July 18, 2025 • 50 mins
Welcome to The Inner Game of Change, the podcast where we explore the unseen forces that shape how we lead, adapt, and thrive in the face of change and transformation.
In this episode, I am joined by James Stevenson, Principal at Kaizen Institute Western Europe. James brings clarity, calm, and sharp thinking to the world of continuous improvement.
We talk about what Kaizen truly is (and what it is not), why it starts with the customer, not the process, and how so many change efforts lose their way by optimising for convenience rather than value.
From leadership mindsets to simulated learning, from efficiency gains to the often-ignored question of “what happens after the improvement?”, this conversation looks at the human and the structural sides of change.
We also explore the role of artificial intelligence in continuous improvement, and how AI might be the sharpest new tool in the Kaizen toolbox, if used wisely.
If you are in the business of enabling better change, better work and better workplaces, this one will land.
I am grateful to have James chatting with me today.
About James
A conscientious and hard-working consultant at Kaizen Institute Western Europe.
Contacts
James’ Profile
Website
uk.kaizen.com/ (Company)
Ali Juma
@The Inner Game of Change podcast
Follow me on LinkedIn
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
partner with an organization and we talk about
change change as much as somepeople say they they're very
pro-change.
Change can be quite a scarykind of topic for people,
naturally, purely because it'sthe.
It's the, let's say, fear ofthe unknown.
So everybody likes routine andthey like their habits, and
making a change in the firstplace can be can be a little bit
(00:23):
uncomfortable, purely becauseyou don't necessarily know how
you're going to adapt at anindividual level.
So there's a few things I wouldsay that are differentiating
factors to ensure the sort ofsustainability of changes, to
avoid them sort of fading awayover time.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
One is Welcome to the Inner Game of Change, the
podcast where we explore theunseen forces that shape how we
lead, adapt and thrive in theface of change and
transformation.
I am your host, ali Juma.
(01:02):
I am your host, ali Juma.
In this episode, I am joined byJames Stevenson, principal at
Kaizen Institute in WesternEurope.
James brings clarity, calm andsharp thinking to the world of
continuous improvement.
We talk about what Kaizen trulyis and what it is not, why it
(01:25):
starts with the customer, notthe process, and how so many
change efforts lose their way byoptimizing for convenience
rather than value.
From leadership mindsets tosimulated learning, from
efficiency gains to the oftenignored question of what happens
after the improvement.
This conversation looks at thehuman and structural sides of
(01:48):
change.
We also explore the role ofartificial intelligence in
continuous improvement and howAI might be the sharpest new
tool in the Kaizen toolbox.
If used wisely.
If you're in the business ofenabling better change, better
work and better workplaces, thisone will land.
I am grateful to have Jameschatting with me today.
(02:12):
Well, james, thank you so muchfor joining me in the In A Game
of Change podcast.
So good to see you again.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Pleasure to be here, Ali, and great to catch up.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Thank you so much.
You are, in my eyes, an expertin the Kaizen and the
methodology.
Can you just walk me throughwhat a Kaizen methodology is?
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Yeah, so Kaizen originated in Japan and, in
terms of kind of the coreprinciples of what it stands for
, it's all about being verytransparent, data-driven,
looking at things in a veryholistic way to understand where
waste exists and how it can beeliminated, to make processes
(02:56):
better.
Okay, so in essence, it'sreally just about continuous
improvement.
So change for the better, ormaking improvements to the way
that people work or the way thatprocesses function.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
This idea of eliminating waste.
Is that the core of Kaizen, oris it improving existing
processes?
Speaker 1 (03:23):
It's sort of a combination of the two really.
So it's really the fundamentalstarting point for Kaizen is
really understanding what isvalue in the eyes of the
customer, so whether yourcustomer could be somebody
internal to your organization.
So if you think about there'sseveral functions within an
organization.
Some serve other functionsinternally and others are
(03:48):
directly driving to, say, theend customer or the next
customer outside theorganization.
And really in Kaizen what we'retalking about is what matters
to them, what do they care about, what is important?
That means that they come toyou for your product or your
(04:11):
service and then really homingin on the activities that exist
within the organization, whatare directly contributing to
those, let's say, value addingactivities that the customer is
willing to pay for, and thenwhat are the processes or
activities that aren't.
So it's quite a binary way oflooking at the world.
(04:33):
But once you have that kind ofconcept clear, then Kaizen is
really just focusing on how canyou add more value to the
customer or to the people thatyou're designing those products
and services for, and how canyou reduce the amount of time
and effort and resources thatthe organization or the people
are spending on the things thatdon't matter to the customer.
(04:56):
So it's quite a simple way oflooking at things, and the way
in which we do that really is tounderstand where waste exists.
The way in which we do thatreally is to understand where
waste exists.
So we use the concept of sevenwastes, which I'm sure you'll be
familiar with, and really justtry and either eliminate those
(05:16):
where they exist or reduce themas much as possible in an
iterative way.
So that's where the sort ofcontinuous improvement element
comes in.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
I'm going to share with you an example and a
scenario that I often see.
I often see business unitsinternally.
They focus on improving theirown processes to make their
lives easier, rather than theKaizen philosophies that started
the customer and what they needand work backward.
(05:45):
What do you think, in youropinion, that started the
customer and what they need andwork back with what do you think
, in your opinion, how can weshift that mindset?
Because I've seen Kaiser inreal life and I've been part of
a few programs and I often findit really challenging to
actually shift that mindsetchallenging for to actually
(06:10):
shift that mindset.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
I think.
I think it's natural,particularly in quite, let's say
, siloed organizations wherethere's either you know, it
could be a geographic distancebetween departments physically,
so, um, one's based in onelocation, one's based in another
location where they don'treally have, let's say,
peripheral vision of how theiractions and behaviors affect
(06:30):
others within that organization.
So I think it's reallyimportant to, when we're talking
about improving processes andimproving businesses with a
Kaizen mindset, it's reallyabout zooming out a bit, taking
stock of what the customer wantsand then getting people to kind
of align on that vision.
Because, as you say, ali, it'sexactly right If you're a silo
(06:55):
department that's purely lookingat their own processes and not
necessarily the consequences of,oh, if we make this change, it
might save us I don't know 5% inefficiency, but the consequence
might be that we push a probleminto another neighbouring
department or a customer or asupplier.
That actually causes a netlarger problem for them than the
(07:18):
efficiency gain that we mighthave made internally.
So I think it's really about,you know, aligning the
leadership of the organizationto what the changes and why it's
needed, and then of, let's say,it's a multifunctional
organization with lots ofdifferent areas of internally.
We need them to understand that.
(07:39):
Ok, this might be slightly morecomplex in terms of your
responsibilities in the future,but the net impact for the
overall organization is fargreater.
So it's more about looking atthings in a very holistic way
for the good of the entireorganization, rather than trying
to make pockets of efficiencyin one area that then have a
(08:04):
negative impact in another area.
So it's really about looking atthe holistic view.
So yeah, I see that.
You know, especially inmultinationals or very large
organizations, which whichperhaps have quite segmented
functions, it's, it's a commontheme that you know and it's and
it intentions.
You know people are trying todo the right thing by optimizing
(08:27):
their local team or their area,but sometimes we do need to
take a step back and we do needto look at the big picture and
see OK, yes, we madeproductivity gain, but then the
net knock on effect for thewhole business is actually not
as positive overall.
So really zooming out, aligningleaders on what changes is
(08:50):
needed, that's kind of where welike to start, purely to avoid
this type of challenge thatyou're describing.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
James, in my head, kaizen is a change.
How do you ensure that thatchange sticks at the end of the
day?
Is it about the leadership, isit about the building of the
capability, is it the training,is it the redesign of the
process, or is it all of theabove?
Speaker 1 (09:20):
I think it is a bit of all of the above really.
So when we partner with anorganisation and we talk about
change change as much as somepeople say they're very
pro-change change can be quite ascary kind of topic for people,
naturally, purely because it'sthe, let's say, fear of the
unknown.
So everybody likes routine andthey like their habits, and
(09:44):
making a change in the firstplace can be a little bit
uncomfortable, purely becauseyou don't necessarily know how
you're going to adapt at anindividual level.
So there's a few things I wouldsay that are kind of
differentiating factors toensure the sort of
sustainability of changes, toavoid them sort of fading away
over time.
(10:05):
One is really involving thepeople who are close to the
process or the way of working indesigning the solution of
what's going to be changed,purely because there's a few
reasons for this.
One is if you involve thosepeople, they're more likely to
be bought into the solution thatis generated in the end.
(10:27):
The second thing is that theywill often understand to a
deeper degree the intricaciesand details of that process,
more so than perhaps a seniorleader, a senior leader and also
(10:48):
if you involve those people inthe change and you're then
trying to spread that in theorganization, it becomes a lot
more palatable, let's say, toothers, perhaps in similar roles
in other areas.
But if that team that's veryclose to the process did the
design, implementation, proof ofconcept and measured the impact
let's say the positive impactit becomes a lot more of an easy
(11:14):
to communicate story as to howit's originated than if it's
some sort of top-down directedmovement.
