INNOVATE packaging!
SCRUTINISE blanket-ban!
ELIMINATE production!
REDUCE, REUSE! Collect to RECYCLE!
Mr Foolhardy slips over a banana peel. After a few steps he falls again over another banana peel. He gets up and starts walking. On seeing third banana peel he says: "Oh-My-God, now I have to fall again!!!" .... Like Foolhardy, some do love 'falling' followed by getting 'cured' reactively 'again-n-again' than taking preventive 'care'. What should the case really be?
Have you ever thought why suggestions usually don't get 'bought' even if they are good? Even the ones given by bosses to subordinates get implemented half-heartedly, if at all.
The cause of this dilemma can be sourced at the top.
On 'hearing' about world class companies "topping the number of suggestions" with over "6 million" in Matsushita in so and so year or "over 53 suggestions implemented per employee in one single year" in Toyota (in 1987), typically the decision makers hastily installed 'suggestion-schemes'.
While number of suggestions in such excellent companies gradually increased, in 'hasty' companies the total system flopped. Blame was put on the 'prevailing bad culture here' while crediting the 'opposite there'. They even forgot 'which wall' their own 'suggestion-box' was hung. Some of them 'hung' another one during a new crisis.
Actually the real cause is that the 'hasty' managers didn't understand 'keys to success' of 'suggestion-systems' in such excellent companies and that they are much more than merely a 'box'.
Many didn't know that 'suggestion schemes' are called as Kaizen-TEIAN in Japanese companies. They got 'imported' with half knowledge. Naturally with their ill-effects they turned out to be a big flop as expected.
The way they were installed, rules themselves were 'killers of more ideas' than very few that were 'accepted': often a fraction of the total. The ones 'accepted' got disproportionately rewarded. At times the awardees were found to be same people year after year. In some companies these people even 'budgeted' their earnings. They knew when to 'create a crisis' and when to 'solve' it by their 'so-called suggestions'.
Kaizen-TEIAN system is exactly the opposite. In fact it means an 'implemented suggestion' or as a Kaizen as the world knows now. If generating suggestions or ideas is one side of the coin then implementing it is the other side. So a coin itself is a Kaizen or a Kaizen-TEIAN.
Role of the bosses or the idea-collectors is to involve subordinates in generating innumerable suggestions by training/retraining them on appropriate methods and then enabling them to implement all of those with resource verification as their own primary responsibility. In fact one of the performance criteria (KRA¹) of bosses is to 'make everyone a hero' by helping everyone contribute an idea and help him implement it.
There is no question of 'someone putting suggestions in a box' and then 'someone else assessing them' to 'accept' or 'reject' as was done by non-Japanese 'suggestion schemes' that revolved primarily around economic benefits and degree of it's creativity rather than 'motivation' of the Suggester.
Initial enthusiasm due to 'novelty' of such 'boxes' might attract novices to put an idea or two in it. But would you not be indifferent if yours get repeatedly 'rejected' due to it's 'smallness' or due to someone else's 'bigness'?
Or would it not be demotivating if it gets handled the way it does in a typical housing society where office bearers typically react saying: "talking is easy" or say: "you" do it rather than "let's do it together". Most often their body language not only 'repels' an idea but they see to it that it doesn't get implemented.
Under such circumstances leaving 'common-good' to it's destiny, people keep their brains under 'lock-and-key' while behaving in common places. After all it's 'your rule' not 'my idea': that's exactly the human psychology Kaizen-TEIAN system pre-empts.
In Kaizen-TEIAN there is no question of slapping or punishing a failure. It's about handholding subordinate to 'open umbrella during rain' (an improvement action to tackle a problem) while giving credit of doing so to him.
This is where the journey of 'doing a Kaizen and reporting it with due credit and recognition to others' begins. With sustained and concerted efforts it accumulates into a 'million Kaizens'.
Without clarity and alignment on such key differences of Kaizen-TEIAN as above, fate of 'suggestion-schemes' will continue to stay doubtful.
