Learning Lean Construction

Learning Lean Construction A Working Paper John Alfred Rooke1 University of Salford j.a.rooke@eml.cc This is a short and rather hasty review of the implications of some educational and management learning theories for the implementation of Lean Construction (LC). a) Learning to live with resistance Agreement is not necessarily the most favourable response to a proposed change initiative. In my own experience, when people are too quick to agree, it usually means one of two things: either they have misunderstood the idea; or they don't want to engage with it at all. In this section, I explore the work of two writers who have addressed the problem of organizational resistance to new ideas. Wrapp (1984), offers an approach that may be characterised as political, while Maurer (1996) bases his on persuasion and compromise. Radically different as these two strategies are, both stress the importance of listening carefully to the views of others. (i) Negotiating the corridors of indifference In a classic article in the Harvard Business Review, Wrapp writes of successful managers 'negotiating the corridors of indifference'. He identifies five skills which he sees as common to successful senior executives, these include the abilities to: 1. keep well informed; 2. focus their time and energy on the most important tasks; 1. Copyright © 20th January 2005. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.) 1/10 3. out-manoeuvre opposition by identifying ‘corridors of comparative indifference’ where they will meet little resistance to their ideas; 4. give their organization a sense of direction, without committing to precise objectives which may become quickly irrelevant, as the situation changes; 5. spot opportunities and relationships which can be exploited to further their aims. Wrapp is criticising a theory of management which has been characterised elsewhere as ‘rationalist’ (Seymour & Rooke 1995). This theory propagates an ideal of rational management in which manager’s have the relevant knowledge and sufficient authority to formulate and deploy policy. In Wrapp’s conception, not only is the acquisition of adequate knowledge problematic in itself, but the deployment of formulated policy is even more so. Thus, the manager acting as a change agent, must be opportunistic in his approach, instituting change in a piecemeal fashion, wherever and whenever possible. Crucial to this endeavour is the identification of the ‘corridors of comparative indifference’, where change will be sympathetically received. Wrapp says the successful senior manager, “can plot the position of the various individuals and units in the organization on a scale ranging from complete, outspoken support down to determined, sometimes bitter and oftentimes wellcloaked opposition. In the middle of the scale is an area of comparative indifference. Usually, several aspects of a proposal will fall into this area and here is where he knows he can operate.” (Wrapp 1984, p9) (ii) Embracing resistance A more radical approach to change management is offered by the management consultant Rick Maurer. Maurer (1996) offers five ‘touchstones’ as a guide to the successful management of change. These are: maintain clear focus; embrace resistance; respect those who resist; relax; join 2/10 with the resistance. ‘Embracing resistance’ is the central feature of this approach and what distinguishes it fundamentally from Wrapp’s. Where Wrapp advocates avoiding resistance, Maurer is in favour of meeting it head on, though not in an aggressive or confrontational manner. The touchstones, ‘respect those who resist’ and ‘relax’ offer the key to how resistance should be met. Change agents must learn to appreciate the points of view of those who resist them. They must demonstrate respect for the opinions and beliefs of those who offer resistance and resist the temptation to be drawn into confrontational positions. The objective is to find common ground with opponents, enabling the development of solutions which satisfy all concerned and enable the change agent to ‘join with the resistance’. In order to do this successfully, change agents must ‘maintain clear focus’ on their aims, in order to maintain direction. The guiding principle is explain why, not how. In advocating that change agents should ‘embrace’ resistance and ultimately ‘join with’ it, Maurer makes a concern with resistance the central focus of change management practice. Critical engagement is seen as strengthening the initiative, rather than weakening it. Surveying the alternatives, he lists them as: use power; manipulate those who oppose; apply force of reason; ignore resistance; play off relationships; make deals; kill the messenger; give in too soon. All these approaches, he argues, increase resistance. b) Types of knowledge and learning There is a vast and varied literature which attempts to address the different types of knowledge and learning that may be said to exist. Bloom's (1956) taxonomy, widely regarded as a classic in the field, lists six (knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation) without 3/10 exhausting the possibilities. Here, I examine just two relevant approaches. (i) Knowing how and knowing that A key distinction is drawn by the philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1973) between 'knowing that' and 'knowing how'. The former is a conception of knowledge as something like an object that can be passed from teacher to student and is a traditional model for classroom based education (Freire 1972). The latter recognises the importance of practical nature of knowledge and the importance of practice in the learning process. While this point is most obviously applicable to non-academic knowledge, it is as Wittgenstein demonstrates, actually a quality of everything we call knowledge. Wittgenstein (1958 #150) observes that, “the grammar of the word ‘knows’ is evidently closely related to that of ‘can’, ‘is able to’.” The nature of this relationship is that the concept ‘knowledge’ is logically dependent on the concept ‘action’: “If one says that knowing the ABC is a state of mind, one is thinking of a state of a mental apparatus (perhaps of the brain) by means of which we explain the manifestations of that knowledge.” (Wittgenstein 1958, #149, emphasis in original) Thus, it only makes sense to speak of knowledge as a state of mind, when we are explaining an action: the manifestation of knowledge. To say ‘I know’ and not to be able to demonstrate that knowledge in some form of activity, would be to make a claim that could not be substantiated. However, Ryle and Wittgenstein also make the a further point that it is often the case that a claim to knowledge refers in practice only to an ability and not to any state of mind. As Wittgenstein puts it: “Let us imagine the following example: A writes a series of numbers down; B watches him and tries to find a law for the sequence of numbers. If he succeeds he exclaims: ‘Now I can go on!’ – So this capacity, this understanding, is something that makes its appearance in a moment.” (Wittgenstein 1958, #151) 4/10 As will be illustrated in the next section, models of academic learning have come a long way in recognising the importance of practice, not only in the summative assessment of learning, but also in the learning process itself. However, it is not surprising that it is in the field of management learning that the most useful approaches can be found, some important thinkers are Edward Deming (1986), Reg Revans (1998), William Whyte (1991a, 1991b) and Donald Schön (1991). (ii)Single and double loop learning Ashby's (1960) distinction between single and double loop learning is widely known. It is usually explained using his example of a thermostat. Single loop learning is represented by the adjustments made by the thermostat in response to changes in temperature. Double loop learning is represented by adjustments made to the thermostat's control, which change the range of temperatures which the thermostat maintains. In other words, both types of learning involve taking in new knowledge and acting on it, but after double loop learning, the thermostat is doing something different. Argyris & Schön (1996) use this distinction in the context of their own typology of organizational learning: “1. organizational enquiry, instrumental learning that leads to improvement in the performance of organizational tasks; 2. inquiry through which an organization explores and restructures the values and criteria through which it defines what it means by improved performance; and 3. inquiry through which an organization enhances its capability for learning of types (1) or (2).” It is obvious that Last Planner falls into categories 2 and 3 of this schema: it improves the organization's ability to learn; and it involves changing values and introducing new criteria of 5/10 performance. c) Learning cycles Notable advocates of active learning in recent years have been Kölb (1984), Cowan (1998) and Bateson (1999). A key concept is that of reflection. Cowan suggests that “learners are reflecting in an educational sense, when they analyse or evaluate one or more personal experiences, and attempt to generalize from that thinking” (1998, p17). Kölb’s (1984) learning cycle is a particularly well known formulation of this process, in which abstract conceptualisation is said to lead to active experimentation, from which derives concrete experience which provides a basis for reflective observation and in turn leads back to abstract conceptualisation. While active learning is clearly an advance on earlier conceptions of learning that assumed student passivity, it is notable that the role of action tends to be relegated, as in Kölb 's model to a more or less supporting role in the development of abstract thought. A more helpful model is that offered by Deming (1986) the founder of the quality movement. “1. What could be the most important accomplishments of this team? What changes might be desirable? What data are available? Are new observations needed? If yes, plan a change or test. Decide how to use the observations. 2. Carry out the change or test decided upon, preferably on a small scale. 3. Observe the effects of the change or test. 4. Study the results. What did we learn? What can we predict. Step 5. Repeat Step 1, with knowledge accumulated. Step 6. Repeat Step 2, and onward.” (Deming 1986, p88) This is widely known as the Deming cycle, though Deming himself attributes it to Shewhart. It is often described in abbreviated form as the PDCA model: plan; do; check; act. Compared to Kolb’s learning cycle, the following equivalences are apparent: 6/10 1. Plan = abstract conceptualisation; 2. Do = active experimentation; 3. Check = concrete experience (monitoring) 4. Act = reflective observation (study the results, feed lessons back into Step 1) d) Teaching Lean: monitoring, assessment and evaluation The concept of a learning cycle demonstrates the need for monitoring and assessment in the learning process. The Last Planner is itself a monitoring tool and if properly employed is part of a learning cycle which leads, through Reasons Analysis (assessment) to increased organizational reliability. However, there is a learning process involved in adopting these tools themselves; how do we institute this learning cycle? Clearly, it would be pointless to introduce a further layer of paperwork, asking people to record the use of these tools. If they are not using them, then they will not use the additional monitoring tool either. Besides, if they are using them, the paperwork they produce will be adequate evidence of this. One approach is to use the standard educational method of assessment. Taking an example from Higher Education, the QAA suggests three uses