So really making it stick, Ithink first thing is involving
the people close to the process.
Second thing would be the, theconsistency in the process
confirmation.
So making it easy to understandwhether what's being changed is
(11:39):
to a good standard and and isis delivering what it is
supposed to through layers ofmanagement.
So whether it's supervisors,team leaders, senior leaders OK,
to uphold best practices, thereneeds to be some sort of
process confirmation.
So that can be very differentdepending on the situation.
It could be some kind of simplechecklist, a visual audit, or
(12:03):
it could even be, you know,teams in different areas
assessing one another to takebest practice, not only to take
best practice away from whatthey see, but also to guide and
support their colleagues.
So I think, involving thepeople doing some periodic
process confirmation to upholdthe standard.
(12:23):
And then, lastly, I think it'sabout cultivating a mindset of
collective responsibility tomake the change successful.
So this shouldn't lie on anindividual or, let's say, a
change team.
It should be the organization'scollective responsibility.
Now, this is obviously a muchmore cultural element that needs
(12:46):
to be adopted in theorganization, but there's ways
in which you can kind of fosterthat mindset.
Um, it take, it can take time,but really it's about
celebrating when teams have madechange and it's and it's given
a good, good result.
It's really about celebratingthose, those people, those,
those colleagues, and also, youknow, acknowledging that it's
(13:07):
not going good result.
It's really about celebratingthose people, those colleagues,
and also acknowledging that it'snot going to be perfect
straight away, but it'simportant to have respect to the
current standards.
So it might not be the ideal,perfect process with absolute
perfection, repeated day afterday, but until we can iterate
and improve on that, we have torespect the existing standards.
So, um, it's like all of usdriving our cars you know, we've
(13:30):
got the, we've got the rules ofthe road that we all respect
and follow, and we know why wedo that.
It's because you know, if wedon't, we know that there's a
chance of accident or there'spenalties from from fines, from
the police, okay, but primarilythose rules are there to keep as
many people as possible safe.
So it's the same kind ofconcept that we want to try and
(13:53):
build within an organization.
It's, you know, until we have abetter way, let's respect the
standards, okay, and then usethe process confirmation to
uphold those standards.
So I think that kind ofhopefully covers how do we
sustain change over a longperiod of time.
There's several elements to it,but those three are probably
the most important ones, I wouldsay.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
A couple of things, james, that I'm thinking about
now.
First of all, maybe six, sevenmonths ago, I don't know,
something came to me and I wasreading something, and then I
was inspired by the fact that Ipromised myself that from now on
, every time I talk, I'm goingto drop anything to do with best
practice and I change it intobetter practice.
(14:38):
I think over time I realizedthat who decides the best
practice and best practice todaymight not be good tomorrow, so
there's always an opportunityfor a better practice.
But I also noticed that everytime I think your idea about the
change team, the whole ideabehind it, also can be
(15:02):
triggering resistance by default.
The fact that a change team iscoming to work with a particular
operation that by itself we aresending indirectly a message to
say what you're doing is notthe best way to do business and
therefore we're going to workwith you to actually make it
(15:22):
better.
We're also going to have torealize that some team members
of this particular team oroperation, some of them have
designed the existing processand they strongly believe that
that's the best thing that theycan do.
So I often see a lot of clashesright from the start.
Right from the start, how muchdo you think getting the team
(15:50):
ready to even adopt a mindset tobe open to better ways of
working?
Speaker 1 (15:53):
I think, yeah, that's a very important point as well
because, as you say, theseprocesses have been developed
and most likely it's people whoare currently within the
organization who have developeda lot of the existing processes.
So I think, as a starting point, really it's important to
understand that, particularly inorganizations that have grown
(16:17):
quickly, perhaps from a smallstarting point a small starting
point is tend to grow quiteorganically and they tend to be
shaped by external factors thathave that have led to the
direction of growth and the wayin which the business operates.
So that's that's important torecognize that nobody's
(16:52):
deliberately made a wastefulprocess or at least we hope that
nobody's deliberately made awasteful process, or at least we
hope that nobody's deliberatelymade a wasteful process.
And it's just about looking atlooking at things in a very
pragmatic way, but not justbeing honest about, you know,
the paradigms that we might have.
Okay, we do this processbecause of X, y, z.
(17:12):
Okay, but are those factorsstill relevant in today's world?
If they're not, okay, maybe weshould rethink how we're doing
things.
I think it's all about makingpeople understand that this is
not a change to highlight, let'ssay, inefficiencies and blame
(17:32):
individuals.
It's really not about that it'sreally about how can we bring
our principles of value addedand waste in the eyes of the
customer to you and you bringyour local expertise about what
your process or service is to tous and how can we kind of
combine those to to strip backwhere there's inefficiencies and
(17:55):
help you really out, helpingthe people that do that process
or task do it in an easier way,with less burden, with less
variability okay to to enable itto be a lot more repeatable and
a simpler process in the end.
So I think it's it's importantto be transparent about that up
front and not not go in with, uh, with a blame mindset.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
I think that's really important to avoid that when,
when you, when you're talkingabout starting to engage people
so that they they- I want to askyou, james, that the premise of
any business improvement isthat at some stage it will make
(18:39):
your job hopefully easier,better for the customer, but
almost all the time it will saveyou some time.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
What I do, though, notice is that management always
struggles to find meaningfulwork to fill in that extra time
that an employee is that theiremployee actually gains out of
the efficiencies.
Is that part of what Kaizenlooks at as well?
See, I think we always we'realways looking at, you know, if
we've, if we achieve, let's say,labor efficiency, okay, is the
goal of the organization, youknow, to utilize those resources
more and more efficiently, orthe other?
The other question I would haveis how much, what percentage of
the organization is actuallyworking on improving the
(19:30):
organization?
This is quite an interestingtopic because often you'll find
that there's, you know, asprinkling of people, maybe by
function, that spend a littlebit of time working on the
strategy or the changes to theway in which the company works.
But really, at Kaizen, whatwe're trying to do is it's
(19:51):
better to try and get a smallamount of time from a lot of
people to look at ways in whichthe business can improve rather
than, let's say, saturating afew individuals purely looking
at that.
So it's really if we can usesome of the time that we free up
to work on improvements.
So it could be a colleague whoworks in the shop floor of an
(20:15):
industrial site.
You know I've worked in plentyof companies over the years
where they come up with somereally fantastic ideas that
aren't necessarily veryexpensive they tend to be quite
low cost.
But you know, if we canimplement some small, low cost
ideas that the colleagues comeup with, that can have a huge
net impact on the productivityas well.
(20:36):
So I think when we createefficiency, the first thing we
can do is look at okay, well,how can we utilize those
resources that are, let's say,free to improve even further?
As a first step, okay, if thechange is so significant that
(20:58):
there's a substantial spring ofresource, then of course it's a
lot more about how theorganization is then structured.
But as a first port of call,you know, I think trying to
influence the proportion ofpeople working on small
improvement is a good place tostart.
So that's also a message thatyou know.
(21:19):
If we can encourage that andfoster that kind of behavior
particularly because thoseindividuals tend to know the
intimacy of the process, and ifthey start to understand the
concept of wastes and valueadded in the eyes of the
customer, they can come up withsome really fantastic ideas that
can then have a much larger netpositive impact on the business
(21:41):
.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
I like that.
I actually haven't thoughtabout that myself.
Efficiency back into thebusiness by looking at better
ways and even better ways ofdoing business and servicing the
customer or whatever theirbusiness that the team is doing.
Is that right?
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Yeah, to a degree.
So I think you know clearly wedon't want to be spending hours
and hours and hours.
If we're saving lots of time,no, but we should be spending a
small amount of time regularlyto to analyze our, our ways of
working, to to improve themcertainly.
I think that's quite, quite ahealthy habit, that that some
organizations have.
Many many don't have that habit, but for those that do, I think
(22:25):
reap really good benefits fromit, because you know processes
shouldn't be completely static.
You know they.
We should always be looking athow can we evolve it and improve
it.
You know even the most highlytechnological, advanced
companies in the world some ofthem we have partnered with over
(22:46):
the years they even understandthe need that if you're staying
still, a competitor is catchingup.
So if we're not trying toimprove and focus on the needs
of the customer, then we areopening the door for a
competitor or a rival to, if notcatch up, at least close the
(23:07):
gap to where we are today.
So I think having that mindsetis really important.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
And I agree.
I think any process isvulnerable to external factors
and changes in the market,customers' needs, value adds,
new products, new competitors,and that's where the continuous
improvement mindset would needto be in place at all times.
(23:32):
Also, remember that if we getany efficiency, one of the
biggest complaints from staff isthat I don't have time to even
learn new things, and so thatefficiency gain can be
reinvested back into learningand any learning for any
employee can be a benefit backinto the business.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yeah, I think that I don't have time to change.
I think it's probably one ofthe most common sentences I hear
.
If they're so busy and theirprocess is perhaps not as
optimized as it could be, thenit's understandable to hear that
type of comment.
