Bryce Harrison

Comments for The Wall Street Journal’s Story on Starbucks and “Lean”

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 by Deepak Sharma:

Hi Tripp Interesting take – I read the article somewhat differently. One line caught my attention : "Thirty percent of the partners’ time is motion; the walking, reaching, bending," If Starbucks can truly use lean only to reduce time in motion and reapply that time to customer interaction/dialogue they might be able to have their cake and eat it too!. A key element of their brand promise is the ‘experience’. The inconsistency of their experience has seen an increasing amplitude (based on my personal experience of Starbucks across the US and even in Paris). The ones that I truly remember are where the ‘barista’ really had time to engage me in a conversation and make me feel more relaxed by the time my coffee was ready. My thought being, that there is a lot of "time sinks" in service organization – Being able to identify them and remove/reduce them can help provide greater focus on expanding the customer relationship dimension.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 by Mark Graban:

Tripp, you are misrepresenting Lean. First, the organization must start with its Purpose. For a hospital, that purpose is different than a bank which is different than a factory. Organizations, including Starbucks, have to use common sense rather than just blindly copying Boeing or Toyota. When people try to copy (such as rushing people out of the bank in your scenario), I’d argue that’s a fault of leadership, not a fault of "lean." Organizations should be using Lean to solve problems. In a hospital, the problem (a major one) is that nurses don’t have enough time for patient care because they run around searching for missing supplies and information. So you "fix" that (put in a countermeasure) and they are able to provide better patient care. You don’t go putting the operating room table on a moving assembly line. That would be stupid. "Think about it . . . does every service organization want their customers flying in and out of their business as fast as possible? I don’t think so." Of course not. If organizations tried to do that, shame on them, not shame on Lean. We are in 100% agreement, except for your notion that "Lean doesn’t work" in service. I wish you’d state it as "copying manufacturers blindly doesn’t help service companies." That would be more accurate.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 by Mark Graban:

I’ll also take issue with: "Lean tools tackle the customer experience as an efficiency problem and some times it is and some times it isn’t. " Lean is not just efficiency. It is the dual pillars of quality and flow.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 by Tripp (Blog Owner):

Deepak: Thanks for your comment. Certainly may or may not fit this setting. Only Starbucks customers will be able to discern whether it is better or not. But I am concerned about Starbucks focus on transaction costs translated as store labor. Makes it sound like that is the aim, always a mistake. If the focus is on reducing transaction costs, than your argument may NOT be valid. They would be concerned with the next customer not developing a relationship. What ultimately matters is what matters to the customer. My point is we better know what that is. Regards, Tripp

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 by Tripp (Blog Owner):

Mark: Thanks for your comment. We might say it is flawed thinking . . . command and control vs. systems thinking http://newsystemsthinking.com/about_command_v_systems.asp That is why "lean tools" need a warning label. We can’t use the tools until we understand that the thinking needs to change – "A Fool with a Tool is still a Fool", so no I don’t think I misrepresent Ohno as much as those that tout lean manufacturing tools as good for service without understanding the thinking or the variety of demand in service. Your point on the operating table is my point exactly, thanks for making it with a different example. Regards, Tripp

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 by Tripp (Blog Owner):

Mark: Thanks for your second comment. Let’s look at the context of the paragraphor we may be accused of taking things out of context. "Okay, I am glad that Starbucks is recovering and they have found efficiency in "lean." But such articles (The Wall Street Journal’s article, "Latest Starbucks Buzzword: ‘Lean’ Japanese Techniques") should come with a warning label as people need to understand that copying Starbucks will be a huge mistake. Lean manufacturing tools and the pursuit of the customer experience do not always go together. Lean tools tackle the customer experience as an efficiency problem and some times it is and some times it isn’t. Think about it . . . does every service organization want their customers flying in and out of their business as fast as possible? I don’t think so." The tools have to do with efficiency, the thinking is what is missing. I believe that if the thinking proceeds the tools we can have all those things and maybe new (found) tools to improve the system. The tools inhibit the method to achieve purpose. Regards, Tripp

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 by Mark Graban:

We’re disconnected here — I’m saying the "tools" (really the tools and mindset) are about Quality and Efficiency. Do you disagree or just making a different point? Here is my blog post on this topic: http://www.leanblog.org/2009/08/defense-of-lean-and-of-lean-at.html

Thursday, August 6, 2009 by John Seddon:

Tripp is right to warn people against copying. In the UK we now have loads of failed lean tools initiatives and the heart of the problem is the assumption that the tools are universal. Its no good arguing as Mark implies, that lean is OK if you do it right. You have to account for the massive failure, that’s how you learn Mark.

Thursday, August 6, 2009 by Robby Slaughter:

Tripp is right, not only to warn people about copying but to warn people against focusing just on efficiency. Read more in our response on our blog at: http://www.slaughterdevelopment.com/2009/08/06/starbucks-and-going-lean/