for assessment: summative (to evaluate the outcome of the learning process); diagnostic (to assess aptitude and preparedness to learn and to identify obstacles); and formative (to provide feedback of the diagnosis to the learner) (Freeman & Lewis1998). It can be seen from this analysis, how assessment forms a bridge between monitoring and improvement, giving managers the data they need in order to improve their performance. A critical issue is how assessment procedures are to be implemented in such a way as to be accepted by managers. It may be possible to do this via existing appraisal systems, though this would involve: (1) getting Human Resources to buy in to the initiative; (2) the assumption that the formal provisions of the existing appraisal system are working as prescribed (this is unlikely, see Lamb 7/10 1998). A more viable approach might be along the lines of participative action research (PAR) (Whyte 1991a & 1991b). This would involve a participant observer monitoring the use of Lean methods and simultaneously promoting their use. Support for a congruence between the informal methods of participant observation and action research on the one hand and the demands of effective assessment procedure on the other is to be found in Rowntree, who points to: “the continuous but unselfconscious assessment that takes place between partners in an everyday conversation where each is constantly responding to what he takes to be the emerging attitudes and understandings of the other as he decides what to say next in consequence.” (Rowntree 1977, p365) Key elements of such an approach are: 1. building rapport between the researcher and key planners (particularly those who are reluctant to adopt) 2. monitoring work, not only through documentary records, but through interviews and observation of interactions between planners 3. appropriate, context sensitive and respectful promotion of and support for lean construction practice The PAR approach can also facilitate evaluation of the implementation programme. Evaluation research is an established discipline in its own right and has a long track record in education. IPHRP have considerable experience in evaluation research in public health and I have been personally involved in such research since August 2003. In many ways it is similar to the use of the EFQM/Business Excellence Model, which I researched from February 1999 to December 2001. 8/10 Evaluation of the LC implementation process might include: 1. deciding what to measure (e.g. Use of particular tools such as Reasons Analysis) 2. accessing records and reporting back on level of implementation 3. investigating reasons for non-take up through interviews and direct observation 4. reporting back on reasons (King, Morris & Fitz-Gibbon 1987). As can be seen, the two processes are very similar and could be carried out simultaneously. There is a tension inherent in these approaches, between the interviewing and investigative activities on the one hand and the assessment and promotion activities on the other (Robson 2000). Managers who are resistant to LC methods are likely to be wary of any attempt to monitor or investigate their activities. This resistance is likely to be increased if these activities are accompanied by attempts at assessment and/or promotion. It would be advisable therefore if these roles were divided between two researchers, as follows. 1. Evaluation researcher to evaluate the programme only, not the individual mangers. To focus on managers who are reluctant to implement. To build rapport with these planners and to investigate their reasons for non-take up through interviews and direct observation. To report back anonymous generic findings on obstacles to implementation. (See Patton (1987) for a discussion relevant to this approach.) 2. Monitoring and promotion of LC. Bibliography Argyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice, 9/10 Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. Ashby, W. R. (1960) Design for a Brain, John Wiley, New York. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.) (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals: Handbook I, cognitive domain, Longmans Green, New York. Deming, W. E. (1986) Out of the Crisis: Quality, productivity and competitive position, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Freeman, R. & Lewis, R. (1998) Planning and Implementing Assessment, Kogan Page, London. King, J. A., Morris, L. L. & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (1987) How to Assess Program Implementation, Sage, London. Kölb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development, Prentice-Hall, London. Lamb, J. (1998) An Interpretative Study of Standardised Performance Appraisal Procedures in UK Civil Engineering Practice, unpublished PhD thesis, School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham. Maurer, R. (1996) Beyond the Wall of Resistance, Bard Books, Austin. Patton, M. Q. (1987) How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation, Sage, London. Revans, R. W. (1998) ABC of Action Learning; Empowering Managers to Act and to Learn From Action, Lemos & Crane, London. Robson, C. (2000) Small Scale Evaluation: Principles and Practice, Sage, London. Rowntree, D. (1977) ‘What is assessment’ in Assessing Students: how shall we know them? Kogan Page. Ryle, G. (1963) The Concept of Mind, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Schön, D. A. (1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, Arena, Aldershot. Seymour, D. & Rooke, J. (1995) ‘The culture of the industry and culture of research’, in Construction Management and Economics, 13:511-523. Whyte, W. F. (1991a) Social Theory for Action, Sage, London. Whyte, W. F. (ed.) (1991b) Participatory Action Research, Sage, London. Wrapp, H. E. (1984) ‘Good managers don’t make policy decisions’, Harvard Business Review, July-August:8-21. 10/10