But ultimately, if you don'ttake that first step of being
(24:15):
open to analyse and to changethe way in which you're working,
you're never going to be ableto free up that time.
So I think it's a bit of acatch-22 situation where we have
to force ourselves to createsome time in the beginning, to
assess, to look foropportunities, those
(24:35):
opportunities to implement.
Okay depends on, obviously, theorganisation, but usually there
can be some quite quick thingsthat can save quite a
substantial proportion of theeffort or the time or the
investment.
And you know, if we can enactthose and show people quickly
that this change can be made andthat it's for their benefit and
(24:55):
the organization's benefit,then that's really a good
starting point to turn people'sthinking around so that we can
some time in order to developthe people, cross-skill
individuals, to give ourselvesmore resilience.
Because if we're relying,relying on let's take the
training element that you'respeaking about, ali if we're
(25:16):
perhaps relying on a one or twospecialized individuals to have
the knowledge to do a particularstep of the process, but we
don't have much strength indepth in the organization on
those particular tasks.
We're really running the riskthat, you know, if something
would happen to that individual,then we don't have cover and we
don't have, you know, a veryrobust way of coping with
(25:39):
perhaps the absence of thatperson or that role.
So certainly I thinkorganizations should also look
at, you know, how can theyutilize some of the gains to
make themselves more robust andmore resilient to having the
depth in the skills in the teamas well.
I think that's also a veryimportant point.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
I like that.
I want to shift gear and I wantto talk to you about something
that I've learned from Kaiser.
Actually, because I used to bea martial art professional
myself, I've got a second blackbelt in karate, so it gave me
the mindset.
Put it that way, one of thethings that I've learned from
Kaiser and I apply it today inmy practice is the power of
(26:23):
simulated learning.
So I'd like you to go deep intothat topic.
What makes it and it's quiteamazing that lots of
organizations have not evenlearned from that practice often
we go to a training session andpeople will show us some
processes and they say that'show you want to do it, and then
(26:44):
we have a go at it in in a verymessy way, and then there you go
, the project finishes and weleft to our own.
You know means and approacheswhich are not usually embedded
and sustained.
What I've learned from Kaizenis that the power of simulated
activities, again and again forpeople to grasp the new process
(27:09):
is very powerful.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
I think it's absolutely right really very
powerful.
I think it's absolutely right.
Really, if we think back towhen we were children, the way
in which we learn is not bybefore we can even start to read
, we learn by doing so.
If you think about childrenlearning shapes, I have a nephew
now who's coming up to 18months old.
(27:31):
He started with his languagebut he already knows which shape
fits in which hole and he'sdone that through practice.
So really, now, zooming outfrom that, if we think about how
can we ensure that we areperforming a process or we're
performing a task to a goodstandard and that it's not just
(27:56):
here's the process written down,here's a sheet of paper off you
go, go and figure it out.
We don't like that method or wedon't really like that, let's
say, classroom approach tolearning.
We really like to be practicaland go to the place where the
work happens.
So we call that the gemba, theplace where value is added, and
(28:19):
we like to do trials and we liketo be hands-on in the change
with the people that are doingthe task.
It doesn't matter what the taskis, necessarily, whether it's a
clerical, office-based task ora practical, physical task
office-based task or a practicalphysical task and in doing
things in a practical, hands-onway, in the place where the work
(28:40):
happens.
We can very quickly test to seeokay, we have several ideas on
what might be the best currentway of performing this task, but
we can quite easily thenmeasure okay, is option a or
option b or option c numericallythe most efficient way of doing
it?
So we can, we can, we canactually run trials with people
(29:02):
who perform that task day in,day out and we can have their
inputs as well.
But then we can be verymathematical about okay, well,
that method works very well,people are able to repeat that
very well and you know, it's 10%more effective than method B or
method C.
And then it becomes less of anopinion-driven decision and more
(29:23):
of a purely mathematicaldecision about, let's say, best
known way today of performingthat task.
But I think what we like to sayor what we like to practice in
Kaizen is we like to clearlyhave the theory in the back of
our heads, but we like to bevery pragmatic about how we
apply it.
So physical trials, in-persontrials to test and prove the
(29:46):
solution before we start runningoff and spreading it across the
organization we have to be surethat what we're changing, um,
is actually going to deliver abenefit to people.
So, being mathematical, liketesting it out okay, it might
not work, we might need toretest, or we might need to test
a different, different way um,and involving the people that
(30:09):
perform that task, that's reallykey.
Because if we don't do that andwe skip that step and we do a
classroom activity where we putdown the theory of what we think
is best, we're probably goingto miss some really important
things from the reality that youwon't get unless you do those
kind of, let's say, real-lifetrials and measures.
(30:30):
So I think that's probably anapproach in the philosophy of
Kaizen that's different fromother methods, I think having a
practical, pragmatic way ofdoing things and also when it
comes to teaching people theconcepts, doing things in a very
practical way again.
So you'll probably be familiarwith this, but when we teach a
(30:53):
concept like standard work orworkplace organization 5S, we
don't do it from just someslides or some reading.
We like to get people toactually perform a game or a
challenge, which has severalreasons to it.
One is it stays in the memorybetter, so people understand the
(31:14):
concept and remember it better,but also it makes it fun and
engaging.
So you know, we talked earlierabout change being something
that some people are afraid of.
What we need to do is getsomething that that is
digestible and fun and engagingand and should be seen as
something positive, because ifwe, if we can do that, then
(31:35):
we're going to have a lot moresuccess in people's acceptance
and openness to change.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
I like that.
You remind me of the principlethat there's a difference
between the map and theterritory.
You can give me a map, but onceI go, the territory is a
completely different thing.
The factory floor is completelydifferent from the lecture
theater.
The other thing that I alwaysfind fascinating about the
(32:04):
simulation I mean the pilotsspend most of their time in a
simulator for a reason.
What I find interesting is thatto move from knowledge to
ability meaning I know what Ineed to do, but then I know how
I do it is two completelydifferent things.
And then I find thatcognitively it will be easier
(32:27):
for people to start having a go,and it can be messy at the
start, but that's where theleadership will come in there
and create a safe place toexperiment.
So that's the secondobservation.
And the third I really likethat about Kaizen is that at the
end of the day, the solutionthat wins is not emotive, is
(32:49):
actually based on practicalobservation and data.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Yeah, I think that particular last point.
You know, I always say, look,we have to respect everybody's
opinion, but we respect it moreif they've got some data to back
it up, purely because then itbecomes a much more compelling
reason.
You know, I think we shouldalways be open to listening to
(33:15):
some insights, particularly frompeople close to the process.
But the best way to be surethat you're you're going in the
right direction and the changethat you're trying to make is,
let's say, the best known wayforward would be to put some
some numbers it, somemathematics, because if we can
say, okay, well, that takes us,let's say, one minute and 20
(33:38):
seconds to perform that task inthat method and one minute and
15 seconds to perform it inmethod B, and we need to
obviously simulate that a fewtimes.
But if we consistently see thatB is more efficient time-wise
and there's no difference in thequality or the performance of
the output product or service,then it's a very convincing way
(34:03):
for the collective group toagree on what should be the way
forward, without getting toomuch into.
You know, oh, I think this or Idon't agree with you because of
of of your experience, it's,it's it's putting that all to
one side and saying well,mathematically, this one is is
(34:23):
more efficient.
So you know, if we don't trythat, then then I think we'd be
a little bit foolish because,because the numbers are telling
us this, um, our experience,okay, might be something
different, but let's at leasttry that and see where it takes
us during a pilot period.
So I think, yeah, that wayavoids going around in circles
(34:47):
debating and discussing for long, and it enables us, in our
Kaizen methods, to make changequickly, because we don't have
to have all those big, longdebates and theorizing.
We can just be quite pragmaticand move forward and we can
always revisit if we find aproblem later.
(35:07):
But it enables us to avoid big,long discussions and too many
emotions getting in the way ofchange.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
How long do you think a change can stick after?
Let's just say all conditionsare perfect, the team is engaged
, the leadership is on board,the prototype works.
You repeated that multipletimes.
How long will it become the newway of working?
Speaker 1 (35:37):
I think it depends on the complexity of the process.
If we're talking about a verysimple process, it probably can
be adopted quite quickly byothers.
The more complex, it is,probably longer, but just purely
because of the amount of timeto adopt, the learning period
will be steeper.
However, I don't necessarilythink that there's a without
(36:04):
process confirmation that wewere discussing earlier, and
without having that continuousmindset to evaluate our
performance and to look forimprovement mindset to evaluate
our performance and to look forimprovement.
Without those couple of elements, I think you know, even the
best laid processes and even thebest design solutions can
(36:25):
degrade over time without thatsort of hygiene to check in, to
monitor, to ensure that goodpractice is being followed and
the right behaviors are in place, because people are people and
any process that involves peoplethere's that human element
where sometimes a new person mayjoin the organization and if we
(36:47):
don't have really robustprocess confirmation, they may
just, let's say, innovate andmake a tweak to a process or a
tweak to a procedure, not forany particular reason.
