DailyKaizen

In the midst of multiple planning adventures I am involved in right now, there has been a natural “fit” for the concept of Hansei (self-reflection). There’s a nice description of Hansei here. As in other work, I think we do this to an extent, but LEAN allows us to make it more explicit.

In one instance, I was asked if a group that met regularly in 2006 should continue to meet in 2007. I really didn’t have an answer for this. I didn’t want to provide one, either, because I don’t sit on the group in question and would be conflicted in providing input into a decision that affected colleagues without having their perspectives. I would imagine that these feelings might result in a lot of groups being supported in continuing to do good work for the organization. They might also result in more groups continuing on past the point at which they offer benefit. What’s right?

In this case I got unstuck by asking the question back (after being stumped for a bit, honestly), “Well, think back to why this group was created. What were the problems you were trying to solve, and what was the environment like in which you got together to solve them?”

I think there is fear that we could look back and say, “the problems still exist despite the work done.” This could drive continuation of the same manner of effort, maybe with more, maybe with less effectiveness. What if we weren’t afraid? Then we might say, “We did what was right for its time. Let’s do more of the same. Or let’s not.”

I’ve seen various flavors of the discomfort of self-reflection in the last few weeks. It’s required for hoshin planning (and it’s the “C” in PDCA, as Lee pointed out to me), luckily, which encourages its practice.

I have also been reading about structured models where this happens. One is the “After Action Review” practiced in the U.S. Military. There’s a formal guide to it, but also a very simple guide: “What was supposed to happen? What happened? What accounts for the difference?”