Footnote-1, ¹KRA is Key-Result-Area
Also read a few relevant blogposts hereunder:
Make It Simpler, Rest Will Follow
Raam or Krishna-Shyam: Tell me Hey Raam!
Some Moron ! Some Great !!!
You seem Reasonable if you appear Un-reasonable
Smart-Moron Who Breaks Your Glass
WOW Work-Culture: By Telling or Selling
Suggestions On-Sale, None-To-Buy
Can-changing-thoughts-change-a-nation
Ridiculous Poison-culture versus Maverick Kaizen-culture
That's how some business partnerships work
Taken-For-Granted ? You Deserve It !!
IQ-EQ-or-SQ: What-is-more-important?
Just read in Loksatta about one Mr Chitale receiving compensation of Rupees 7250 directly transferred to his bank account y British Airways for wheel of his bag getting damaged in handling. Airlines' response was smooth and speedy he said. Airlines had tried to repair the bag through their supply-chain partner but in vain.
In 1997, I was in NewYork on a group-study-exchange mission organised by Rotary International. While traveling from NewYork to Orlando, inadvertently my bag reached to Chicago. I complained to the airlines office at the airport. They promptly sanctioned 100 Dollars to me against the bills for essentials like overnight clothes, toothpaste, etc. Being around Disneyland I was happy to buy a couple Mickey-Mouse brand clothes at the airport.
Next day morning I got a 'good-morning' call from reception desk saying my bag was already in the hotel lobby safe and sound. Not much trouble for me although the airlines did have an opportunity to eliminate the error in baggage handling.
In a stark contrast to such delightful experiences, in 1981 I had to run from pillar to post knocking doors and windows in vain for a broken bag and its damaged contents due to erroneous handling by Air-India. Since then I avoid flying on it: a customer-quit as they say.
I remember that painful experience even after decades.
What is the learning?
There might be some chance of a person forgetting a good experience but hardly any chance of a customer forgetting bad experience from a supplier.
In case of one airline it was about 'sensitivity' to customer complaint while dealing it with a 'sense-of-urgency'. In case of other airline it was about 'indifference' to customer.
Now a days the sensitivity has acquired some strategy and structure to respond to customer complaints as a part of excellence-journey of companies.
A Structure To Respond To Customer
I had introduced a 2-2-2-2©structure in terms of a model to respond to any stakeholder in general and to customer in particular. It was first introduced in a Cummins group company: Fleetguard Filters Limited Pune.
It was later on institutionalised in Cummins group worldwide.
In the context of a customer complaint, the 2-2-2-2© model might mean 2-Minutes, 2-Hours, 2-Days, 2-Weeks time-bound response to customer for a given level of performance strived for. The response is supposed to eliminate root cause/s of the abnormality within 2-Weeks rather than stopping at first-aid treatment that anyway must be given within 2-Minutes. A powerful review mechanism driven by CEO (with an escalation matrix that an aggrieved customer can access in case of non-compliance) is an integral part of the structured process in order to ensure the timeline and quality of it's compliance.
In the context of various other business situations, the timeline may be different and must evolve. For instance for an emergency/crisis having high impact, it could mean 2-Seconds, 2-Minutes, 2-Hours, 2-Days.
There is an empowerment mechanism built into the structure. Timeline-based visible dimensions as above are the generic ones. Company specific visible dimensions may be some sanction limits such as 100 Dollars compensation or a freedom to handover gift for the hassles or the efforts taken by the customer to complain and so on.
More important are the invisible dimensions that result into the culture reflected in terms of the spirit, the body-language, the humbleness, the humility such as that I had experienced while the airline employees responded to the complaint in making it hassle-free and speedy.
There is tremendous scope and choice for innovations in both in order to delight customer with differentiation. The invisible ones in particular are difficult to emulate. That's where lies the competitive advantage.
If such a structure is implemented effectively, the customer becomes supplier's advocate and it's rewarding in long run as well as in terms of short term sales and numbers. Such an advocate is much more effective than even a highly paid marketing manager.
A prospective customer is likely to believe and act more often if recommendation comes from the horse's mouth: The Word-Of-Mouth!