It may just be that they, they,they want to to experiment and
and see whether they can do itbetter and rightly or wrongly,
(37:08):
it might, it might actuallydegrade the process.
Well, it might.
It might have a negative effect.
So I think even the bestdesigns, tests, proof of concept
and standardization needs tostill have some element the
leaders or the supervisors ofthe team to do some periodic
(37:31):
process confirmation to ensurethat we don't deviate over time.
So I think that would be myanswer for that.
Firstly, it depends on thecomplexity, and then, after it's
, let's say, stable in the earlystages, there is still then a
periodic check-in and processconfirmation needed to uphold
(37:54):
the existing standard.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Do you notice that sometimes, or actually most of
the time, the often overlookedphase of, let's say, lax at
making sure that they're whatdifferentiated them in the first
(38:27):
place and made them successfulin the first place.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
If they don't have that routine to put the effort
to ensure that things are stableand working as they should,
then it will start to deviate.
Stable and working as theyshould, then it will start to
deviate.
I think if you not to pick on aparticular company, but if you
look at the likes of Boeing okay, so they're a hugely successful
(38:52):
airline manufacturer and youknow, for those who are familiar
with what happened there, theybecame too lax in their process
confirmation which led to,obviously, the challenges that
they've been having for the pastfew years.
I think now, obviously, youknow, you would hope that those
types of organisations wouldhave learned that.
(39:12):
Ok, we can't take our eye offthe existing process.
We need to ensure that.
You know it might be somethingthat we've been doing for years,
but we still need to ensurethat we do things the right way,
otherwise we're going to suffereventually.
It may not be today, buteventually there'll be a
(39:34):
difference from the standardthat will end up costing us.
So I think it's a worrying signthat if you don't see that
routine and discipline, that youmay not see the problem today,
but you will eventually see aproblem.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
I've been recently fascinated by near misses in
airlines, and predominantlybecause I'm interested in
first-order impact and asecond-order impact.
It's funny you're talking aboutBoeing.
I know a lot of stories aboutthem, but let's leave these guys
(40:12):
alone.
I want to ask you about thisexciting new technology called
artificial intelligence.
How does Kaizen look at that?
Is it an enabler for Kaizen interms of analysis and the speed
of delivering that analysis tothe customer and to the client?
Speaker 1 (40:31):
I think AI is a really interesting topic.
I think I can certainly see alot of positives that will
assist with Kaizen activities.
So, you know, purely from beingable to quickly utilize it to
support, you know, ideation ofhow we can make a process better
(40:54):
or to understand the industrybenchmarks quickly can be used
for those types of activities.
You know, activities as a wayto guide discussion.
I don't see it ever fullyreplacing human creativity, but
I can see it as really a usefultool to support it.
(41:15):
I can see technologies from theAI space which will enable
greater efficiencies to be madein the future.
So, for instance, utilizing AIwith vision systems to quickly
identify a product in awarehouse will help to avoid,
let's say, potential human errorin picking of a product.
(41:36):
So I can see ways in which it'sinevitably going to become
quite a powerful supporting tool.
I don't know whether it willentirely replace the human
element of creativity.
I think it will be more of acomplementary system.
(41:56):
It will really depend on how itdevelops over the, over the
next years, um, but certainly Ican see it as a really valuable
addition to um, to, to to bringinformation and to and to
combine information ininteresting ways that that maybe
we would not immediately thinkof um when, when we're working
(42:20):
with teams to break downprocesses and analyze
opportunities.
So I think it can be a reallyexciting way forward for Kaizen
activities.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
Well, I'll give you an example.
I had a guest a couple of weeksago.
She's a psychotherapist and shethought that I've got a problem
Because I use AI a lot.
I use generative AI.
In fact, I use generative AIfor everything, especially
personal life.
Recently I've recorded myselfand I've given the video to
(42:56):
ChatGPT to analyze my golf swingand give me feedback on it.
That's a visual video and thenit was analyzing that for me.
I see that as really powerful,to your point.
It does not replace a human.
Yes, I still will keep my coachbecause I need that human touch
(43:17):
and reaffirmation orconfirmation that I'm on the
right track, although thetechnology can encourage you and
say that's great, ali, but it'sa different feeling when it
comes from a human.
So, although I'm not seeing mycoach every week, I'm still
seeing him twice a month now,but I'm working with the
technology to enable me.
(43:38):
At the same time, I think thesame applies in the workplace.
It can synthesize a lot ofinformation for me.
It can, in fact, highlightthings that I haven't thought
about.
It can bring context.
It can bring historical usecases around the world that
happened, because nothing isunique nowadays, I think.
(44:00):
The ability of research anddeep research.
I think these are all powerfulthings.
Will they replace humans?
Maybe in some jobs, butcertainly, like any other
technology, new jobs will evolveas well.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
Yeah, I think it'll be really exciting to see.
I think in the last two andthree years we've really seen it
come on a huge amount.
I imagine we'll probably seesome other very large steps in
the next five years.
I think it'd be reallyinteresting to see how people
innovate with AI.
You know you mentioned the golfswing as an example.
(44:38):
I've seen someone else using itwith playing basketball and
technique, which is reallyamazing, especially the vision
element.
So if it can analyze a physicalprocess or a physical task, I
think that's where it's not justpurely a digital tool.
(44:59):
It's starting to become used asa physical tool as well, in the
real world.
So I think that's when it makesthat jump or when it can be
utilized very effectively in thephysical world.
I think that's when we'llreally start seeing, you know,
major collaboration betweenpeople and tools like AI to
(45:22):
improve process or to improvephysical tasks.
I think that's really, reallyinteresting.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
I love it.
I think we are living in a goodage now that's what I think,
anyway and I lived in the age ofthe internet and then I ignored
it at the time, but now thistechnology showed up in my
lifetime and I'm not letting go.
I'm actually deep into that.
I've told and I'm reallyexcited about it.
(45:49):
In fact, just to close thistopic, I collaborated with three
generative AI tools to imaginemy practice in the next couple
of years.
Again, it's like I've used thethree experts to actually work
with me to analyze what changemanagement would look like, how
the technology will actuallyenable me, what type of change
(46:10):
experience I want to get goingforward.
And so it's exciting time and Iagree with you.
I think the next couple of yearswill be really a big
advancement with you.
I think in the next couple ofyears will be really a big
advancement, and if you realize,just when ChatGPT was released,
the advancement has been almostlike on a daily basis.
Now when I'm actually using it.
So exciting time.
(46:31):
I am aware of time.
This is a really wonderfulconversation.
I'm so glad I'm having youchatting with me today, james.
One thing that I always ask theguests that I have what would
be your advice for people likeme in the business of change
management and communicationwhen it comes to adopting some
(46:53):
of the practices that Kaizenpromotes?
Speaker 1 (46:57):
I think I had a good think about this before our
conversation today.
I think the first thing tothink would be should the
process even exist at all?
So if you're analyzing someprocesses, first thing would be
to challenge OK, rather thantrying to optimize something,
we'll first need to even thinkshould we be doing it at all?
(47:18):
Because I come from anengineering background, one of
the things that engineers loveto do is to optimize processes
that shouldn't exist.
So I think the first thingwould be to analyze should it,
should the process even exist?
Second thing would be to reallyact quickly.
So if we can make a smallimprovement today, let's.
Let's do it right now, ratherthan wait for perfection, a
(47:39):
theoretical perfection, later.
Let let's make small,consistent improvement and then
I suppose the final thing wouldbe that change people will
naturally be sceptical, but weneed to be very transparent and
data-driven and respectingpeople's opinions and experience
(48:00):
when we're going through achange process.
So I think, hopefully, thosekind of three things are good
takeaways, I think, from havinga Kaizen mindset.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
I love it.
That idea of start small issomething that I've been
practicing and I love it.
It requires a level of patience.
We're not saying you know.
So many times people say you'regoing to have to think big, and
I always think think big that'sfine and dream big, but start
(48:32):
small.
That's the only way.
Nobody climbed a mountain inone leap, and the examples are
all over the place.
Nature grows step by step.
Why would we not follow that?
So I love that.
These are really wise wordsfrom you, james.
I hope I can get you back inthe future and then talk
(48:55):
probably more into the sphere ofAI.
James, how would people connectwith you and your organization?
Speaker 1 (49:05):
So yeah, so we have our website, so kaizencom, where
you can find a lot more aboutthe Kaizen Institute to see sort
of use cases, some really, Ithink, interesting insights on
the topic of Kaizen and change,and also I'm on LinkedIn, so if
(49:25):
you search my name on LinkedInyou can find me on there if
you'd like to connect.
Speaker 2 (49:30):
We're going to put all the information about you,
james, and your organization inthe podcast info.
It's been a pleasure having youin my podcast, the Inner Game
of Change.
James, I hope to talk to youagain.
Until then, stay well and staysafe.
Thank you very much, ali, it'sbeen a pleasure, thank you.
(49:53):
Thank you for listening.
If you found this episodevaluable, remember to subscribe
to stay updated on upcomingepisodes.
Your support is trulyappreciated and, by sharing this
podcast with your colleagues,friends and fellow change
practitioners, it can help mereach even more individuals and
professionals who can benefitfrom these discussions.
