The nature of knowledge work is by definition to be intangible. Beyond this truism, it covers a less joyful reality: we work poorly both individually and collectively and we push the mental limits of employees to their limits by imagining that they are infinite.
The invisible nature of work is a good excuse for managers who can thus say “If it’s immaterial, it’s not visible, so there’s no problem” and thus pass the problem on to each employee, individually, who becomes responsible for his or her own efficiency and for the optimal management of the resource that he or she is.
This gives us very uneven results depending on the maturity of each employee on the subject but, even worse, sometimes counterproductive practices. Indeed, the lack of uniformity in work practices can create more problems than it solves, and we also know that when several people work together, the sum of individual progress does not mean that there is a problem, a subject that we will certainly discuss again with the AI.
Worse still, in the end, they will blame the employees they have left to fend for themselves, saying that they are now the problem, even though they are the victims. Let’s not forget that in 96% of cases when things go wrong it is the system that is to blame and not people (The Problem Isn’t the Employee, It’s the System), but it is people who are best placed to improve the system, provided their manager creates the conditions that allow it.
I remain convinced that if the workflow were visible, many managers would faint and hold managers accountable for their inaction (The open space is not a factory but sometimes you should look at it that way) because misusing or even destroying what is nothing more or less than the production tool is a choice and a managerial error (Eliyahu Goldratt’s fictional interview on infobesity and bottlenecks in knowledge work) that creates inefficiency and human suffering on a large scale.
To which I am most often answered, “but what can be done about it, there is no method”. Wrong. There are methods. After all, we are only talking about workflow, workload and collaboration, and these subjects have already been widely dealt with in other sectors in their time (Knowledge workers, the excluded from operational excellence?)
“Peter Drucker noted that during the twentieth century, the productivity of manual workers in the manufacturing sector increased by a factor of fifty as we got smarter about the best way to build products. He argued that the knowledge sector, by contrast, had hardly begun a similar process of self-examination and improvement, existing at the end of the twentieth century where manufacturing had been a hundred years earlier. ”
The New Yorker – Slack Is the Right Tool for the Wrong Way to Work
Operational excellence is not an end in itself but a discipline that requires method. A search for improvement based on clear principles that can be adapted to different contexts. In industry, this approach has been popularized by systems such as the Toyota Production System (TPS), which has revolutionized production by reducing waste and optimizing workflow. But in knowledge work, where production is neither linear nor tangible, are these principles applicable?
This is where Kaizen comes in. Too often reduced to a method of continuous improvement, it is more of a way of managing people that aims to instill a certain state of mind to improve the efficiency and quality of work (Let’s talk about the quality of work).
Understanding how the two work provides some principles that are far from inapplicable to knowledge workers.
Kaizen or TPS? Two complementary approaches
The Toyota Production System (TPS) is based on two fundamental pillars.
First of all, Just in Time, which aims to produce only what is necessary, at the right time and in optimal quantities. This makes it possible to reduce stocks and avoid overproduction.
Not very applicable to knowledge work? Not so sure. It can make us question the subject of hyperconnectivity (Hyperconnectivity in the workplace: digital becomes a burden)and our digital uses at work and their environmental impact (Sustainable digital: no more hypocrisy and Digital technology and environment: intangible uses for a real impact)
In the age of AI, which is supposed to “augment” employees, we must also remember that the sum of individual productivity/efficiency gains does not always translate into an overall gain when several people work in a team or participate in a workflow (AI in the workplace: going beyond augmentation to actually transform). As in industry, one person can go it alone and ruin the progress of everyone else (How can you avoid becoming a bottleneck in the workplace?).
Then comes Jidoka, a concept that involves intelligent automation with human control. As soon as an anomaly is detected, production stops to solve the problem before it spreads.
Here too it is a concept that finds its application in the world of knowledge workers. Already with intelligent automation, which can only challenge us in the age of AI. Then the question of the propagation of problems must remind us that digital only allows us to do things quickly and on a larger scale and that by digitizing a dysfunctional process or organization, we will just make it dysfunctional faster and on a larger scale: lower quality deliverables, bad decisions, cognitive overload but more than before and affecting more people.
