This is particularly true

when attempting to make performance visual. People will be reluctant to make such

information visible if there has been a history of punitive responses to failure to meet

performance expectations.

Another source of reluctance stems from the ever present “information is power”

belief. Many people have fears about job security. There is a reluctance to make

standard work visible since others can learn how a person performs particular activities.

As we discussed in a previous article, “tribal knowledge” – knowledge possessed by a

person, but not adequately shared with others – is often documented as “key points” that

are part of standard work. There will be strong resistance to posting standard work from

those caught up in job security fears.

Therefore, it is critical that top management allay these fears prior to

implementing visual management techniques. A strong message that visibility and

transparency will be a part of the lean system must be conveyed, and that resistance will

not be tolerated. There can be great flexibility in the manner by which visibility can be

provided. However the underlying concepts cannot be compromised.

 Of course this means that management itself must buy into the concept, and

therein is the challenge. Most resistance to visual management concepts comes from

management, particularly middle management. Different arguments are provided

ranging from “it is all in the computer, why do we need to make it visible?” to “I don’t

want to clutter up the walls”. These are not valid arguments, but can bring the effort to a

screeching halt, nevertheless.

Approaches to Visual Management

The means by which visibility can be provided can vary greatly. In general, the

approach that is to be taken depends on two key factors; proximity and complexity.

A little information to
Close together Signals be communicated

Proximity Boards Complexity

Farther away A lot of information to

Electronic
be communicated

Figure 1

Proximity refers to the relative location of the provider of information and the

recipient. Simple methods such as white boards can be used if they are located close

together. When they are separated by great distance, then the tendency will be to utilize

electronic techniques (e.g. computer based software applications). Of course companies

have used creative methods to overcome the proximity issue. For example, one location
could simply take a digital photograph of a white board and email it to another location

so that both boards could be kept up to date and remain “matched”.

Complexity refers to the amount of information that needs to be communicated.

For example, white boards can be very effective to display the status of projects if the

number of projects in process is limited, say less than 50. Beyond that the tendency is to

utilize electronic methods since other techniques such as white boards can become too

“busy”.

While electronic techniques can be effective communication methods, they tend

to lose some of the other benefits previously mentioned (e.g. improved probability of

sustaining standard work, greater accountability). This is due to the fact that the

electronic techniques are not as visible in the workplace as desired. To address this

shortcoming some organizations have made use of monitors installed in appropriate

locations in the workplace to provide improved visibility.

At one company, phone system software provided real time statistics on wait

time, dropped calls, etc by “call loop”. However, the full benefits of this important

information in managing the call center were not realized until the information was made

available to all of the associates, rather than just on the desk top computer of the

supervisor. By use of monitors, associates were able to know when to lend assistance to

each other (between phone loops) with little or no direction from the supervisor.

Performance significantly improved as a result.

When determining an appropriate approach, always remember the “keep it

simple” rule. Too often people will put great effort into development of more complex

techniques when simpler methods would work as well, and could be implemented in less
time. Lean thinkers always look for effective approaches that can be implemented

quickly. Also ease of maintenance of the implemented methods must always be

considered. Any technique that requires substantial effort to keep up to date will not be

maintained over time. For example, if a white board is used, and it requires a lot of re-

writing of the same information to keep it organized, people will quickly grow frustrated

and will soon abandon its use. However, what if dry erase magnets were used on the

board? Then the information could be quickly reorganized with minimal effort.

The same can be said for electronic techniques. If people are required to enter

information into a software application strictly for purposes of maintaining the visual

management system, people may grow frustrated with this fact over time. However, if

the necessary information is already in the system and the challenge is in extracting it,

techniques can probably be developed to do this easily, perhaps using a report generator.

Elements of Visual Management

What are the elements of “visual management”? We will respond to this

question with a series of questions. Each will then be explored in more depth, with

examples provided where appropriate. In any work environment, answers to the

following questions should be visibly apparent:

 What is the purpose or function of the area?

 What activities are performed in the area?

 How do people know what to do?

 How do they know how to do it?

 How do they know how they are doing?

 What is done if performance expectations are not being met?

What is the purpose or function of the area? What activities are performed in the area?

Making this visibly apparent certainly has benefit to new employees, or

employees who are new to an area. It will help them to become oriented more quickly to

their new work environment. Fewer questions, often causing disruptions to other

employees, will arise. However, a lack of proper awareness of locations and functions of

different departments has often been exhibited by longer tenured employees in larger

organizations, as well. So, while the benefits might seem minimal, the means to make

this visible tend to be very easy to accomplish. Typically, a simple sign posted

prominently will suffice.

How do people know what to do?