(50:14):
Remember, and in my opinion,change is an enduring force and
you will only have a measure ofcertainty and control when you
embrace it.
Until next time, thank you forbeing part of the Inner Game of
Change community.
I am Ali Jammah and this is theInner Game of Change podcast.
partner with an organization and we talk about
change change as much as somepeople say they they're very
pro-change.
Change can be quite a scarykind of topic for people,
naturally, purely because it'sthe.
It's the, let's say, fear ofthe unknown.
So everybody likes routine andthey like their habits, and
making a change in the firstplace can be can be a little bit
(00:23):
uncomfortable, purely becauseyou don't necessarily know how
you're going to adapt at anindividual level.
So there's a few things I wouldsay that are differentiating
factors to ensure the sort ofsustainability of changes, to
avoid them sort of fading awayover time.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
One is Welcome to the Inner Game of Change, the
podcast where we explore theunseen forces that shape how we
lead, adapt and thrive in theface of change and
transformation.
I am your host, ali Juma.
(01:02):
I am your host, ali Juma.
In this episode, I am joined byJames Stevenson, principal at
Kaizen Institute in WesternEurope.
James brings clarity, calm andsharp thinking to the world of
continuous improvement.
We talk about what Kaizen trulyis and what it is not, why it
(01:25):
starts with the customer, notthe process, and how so many
change efforts lose their way byoptimizing for convenience
rather than value.
From leadership mindsets tosimulated learning, from
efficiency gains to the oftenignored question of what happens
after the improvement.
This conversation looks at thehuman and structural sides of
(01:48):
change.
We also explore the role ofartificial intelligence in
continuous improvement and howAI might be the sharpest new
tool in the Kaizen toolbox.
If used wisely.
If you're in the business ofenabling better change, better
work and better workplaces, thisone will land.
I am grateful to have Jameschatting with me today.
(02:12):
Well, james, thank you so muchfor joining me in the In A Game
of Change podcast.
So good to see you again.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Pleasure to be here, Ali, and great to catch up.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Thank you so much.
You are, in my eyes, an expertin the Kaizen and the
methodology.
Can you just walk me throughwhat a Kaizen methodology is?
Speaker 1 (02:36):
Yeah, so Kaizen originated in Japan and, in
terms of kind of the coreprinciples of what it stands for
, it's all about being verytransparent, data-driven,
looking at things in a veryholistic way to understand where
waste exists and how it can beeliminated, to make processes
(02:56):
better.
Okay, so in essence, it'sreally just about continuous
improvement.
So change for the better, ormaking improvements to the way
that people work or the way thatprocesses function.
Speaker 2 (03:14):
This idea of eliminating waste.
Is that the core of Kaizen, oris it improving existing
processes?
Speaker 1 (03:23):
It's sort of a combination of the two really.
So it's really the fundamentalstarting point for Kaizen is
really understanding what isvalue in the eyes of the
customer, so whether yourcustomer could be somebody
internal to your organization.
So if you think about there'sseveral functions within an
organization.
Some serve other functionsinternally and others are
(03:48):
directly driving to, say, theend customer or the next
customer outside theorganization.
And really in Kaizen what we'retalking about is what matters
to them, what do they care about, what is important?
That means that they come toyou for your product or your
(04:11):
service and then really homingin on the activities that exist
within the organization, whatare directly contributing to
those, let's say, value addingactivities that the customer is
willing to pay for, and thenwhat are the processes or
activities that aren't.
So it's quite a binary way oflooking at the world.
(04:33):
But once you have that kind ofconcept clear, then Kaizen is
really just focusing on how canyou add more value to the
customer or to the people thatyou're designing those products
and services for, and how canyou reduce the amount of time
and effort and resources thatthe organization or the people
are spending on the things thatdon't matter to the customer.
(04:56):
So it's quite a simple way oflooking at things, and the way
in which we do that really is tounderstand where waste exists.
The way in which we do thatreally is to understand where
waste exists.
So we use the concept of sevenwastes, which I'm sure you'll be
familiar with, and really justtry and either eliminate those
(05:16):
where they exist or reduce themas much as possible in an
iterative way.
So that's where the sort ofcontinuous improvement element
comes in.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
I'm going to share with you an example and a
scenario that I often see.
I often see business unitsinternally.
They focus on improving theirown processes to make their
lives easier, rather than theKaizen philosophies that started
the customer and what they needand work backward.
(05:45):
What do you think, in youropinion, that started the
customer and what they need andwork back with what do you think
, in your opinion, how can weshift that mindset?
Because I've seen Kaiser inreal life and I've been part of
a few programs and I often findit really challenging to
actually shift that mindsetchallenging for to actually
(06:10):
shift that mindset.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
I think.
I think it's natural,particularly in quite, let's say
, siloed organizations wherethere's either you know, it
could be a geographic distancebetween departments physically,
so, um, one's based in onelocation, one's based in another
location where they don'treally have, let's say,
peripheral vision of how theiractions and behaviors affect
(06:30):
others within that organization.
So I think it's reallyimportant to, when we're talking
about improving processes andimproving businesses with a
Kaizen mindset, it's reallyabout zooming out a bit, taking
stock of what the customer wantsand then getting people to kind
of align on that vision.
Because, as you say, ali, it'sexactly right If you're a silo
(06:55):
department that's purely lookingat their own processes and not
necessarily the consequences of,oh, if we make this change, it
might save us I don't know 5% inefficiency, but the consequence
might be that we push a probleminto another neighbouring
department or a customer or asupplier.
That actually causes a netlarger problem for them than the
(07:18):
efficiency gain that we mighthave made internally.
So I think it's really about,you know, aligning the
leadership of the organizationto what the changes and why it's
needed, and then of, let's say,it's a multifunctional
organization with lots ofdifferent areas of internally.
We need them to understand that.
(07:39):
Ok, this might be slightly morecomplex in terms of your
responsibilities in the future,but the net impact for the
overall organization is fargreater.
So it's more about looking atthings in a very holistic way
for the good of the entireorganization, rather than trying
to make pockets of efficiencyin one area that then have a
(08:04):
negative impact in another area.
So it's really about looking atthe holistic view.
So yeah, I see that.
You know, especially inmultinationals or very large
organizations, which whichperhaps have quite segmented
functions, it's, it's a commontheme that you know and it's and
it intentions.
You know people are trying todo the right thing by optimizing
(08:27):
their local team or their area,but sometimes we do need to
take a step back and we do needto look at the big picture and
see OK, yes, we madeproductivity gain, but then the
net knock on effect for thewhole business is actually not
as positive overall.
So really zooming out, aligningleaders on what changes is
(08:50):
needed, that's kind of where welike to start, purely to avoid
this type of challenge thatyou're describing.
Speaker 2 (08:59):
James, in my head, kaizen is a change.
How do you ensure that thatchange sticks at the end of the
day?
Is it about the leadership, isit about the building of the
capability, is it the training,is it the redesign of the
process, or is it all of theabove?
Speaker 1 (09:20):
I think it is a bit of all of the above really.
So when we partner with anorganisation and we talk about
change change as much as somepeople say they're very
pro-change change can be quite ascary kind of topic for people,
naturally, purely because it'sthe, let's say, fear of the
unknown.
So everybody likes routine andthey like their habits, and
(09:44):
making a change in the firstplace can be a little bit
uncomfortable, purely becauseyou don't necessarily know how
you're going to adapt at anindividual level.
So there's a few things I wouldsay that are kind of
differentiating factors toensure the sort of
sustainability of changes, toavoid them sort of fading away
over time.
(10:05):
One is really involving thepeople who are close to the
process or the way of working indesigning the solution of
what's going to be changed,purely because there's a few
reasons for this.
One is if you involve thosepeople, they're more likely to
be bought into the solution thatis generated in the end.
(10:27):
The second thing is that theywill often understand to a
deeper degree the intricaciesand details of that process,
more so than perhaps a seniorleader, a senior leader and also
(10:48):
if you involve those people inthe change and you're then
trying to spread that in theorganization, it becomes a lot
more palatable, let's say, toothers, perhaps in similar roles
in other areas.
But if that team that's veryclose to the process did the
design, implementation, proof ofconcept and measured the impact
let's say the positive impactit becomes a lot more of an easy
(11:14):
to communicate story as to howit's originated than if it's
some sort of top-down directedmovement.
So really making it stick, Ithink first thing is involving
the people close to the process.
Second thing would be the, theconsistency in the process
confirmation.
So making it easy to understandwhether what's being changed is
(11:39):
to a good standard and and isis delivering what it is
supposed to through layers ofmanagement.
So whether it's supervisors,team leaders, senior leaders OK,
to uphold best practices, thereneeds to be some sort of
process confirmation.
So that can be very differentdepending on the situation.
It could be some kind of simplechecklist, a visual audit, or
(12:03):
it could even be, you know,teams in different areas
assessing one another to takebest practice, not only to take
best practice away from whatthey see, but also to guide and
support their colleagues.