TPS is designed to produce efficiently by eliminating three types of waste (“Muda” – uselessness, “Mura” – irregularity, and “Muri” – overload). It is a system that is very well suited to stable and repetitive physical production environments, but in spirit it can also be applied to the world of services and knowledge.
Kaizen, on the other hand, is a philosophy of continuous improvement. It is based on three pillars.
Firstly, a bottom-up approach that values constant learning and experimentation and small, progressive changes, which can be found in agility, rooted in everyday working life. In fact, it is typically what I had, unconsciously but after rather rational and logical reflection, set up with my own teams at one point (Improving a team’ s work: a story of continuous improvement).
Finally, it suggests empowering individuals in the optimization of their own processes, which is a subject that has also been close to my heart lately (People Centric Operations: adapting work and operations to knowledge workers ).
Unlike TPS, which focuses on standardization and systemic efficiency, Kaizen allows each employee to be an agent of improvement, which makes it particularly suitable for knowledge work, even if in fact I think that both should inspire any improvement process.
Managing processes or managing people?
When we talk about operational excellence, we have to distinguish between methods designed to manage processes and those designed to manage people.
Based on the principle that knowledge workers are by definition in control of their organization and in a sense owners of their production tools, we can indeed consider that Kaizen is more appropriate here.
It is more concerned with the human and cultural dynamics within the organization. It is not limited to process improvement, but seeks to create an environment where each individual contributes to continuous improvement. It is based on autonomy, collaboration and the ability of teams to identify and solve problems by themselves.
Applying Kaizen in business therefore means recognizing that performance does not come only from optimizing flows, but also from the ability of teams to learn, adapt and innovate constantly.
However, there is a limit to this approach. We rarely work alone; we are part of a team, an organization, a link in a workflow. We depend on others just as others depend on us. Indeed, there is increasing talk of distributed businesses and self-management, but this is still far from being the norm and, in any case, even these innovative forms of organization follow rules, different rules but rules all the same (Formalized operations need not be complicated).
To return to my previous example, even in a distributed business where employees are very autonomous, it is impossible to avoid thinking about hyperconnectivity and bottlenecks, so an approach inspired by TPS has its place in the process.
Ideas for improving knowledge work
In the industrial world, operational excellence is based on the standardization and optimization of flows, but in knowledge work, processes are less repetitive, more cognitive and more adaptive. The challenge is less one of material waste than of cognitive efficiency, priority management and collaboration.
It is about creating a culture of experimentation and continuous improvement in complex or, worse, complicated environments (How to Manage Complexity without Getting Complicated and The organizational complication: the #1 irritant of the employee experience) where value depends more on the quality of ideas than on the speed of execution (Productivity: what if quality was the new quantity?)
This can involve:
- Optimizing time management: reducing interruptions, enabling concentration.
- Reducing informational noise: reducing cognitive overload from emails, notifications and unnecessary meetings.
- Improving collaboration: structuring and streamlining decision-making and improving and generalizing information sharing.
The proposed approaches have a major impact on the method needed to achieve this.
Firstly, by encouraging the iterative improvement of working methods instead of imposing rigid processes.
Secondly, by encouraging feedback and critical reflection on information flows, modes of collaboration and work organization in order to learn, improve and adjust.
Let’s not forget that employees are undoubtedly the best experts on their own problems and that the manager’s role is not to provide a magic solution but to enable them to find solutions.
Finally, to reduce cognitive overload and dispersion, by clarifying objectives and priorities.
Bottom line
A better customer or employee experience is a matter of quality and is the consequence of operational excellence (Experience is the new name for quality and is the result of operational excellence).
In a business where the work is mostly intangible, operational excellence is not a question of raw productivity, but of the ability to learn and adapt, even self-adapt.
Businesses that draw inspiration from Kaizen in their mode of operation are more successful in combining employee engagement, efficiency and impact.
They do not seek to work faster, but to think more intelligently about the organization of work, to continuously improve their processes and to encourage a culture of innovation.
Image: continuous improvement by Rawpixel.com via Shutterstock.