This question involves the manner in which work is scheduled, triggered and

prioritized. It usually leads to very interesting discussions. Management often provides

such direction, even for basic tasks. In other situations it is left up to the people

performing the work to make such decisions. However, they may be doing so in such a

way that is not what is best for the overall process. Some form of scheduling system

needs to be put in place. In project oriented environments this can be in the form of

schedules that are posted in the workplace that clearly display priorities. White boards

can be used for this purpose. A term gaining recent interest is “obeya” or “big room”.

The concept behind the term is to have a room with various visual project management

techniques displayed to help manage complex projects such as for product development.

Such simple visual project management techniques have been used for decades.
 Another mechanism has been referred to as a “plan for every process” which can

be very effective in work environments that exhibit more “routine” – activities that are

regularly performed at some frequency (e.g. daily, weekly). Here a schedule for

performing activities is agreed upon and posted. Often this is part of standard work that

has been developed for particular roles in the office or service. The schedule is

coordinated between roles in such a way to ensure that overall process performance

expectations are met. Such a schedule is posted in an area, and/or at each person’s work

place (e.g. office, cubicle). Evidence that tasks were completed at designated times is

usually included as part of the visual management system.

Plan for Every Process

Role: Customer Service
Frequency
Task (with key points) Time Daily Weekly Monthly
1. Enter Orders within day of receipt to insure 5-10 mins per Throughout
that published lead times can be met order day
2. Generate weekly order input reports to 5 mins Fridays by
monitor current demand 3:00 PM
3. Generate monthly reports for management 10 mins Last Friday
to monitor sales performance of month

In a separate article we discussed the implementation of pull systems in office

and service environments that can be used to trigger performance of particular activities.

The key elements of a pull system are: visibility to the queue of work, limits on the

amount of work that can be in the queue, rules to follow on when the limits are met or

exceeded, the system should be worker managed. The key is to how to make the queues

visible. This has been particularly challenging as information is more and more in

electronic form. However, with some creativity the electronic format can prove to be an
advantage. A call center example was previously described where monitors were used to

provide the visibility to information that already existed.

At one company it was desired to maintain visibility of the queue of work at each

person’s “in-box”. An attempt to use a computer based work flow system proved

problematic. The associates suggested that it was easiest for each person to do this. A

person would simply update a number on a small dry erase board within arm’s reach.

This 15 second task was performed four times each day, certainly acceptable to the

individuals involved.

How do they know how to do it?

In a previous article we discussed “standard work”. Standard work defines the

steps that must be completed in order to perform a process or operation. It also includes

what are called “key points”. Key points define the “how” to perform each step. Key

points include clarity affecting efficiency (i.e. perform the step in this way to assure

speed of completion), quality (i.e. perform the step in this way to assure quality of

completion), and sometimes safety (i.e. perform the step in which way to assure safe

completion). The expected time to complete an operation, as well as the timing of

completion where appropriate, are also included in standard work.

Standard work is typically displayed on a single page document that is posted in

the work area. The key here is to provide the appropriate level of detail so that it can be

displayed on a single page. To do this, we must understand its intent. It is not intended

to be used by people who have never received training in the operation or process. It is

assumed that the people performing the process or operation has already received the

requisite training perhaps using very detailed “standard operating procedures” or SOPs to
assist in the training. Standard work is a reminder to people of how the work is to be

performed to assure performance (e.g. throughput, quality).

This is where the key points are so important to include in standard work. Details

such as “turn computer on”, “go to screen ABC”, etc. are not included in standard work.

Details such as “all highlighted information must be entered to assure accurate

processing” are included. Visual aids such as screen saves, photos, samples of forms to

be used are often included in standard work, and help to keep it to the desired single

page. As we said previously a “picture is worth a thousand words”.

The other purpose of standard work is to allow for non-standard conditions to

more readily identifiable. For example, process time is included in standard work. A

person performing a process or operation looks up and sees that it should take 10 minutes

to complete the process. However, it is taking 20 minutes. This is a non-standard

condition and should be identified ideally by the person performing the task. “Why is it

taking longer to complete the task than it should?” A little investigation may reveal that

some undesired change to the process has occurred that should be acted upon. Of course,

the opposite can also occur. Let’s say that the process is taking 5 minutes when it should

be 10 minutes. Perhaps the person is taking some “short cuts” (i.e. not following the

standard work) which may result in problems at a subsequent process. This leads to a

broader discussion which we will have in the context of the next question.

How do they know how they are doing?

A concept of “jidoka” refers to providing people with the ability to detect when

an abnormal condition has occurred and to immediately stop work. It originated in the

early 1900s. An abnormal condition can be a failure to meet performance expectations,

or a quality problem. What is unacceptable, yet happens in most office and service

environments, is for abnormal or non-standard conditions to continue unaddressed.

People sometimes even exhibit pride in “getting it done” in spite of the problems. As we

had begun to describe earlier standard work can provide some indication of how people

are doing in the short term.