So I think, involving thepeople doing some periodic
process confirmation to upholdthe standard.
(12:23):
And then, lastly, I think it'sabout cultivating a mindset of
collective responsibility tomake the change successful.
So this shouldn't lie on anindividual or, let's say, a
change team.
It should be the organization'scollective responsibility.
Now, this is obviously a muchmore cultural element that needs
(12:46):
to be adopted in theorganization, but there's ways
in which you can kind of fosterthat mindset.
Um, it take, it can take time,but really it's about
celebrating when teams have madechange and it's and it's given
a good, good result.
It's really about celebratingthose, those people, those,
those colleagues, and also, youknow, acknowledging that it's
(13:07):
not going good result.
It's really about celebratingthose people, those colleagues,
and also acknowledging that it'snot going to be perfect
straight away, but it'simportant to have respect to the
current standards.
So it might not be the ideal,perfect process with absolute
perfection, repeated day afterday, but until we can iterate
and improve on that, we have torespect the existing standards.
So, um, it's like all of usdriving our cars you know, we've
(13:30):
got the, we've got the rules ofthe road that we all respect
and follow, and we know why wedo that.
It's because you know, if wedon't, we know that there's a
chance of accident or there'spenalties from from fines, from
the police, okay, but primarilythose rules are there to keep as
many people as possible safe.
So it's the same kind ofconcept that we want to try and
(13:53):
build within an organization.
It's, you know, until we have abetter way, let's respect the
standards, okay, and then usethe process confirmation to
uphold those standards.
So I think that kind ofhopefully covers how do we
sustain change over a longperiod of time.
There's several elements to it,but those three are probably
the most important ones, I wouldsay.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
A couple of things, james, that I'm thinking about
now.
First of all, maybe six, sevenmonths ago, I don't know,
something came to me and I wasreading something, and then I
was inspired by the fact that Ipromised myself that from now on
, every time I talk, I'm goingto drop anything to do with best
practice and I change it intobetter practice.
(14:38):
I think over time I realizedthat who decides the best
practice and best practice todaymight not be good tomorrow, so
there's always an opportunityfor a better practice.
But I also noticed that everytime I think your idea about the
change team, the whole ideabehind it, also can be
(15:02):
triggering resistance by default.
The fact that a change team iscoming to work with a particular
operation that by itself we aresending indirectly a message to
say what you're doing is notthe best way to do business and
therefore we're going to workwith you to actually make it
(15:22):
better.
We're also going to have torealize that some team members
of this particular team oroperation, some of them have
designed the existing processand they strongly believe that
that's the best thing that theycan do.
So I often see a lot of clashesright from the start.
Right from the start, how muchdo you think getting the team
(15:50):
ready to even adopt a mindset tobe open to better ways of
working?
Speaker 1 (15:53):
I think, yeah, that's a very important point as well
because, as you say, theseprocesses have been developed
and most likely it's people whoare currently within the
organization who have developeda lot of the existing processes.
So I think, as a starting point, really it's important to
understand that, particularly inorganizations that have grown
(16:17):
quickly, perhaps from a smallstarting point a small starting
point is tend to grow quiteorganically and they tend to be
shaped by external factors thathave that have led to the
direction of growth and the wayin which the business operates.
So that's that's important torecognize that nobody's
(16:52):
deliberately made a wastefulprocess or at least we hope that
nobody's deliberately made awasteful process, or at least we
hope that nobody's deliberatelymade a wasteful process.
And it's just about looking atlooking at things in a very
pragmatic way, but not justbeing honest about, you know,
the paradigms that we might have.
Okay, we do this processbecause of X, y, z.
(17:12):
Okay, but are those factorsstill relevant in today's world?
If they're not, okay, maybe weshould rethink how we're doing
things.
I think it's all about makingpeople understand that this is
not a change to highlight, let'ssay, inefficiencies and blame
(17:32):
individuals.
It's really not about that it'sreally about how can we bring
our principles of value addedand waste in the eyes of the
customer to you and you bringyour local expertise about what
your process or service is to tous and how can we kind of
combine those to to strip backwhere there's inefficiencies and
(17:55):
help you really out, helpingthe people that do that process
or task do it in an easier way,with less burden, with less
variability okay to to enable itto be a lot more repeatable and
a simpler process in the end.
So I think it's it's importantto be transparent about that up
front and not not go in with, uh, with a blame mindset.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
I think that's really important to avoid that when,
when you, when you're talkingabout starting to engage people
so that they they- I want to askyou, james, that the premise of
any business improvement isthat at some stage it will make
(18:39):
your job hopefully easier,better for the customer, but
almost all the time it will saveyou some time.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
What I do, though, notice is that management always
struggles to find meaningfulwork to fill in that extra time
that an employee is that theiremployee actually gains out of
the efficiencies.
Is that part of what Kaizenlooks at as well?
See, I think we always we'realways looking at, you know, if
we've, if we achieve, let's say,labor efficiency, okay, is the
goal of the organization, youknow, to utilize those resources
more and more efficiently, orthe other?
The other question I would haveis how much, what percentage of
the organization is actuallyworking on improving the
(19:30):
organization?
This is quite an interestingtopic because often you'll find
that there's, you know, asprinkling of people, maybe by
function, that spend a littlebit of time working on the
strategy or the changes to theway in which the company works.
But really, at Kaizen, whatwe're trying to do is it's
(19:51):
better to try and get a smallamount of time from a lot of
people to look at ways in whichthe business can improve rather
than, let's say, saturating afew individuals purely looking
at that.
So it's really if we can usesome of the time that we free up
to work on improvements.
So it could be a colleague whoworks in the shop floor of an
(20:15):
industrial site.
You know I've worked in plentyof companies over the years
where they come up with somereally fantastic ideas that
aren't necessarily veryexpensive they tend to be quite
low cost.
But you know, if we canimplement some small, low cost
ideas that the colleagues comeup with, that can have a huge
net impact on the productivityas well.
(20:36):
So I think when we createefficiency, the first thing we
can do is look at okay, well,how can we utilize those
resources that are, let's say,free to improve even further?
As a first step, okay, if thechange is so significant that
(20:58):
there's a substantial spring ofresource, then of course it's a
lot more about how theorganization is then structured.
But as a first port of call,you know, I think trying to
influence the proportion ofpeople working on small
improvement is a good place tostart.
So that's also a message thatyou know.
(21:19):
If we can encourage that andfoster that kind of behavior
particularly because thoseindividuals tend to know the
intimacy of the process, and ifthey start to understand the
concept of wastes and valueadded in the eyes of the
customer, they can come up withsome really fantastic ideas that
can then have a much larger netpositive impact on the business
(21:41):
.
Speaker 2 (21:42):
I like that.
I actually haven't thoughtabout that myself.
Efficiency back into thebusiness by looking at better
ways and even better ways ofdoing business and servicing the
customer or whatever theirbusiness that the team is doing.
Is that right?
Speaker 1 (22:04):
Yeah, to a degree.
So I think you know clearly wedon't want to be spending hours
and hours and hours.
If we're saving lots of time,no, but we should be spending a
small amount of time regularlyto to analyze our, our ways of
working, to to improve themcertainly.
I think that's quite, quite ahealthy habit, that that some
organizations have.
Many many don't have that habit, but for those that do, I think
(22:25):
reap really good benefits fromit, because you know processes
shouldn't be completely static.
You know they.
We should always be looking athow can we evolve it and improve
it.
You know even the most highlytechnological, advanced
companies in the world some ofthem we have partnered with over
(22:46):
the years they even understandthe need that if you're staying
still, a competitor is catchingup.
So if we're not trying toimprove and focus on the needs
of the customer, then we areopening the door for a
competitor or a rival to, if notcatch up, at least close the
(23:07):
gap to where we are today.
So I think having that mindsetis really important.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
And I agree.
I think any process isvulnerable to external factors
and changes in the market,customers' needs, value adds,
new products, new competitors,and that's where the continuous
improvement mindset would needto be in place at all times.
(23:32):
Also, remember that if we getany efficiency, one of the
biggest complaints from staff isthat I don't have time to even
learn new things, and so thatefficiency gain can be
reinvested back into learningand any learning for any
employee can be a benefit backinto the business.
Speaker 1 (23:52):
Yeah, I think that I don't have time to change.
I think it's probably one ofthe most common sentences I hear
.
If they're so busy and theirprocess is perhaps not as
optimized as it could be, thenit's understandable to hear that
type of comment.
But ultimately, if you don'ttake that first step of being
(24:15):
open to analyse and to changethe way in which you're working,
you're never going to be ableto free up that time.
So I think it's a bit of acatch-22 situation where we have
to force ourselves to createsome time in the beginning, to
assess, to look foropportunities, those
(24:35):
opportunities to implement.
Okay depends on, obviously, theorganisation, but usually there
can be some quite quick thingsthat can save quite a
substantial proportion of theeffort or the time or the
investment.
And you know, if we can enactthose and show people quickly
that this change can be made andthat it's for their benefit and
(24:55):
the organization's benefit,then that's really a good
starting point to turn people'sthinking around so that we can
some time in order to developthe people, cross-skill
individuals, to give ourselvesmore resilience.
Because if we're relying,relying on let's take the
training element that you'respeaking about, ali if we're
(25:16):
perhaps relying on a one or twospecialized individuals to have
the knowledge to do a particularstep of the process, but we
don't have much strength indepth in the organization on
those particular tasks.
We're really running the riskthat, you know, if something
would happen to that individual,then we don't have cover and we
don't have, you know, a veryrobust way of coping with
(25:39):
perhaps the absence of thatperson or that role.
So certainly I thinkorganizations should also look
at, you know, how can theyutilize some of the gains to
make themselves more robust andmore resilient to having the
depth in the skills in the teamas well.
I think that's also a veryimportant point.
Speaker 2 (26:00):
I like that.
I want to shift gear and I wantto talk to you about something
that I've learned from Kaiser.
Actually, because I used to bea martial art professional
myself, I've got a second blackbelt in karate, so it gave me
the mindset.
Put it that way, one of thethings that I've learned from
Kaiser and I apply it today inmy practice is the power of
(26:23):
simulated learning.
So I'd like you to go deep intothat topic.
What makes it and it's quiteamazing that lots of
organizations have not evenlearned from that practice often
we go to a training session andpeople will show us some
processes and they say that'show you want to do it, and then
(26:44):
we have a go at it in in a verymessy way, and then there you go
, the project finishes and weleft to our own.
You know means and approacheswhich are not usually embedded
and sustained.
What I've learned from Kaizenis that the power of simulated
activities, again and again forpeople to grasp the new process
(27:09):
is very powerful.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
I think it's absolutely right really very
powerful.
I think it's absolutely right.
Really, if we think back towhen we were children, the way
in which we learn is not bybefore we can even start to read
, we learn by doing so.
If you think about childrenlearning shapes, I have a nephew
now who's coming up to 18months old.
(27:31):
He started with his languagebut he already knows which shape
fits in which hole and he'sdone that through practice.
So really, now, zooming outfrom that, if we think about how
can we ensure that we areperforming a process or we're
performing a task to a goodstandard and that it's not just
(27:56):
here's the process written down,here's a sheet of paper off you
go, go and figure it out.
We don't like that method or wedon't really like that, let's
say, classroom approach tolearning.
We really like to be practicaland go to the place where the
work happens.
So we call that the gemba, theplace where value is added, and
(28:19):
we like to do trials and we liketo be hands-on in the change
with the people that are doingthe task.
It doesn't matter what the taskis, necessarily, whether it's a
clerical, office-based task ora practical, physical task
office-based task or a practicalphysical task and in doing
things in a practical, hands-onway, in the place where the work
(28:40):
happens.
We can very quickly test to seeokay, we have several ideas on
what might be the best currentway of performing this task, but
we can quite easily thenmeasure okay, is option a or
option b or option c numericallythe most efficient way of doing
it?
So we can, we can, we canactually run trials with people
(29:02):
who perform that task day in,day out and we can have their
inputs as well.
But then we can be verymathematical about okay, well,
that method works very well,people are able to repeat that
very well and you know, it's 10%more effective than method B or
method C.
And then it becomes less of anopinion-driven decision and more
(29:23):
of a purely mathematicaldecision about, let's say, best
known way today of performingthat task.
But I think what we like to sayor what we like to practice in
Kaizen is we like to clearlyhave the theory in the back of
our heads, but we like to bevery pragmatic about how we
apply it.
So physical trials, in-persontrials to test and prove the
(29:46):
solution before we start runningoff and spreading it across the
organization we have to be surethat what we're changing, um,
is actually going to deliver abenefit to people.
So, being mathematical, liketesting it out okay, it might
not work, we might need toretest, or we might need to test
a different, different way um,and involving the people that
(30:09):
perform that task, that's reallykey.
Because if we don't do that andwe skip that step and we do a
classroom activity where we putdown the theory of what we think
is best, we're probably goingto miss some really important
things from the reality that youwon't get unless you do those
kind of, let's say, real-lifetrials and measures.
(30:30):
So I think that's probably anapproach in the philosophy of
Kaizen that's different fromother methods, I think having a
practical, pragmatic way ofdoing things and also when it
comes to teaching people theconcepts, doing things in a very
practical way again.
So you'll probably be familiarwith this, but when we teach a
(30:53):
concept like standard work orworkplace organization 5S, we
don't do it from just someslides or some reading.
We like to get people toactually perform a game or a
challenge, which has severalreasons to it.
One is it stays in the memorybetter, so people understand the
(31:14):
concept and remember it better,but also it makes it fun and
engaging.
So you know, we talked earlierabout change being something
that some people are afraid of.
What we need to do is getsomething that that is
digestible and fun and engagingand and should be seen as
something positive, because ifwe, if we can do that, then
(31:35):
we're going to have a lot moresuccess in people's acceptance
and openness to change.
Speaker 2 (31:43):
I like that.
You remind me of the principlethat there's a difference
between the map and theterritory.
You can give me a map, but onceI go, the territory is a
completely different thing.
The factory floor is completelydifferent from the lecture
theater.
The other thing that I alwaysfind fascinating about the
(32:04):
simulation I mean the pilotsspend most of their time in a
simulator for a reason.
What I find interesting is thatto move from knowledge to
ability meaning I know what Ineed to do, but then I know how
I do it is two completelydifferent things.
And then I find thatcognitively it will be easier
(32:27):
for people to start having a go,and it can be messy at the
start, but that's where theleadership will come in there
and create a safe place toexperiment.
So that's the secondobservation.
And the third I really likethat about Kaizen is that at the
end of the day, the solutionthat wins is not emotive, is
(32:49):
actually based on practicalobservation and data.
Speaker 1 (32:55):
Yeah, I think that particular last point.
You know, I always say, look,we have to respect everybody's
opinion, but we respect it moreif they've got some data to back
it up, purely because then itbecomes a much more compelling
reason.
You know, I think we shouldalways be open to listening to
(33:15):
some insights, particularly frompeople close to the process.
But the best way to be surethat you're you're going in the
right direction and the changethat you're trying to make is,
let's say, the best known wayforward would be to put some
some numbers it, somemathematics, because if we can
say, okay, well, that takes us,let's say, one minute and 20
(33:38):
seconds to perform that task inthat method and one minute and
15 seconds to perform it inmethod B, and we need to
obviously simulate that a fewtimes.
But if we consistently see thatB is more efficient time-wise
and there's no difference in thequality or the performance of
the output product or service,then it's a very convincing way
(34:03):
for the collective group toagree on what should be the way
forward, without getting toomuch into.
You know, oh, I think this or Idon't agree with you because of
of of your experience, it's,it's it's putting that all to
one side and saying well,mathematically, this one is is
(34:23):
more efficient.
So you know, if we don't trythat, then then I think we'd be
a little bit foolish because,because the numbers are telling
us this, um, our experience,okay, might be something
different, but let's at leasttry that and see where it takes
us during a pilot period.
So I think, yeah, that wayavoids going around in circles
(34:47):
debating and discussing for long, and it enables us, in our
Kaizen methods, to make changequickly, because we don't have
to have all those big, longdebates and theorizing.
We can just be quite pragmaticand move forward and we can
always revisit if we find aproblem later.
(35:07):
But it enables us to avoid big,long discussions and too many
emotions getting in the way ofchange.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
How long do you think a change can stick after?
Let's just say all conditionsare perfect, the team is engaged
, the leadership is on board,the prototype works.
You repeated that multipletimes.
How long will it become the newway of working?
Speaker 1 (35:37):
I think it depends on the complexity of the process.
If we're talking about a verysimple process, it probably can
be adopted quite quickly byothers.
The more complex, it is,probably longer, but just purely
because of the amount of timeto adopt, the learning period
will be steeper.
However, I don't necessarilythink that there's a without
(36:04):
process confirmation that wewere discussing earlier, and
without having that continuousmindset to evaluate our
performance and to look forimprovement mindset to evaluate
our performance and to look forimprovement.
Without those couple of elements, I think you know, even the
best laid processes and even thebest design solutions can
(36:25):
degrade over time without thatsort of hygiene to check in, to
monitor, to ensure that goodpractice is being followed and
the right behaviors are in place, because people are people and
any process that involves peoplethere's that human element
where sometimes a new person mayjoin the organization and if we
(36:47):
don't have really robustprocess confirmation, they may
just, let's say, innovate andmake a tweak to a process or a
tweak to a procedure, not forany particular reason.
It may just be that they, they,they want to to experiment and
and see whether they can do itbetter and rightly or wrongly,
(37:08):
it might, it might actuallydegrade the process.
Well, it might.
It might have a negative effect.
So I think even the bestdesigns, tests, proof of concept
and standardization needs tostill have some element the
leaders or the supervisors ofthe team to do some periodic
(37:31):
process confirmation to ensurethat we don't deviate over time.
So I think that would be myanswer for that.
Firstly, it depends on thecomplexity, and then, after it's
, let's say, stable in the earlystages, there is still then a
periodic check-in and processconfirmation needed to uphold
(37:54):
the existing standard.