People in general want to know how they are doing. That is why scoreboards are

maintained in most sporting events. Why can we not provide the same feedback and

visibility of performance in an office and service environment? The answer is we can, if

people are willing. “Pitch boards” that display actual throughput versus expectations is

one such technique. A commonly used format for such a board is shown below. These

are typically worker managed. It clearly displays the goals by the hour (i.e. the “pitch” or

frequency), and how well a person or team of people are doing in meeting the goals.

Very important are the comments for any hour when the goal was not met. A periodic

review of the board and comments will help to identify recurring problems that must be

addressed to assure performance in the future. Such techniques have been effectively

used in manufacturing, and are just now finding their way to office and service

environments.

Time Goal Actual +/- Comments

8:00-9:00 10 8 -2 Problem with
computer
9:00-10:00 10 10 0
10:00-11:00 10
Etc.

Performance over longer periods of time can be provided by posting process

metrics periodically (daily, weekly, monthly). Key performance measures can be posted
on a simple dry erase board or some other media. “Traffic light” techniques using colors

to quickly display which measures are meeting expectations and which are not can

enhance the effectiveness of whatever technique is used. Green can indicate meeting

performance expectations, while red can indicate that opposite. People have used arrows

to quickly convey trends. Of course the key here is to select the correct measures that

will affect the desired behavior and response. That is a subject of a separate article.

Metric Goal Actual Status Comments

Sales Revenue $4M $3.8
On Time Delivery 98% 98%
Etc.

Similar techniques can be used in project management environments to display

whether or not key milestones have been met, are in jeopardy of being met, or were

missed. An example of one is shown below. Green means on schedule to meet planned

date, yellow means that the planned date is in danger of being met, and red means that the

date will be or has been missed.

Order Generate Bill of Materials Receive Production Production

Project Entry Drawings Material On Order Materials Start Complete
ABC COMP 9/1 9/3 9/4 9/21 9/21 9/28
DEF COMP 9/2 9/4 9/5 9/28 9/29 10/5
GHI COMP COMP COMP COMP 9/20 9/25 10/2

The three techniques suggested here (i.e. standard work, pitch boards, and

performance measurements) will provide people a very complete picture of how they are

doing both short and long term.

What is done if performance expectations are not being met?

 Knowing how we are doing is one thing. The real key is to respond when

necessary. Previously we defined the term jidoka. It included the ability to immediately

stop work, in order to address the abnormal condition. Now it is not always necessary to

stop work. Not all problems warrant such. However, at the very least the problem needs

to be addressed while the work proceeds. Therefore, guidelines for “line stops” - soft” or

“hard” – need to be clearly defined and posted in the area. These guidelines include a

desired response time, or at least a date when the problem is expected to be addressed.

Responses can be short term (e.g. call someone for help), intermediate (e.g. re-

train an employee who is not following standard work), or long term (e.g. some process

improvement project). Responses can drive the continuous improvement efforts in a

department. Therefore, they are often posted as part of a continuous improvement

component of the visual management system. A simple dry erase board will suffice. On

it recurring problems are listed, and follow-up actions identified.

Problems cannot be allowed to go unattended. Therefore, an “escalation”

process is often included. The escalation process triggers others – typically higher level

management – to get involved and help to complete the follow-up action. An example of

one possible board is provided next. Of course the board can take various formats, and

the specific escalation process will depend on the organization. The board should be

reviewed periodically to make sure that the department or team, and others in the

organization are following through on problem resolution.

 Problem Action Responsibility Completion Status
Date
1. People not Re-train Supervisor Oct. 5 OK
following
standard work
2. Address Identify Manager Sept. 3 Escalation
computer problem to IT. Level 1
problem IT to correct
Etc.

Escalation Level 1: Get appropriate Director involved.

Escalation Level 2: Get Leadership Team involved.

Summary

Together, all of the elements previously described constitute a comprehensive

visual management system. Such a system can provide important benefits to an

organization. These benefits include:

 Greater stability and predictability of a process, department or an entire

organization

 Less overall effort to manage the process

 Greater awareness of problems and opportunities for improvement

 Greater responsiveness to problems

 Improved communication and awareness for all employees

 Shorter learning curves for new or re-assigned employees

The “less overall effort to manage the process” is not always apparent to people

who have no previous experience in such practices. It almost requires a “leap of faith”.

“We will be spending half our day updating boards” is an often heard retort. However,

this is just not the case – not if it is done properly, and the responsibility for maintaining

the various elements of the visual management system spread among team members. It
should always be remembered that all lean concepts are best applied with worker

involvement.

About the Author:

Drew Locher is managing director of Change Management Associates based in Mount

Laurel NJ which provides lean consulting and organizational development services. He

is co-author of “The Complete Lean Enterprise – Value Stream Mapping for

Administrative and Office Processes” – a 2005 Shingo Prize winner, and “Value Stream

Mapping for Lean Development – a How-to Guide to Streamline Time to Market”.

Contact him at 856-235-8051, drewlocher@comcast.net, or www.cma4results.com.