Speaker 2 (37:57):
Do you notice that sometimes, or actually most of
the time, the often overlookedphase of, let's say, lax at
making sure that they're whatdifferentiated them in the first
(38:27):
place and made them successfulin the first place.
Speaker 1 (38:30):
If they don't have that routine to put the effort
to ensure that things are stableand working as they should,
then it will start to deviate.
Stable and working as theyshould, then it will start to
deviate.
I think if you not to pick on aparticular company, but if you
look at the likes of Boeing okay, so they're a hugely successful
(38:52):
airline manufacturer and youknow, for those who are familiar
with what happened there, theybecame too lax in their process
confirmation which led to,obviously, the challenges that
they've been having for the pastfew years.
I think now, obviously, youknow, you would hope that those
types of organisations wouldhave learned that.
(39:12):
Ok, we can't take our eye offthe existing process.
We need to ensure that.
You know it might be somethingthat we've been doing for years,
but we still need to ensurethat we do things the right way,
otherwise we're going to suffereventually.
It may not be today, buteventually there'll be a
(39:34):
difference from the standardthat will end up costing us.
So I think it's a worrying signthat if you don't see that
routine and discipline, that youmay not see the problem today,
but you will eventually see aproblem.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
I've been recently fascinated by near misses in
airlines, and predominantlybecause I'm interested in
first-order impact and asecond-order impact.
It's funny you're talking aboutBoeing.
I know a lot of stories aboutthem, but let's leave these guys
(40:12):
alone.
I want to ask you about thisexciting new technology called
artificial intelligence.
How does Kaizen look at that?
Is it an enabler for Kaizen interms of analysis and the speed
of delivering that analysis tothe customer and to the client?
Speaker 1 (40:31):
I think AI is a really interesting topic.
I think I can certainly see alot of positives that will
assist with Kaizen activities.
So, you know, purely from beingable to quickly utilize it to
support, you know, ideation ofhow we can make a process better
(40:54):
or to understand the industrybenchmarks quickly can be used
for those types of activities.
You know, activities as a wayto guide discussion.
I don't see it ever fullyreplacing human creativity, but
I can see it as really a usefultool to support it.
(41:15):
I can see technologies from theAI space which will enable
greater efficiencies to be madein the future.
So, for instance, utilizing AIwith vision systems to quickly
identify a product in awarehouse will help to avoid,
let's say, potential human errorin picking of a product.
(41:36):
So I can see ways in which it'sinevitably going to become
quite a powerful supporting tool.
I don't know whether it willentirely replace the human
element of creativity.
I think it will be more of acomplementary system.
(41:56):
It will really depend on how itdevelops over the, over the
next years, um, but certainly Ican see it as a really valuable
addition to um, to, to to bringinformation and to and to
combine information ininteresting ways that that maybe
we would not immediately thinkof um when, when we're working
(42:20):
with teams to break downprocesses and analyze
opportunities.
So I think it can be a reallyexciting way forward for Kaizen
activities.
Speaker 2 (42:31):
Well, I'll give you an example.
I had a guest a couple of weeksago.
She's a psychotherapist and shethought that I've got a problem
Because I use AI a lot.
I use generative AI.
In fact, I use generative AIfor everything, especially
personal life.
Recently I've recorded myselfand I've given the video to
(42:56):
ChatGPT to analyze my golf swingand give me feedback on it.
That's a visual video and thenit was analyzing that for me.
I see that as really powerful,to your point.
It does not replace a human.
Yes, I still will keep my coachbecause I need that human touch
(43:17):
and reaffirmation orconfirmation that I'm on the
right track, although thetechnology can encourage you and
say that's great, ali, but it'sa different feeling when it
comes from a human.
So, although I'm not seeing mycoach every week, I'm still
seeing him twice a month now,but I'm working with the
technology to enable me.
(43:38):
At the same time, I think thesame applies in the workplace.
It can synthesize a lot ofinformation for me.
It can, in fact, highlightthings that I haven't thought
about.
It can bring context.
It can bring historical usecases around the world that
happened, because nothing isunique nowadays, I think.
(44:00):
The ability of research anddeep research.
I think these are all powerfulthings.
Will they replace humans?
Maybe in some jobs, butcertainly, like any other
technology, new jobs will evolveas well.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
Yeah, I think it'll be really exciting to see.
I think in the last two andthree years we've really seen it
come on a huge amount.
I imagine we'll probably seesome other very large steps in
the next five years.
I think it'd be reallyinteresting to see how people
innovate with AI.
You know you mentioned the golfswing as an example.
(44:38):
I've seen someone else using itwith playing basketball and
technique, which is reallyamazing, especially the vision
element.
So if it can analyze a physicalprocess or a physical task, I
think that's where it's not justpurely a digital tool.
(44:59):
It's starting to become used asa physical tool as well, in the
real world.
So I think that's when it makesthat jump or when it can be
utilized very effectively in thephysical world.
I think that's when we'llreally start seeing, you know,
major collaboration betweenpeople and tools like AI to
(45:22):
improve process or to improvephysical tasks.
I think that's really, reallyinteresting.
Speaker 2 (45:26):
I love it.
I think we are living in a goodage now that's what I think,
anyway and I lived in the age ofthe internet and then I ignored
it at the time, but now thistechnology showed up in my
lifetime and I'm not letting go.
I'm actually deep into that.
I've told and I'm reallyexcited about it.
(45:49):
In fact, just to close thistopic, I collaborated with three
generative AI tools to imaginemy practice in the next couple
of years.
Again, it's like I've used thethree experts to actually work
with me to analyze what changemanagement would look like, how
the technology will actuallyenable me, what type of change
(46:10):
experience I want to get goingforward.
And so it's exciting time and Iagree with you.
I think the next couple of yearswill be really a big
advancement with you.
I think in the next couple ofyears will be really a big
advancement, and if you realize,just when ChatGPT was released,
the advancement has been almostlike on a daily basis.
Now when I'm actually using it.
So exciting time.
(46:31):
I am aware of time.
This is a really wonderfulconversation.
I'm so glad I'm having youchatting with me today, james.
One thing that I always ask theguests that I have what would
be your advice for people likeme in the business of change
management and communicationwhen it comes to adopting some
(46:53):
of the practices that Kaizenpromotes?
Speaker 1 (46:57):
I think I had a good think about this before our
conversation today.
I think the first thing tothink would be should the
process even exist at all?
So if you're analyzing someprocesses, first thing would be
to challenge OK, rather thantrying to optimize something,
we'll first need to even thinkshould we be doing it at all?
(47:18):
Because I come from anengineering background, one of
the things that engineers loveto do is to optimize processes
that shouldn't exist.
So I think the first thingwould be to analyze should it,
should the process even exist?
Second thing would be to reallyact quickly.
So if we can make a smallimprovement today, let's.
Let's do it right now, ratherthan wait for perfection, a
(47:39):
theoretical perfection, later.
Let let's make small,consistent improvement and then
I suppose the final thing wouldbe that change people will
naturally be sceptical, but weneed to be very transparent and
data-driven and respectingpeople's opinions and experience
(48:00):
when we're going through achange process.
So I think, hopefully, thosekind of three things are good
takeaways, I think, from havinga Kaizen mindset.
Speaker 2 (48:11):
I love it.
That idea of start small issomething that I've been
practicing and I love it.
It requires a level of patience.
We're not saying you know.
So many times people say you'regoing to have to think big, and
I always think think big that'sfine and dream big, but start
(48:32):
small.
That's the only way.
Nobody climbed a mountain inone leap, and the examples are
all over the place.
Nature grows step by step.
Why would we not follow that?
So I love that.
These are really wise wordsfrom you, james.
I hope I can get you back inthe future and then talk
(48:55):
probably more into the sphere ofAI.
James, how would people connectwith you and your organization?
Speaker 1 (49:05):
So yeah, so we have our website, so kaizencom, where
you can find a lot more aboutthe Kaizen Institute to see sort
of use cases, some really, Ithink, interesting insights on
the topic of Kaizen and change,and also I'm on LinkedIn, so if
(49:25):
you search my name on LinkedInyou can find me on there if
you'd like to connect.
Speaker 2 (49:30):
We're going to put all the information about you,
james, and your organization inthe podcast info.
It's been a pleasure having youin my podcast, the Inner Game
of Change.
James, I hope to talk to youagain.
Until then, stay well and staysafe.
Thank you very much, ali, it'sbeen a pleasure, thank you.
(49:53):
Thank you for listening.
If you found this episodevaluable, remember to subscribe
to stay updated on upcomingepisodes.
Your support is trulyappreciated and, by sharing this
podcast with your colleagues,friends and fellow change
practitioners, it can help mereach even more individuals and
professionals who can benefitfrom these discussions.
(50:14):
Remember, and in my opinion,change is an enduring force and
you will only have a measure ofcertainty and control when you
embrace it.
Until next time, thank you forbeing part of the Inner Game of
Change community.
I am Ali Jammah and this is theInner Game of Change podcast.
Host
Ali Juma
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.