An Introduction to Lean Systems Thinking An Introduction to Lean Systems Thinking … a better way to make the work work About us: Established in 1985 - John Seddon Purpose: to approach organisational change in a more systemic way than it had been treated in the past. Researched a wide range of failed programmes of change: failure was, most often, a consequence of method. W Edwards Deming, Senge, Ohno Leaders of lean for service organisations. Thinking: W. Edwards Deming taught us that we must not treat our organisations as functional hierarchies but instead manage them as systems and Peter Senge showed how much people’s behaviour is governed by the systems they work in. Taiichi Ohno showed just how profound systems thinking is in practice – the number of man-hours it takes to build a Lexus is less than those used to re-work a top-of-the-line German luxury car after it has come off the production line. Systems thinking really does result in extraordinary performance improvements. Vanguard Consulting have developed these concepts to provide a practical, tried and tested systems thinking framework for action in service organisations, which differ in important ways from manufacturing organisations. Because systems thinking in manufacturing has been labelled ‘lean thinking’, we call this approach ‘lean service’. John’s books: “I want you to cheat!” the unreasonable guide to service and quality in organisations” 1992 In pursuit of Quality: The case against ISO9000, 1997 “Freedom from Command and Control” We are not: Process re-engineers!

"We cannot solve the problems we have created with the thinking that created them." Einstein In groups of 3s or 4s, discuss what you want out of today…

Two main design and management thinking approaches …

Mass Production / Command & Control RIVER ROUGE Henry Ford’s River Rouge Plant Quintessential example of successful mass production was the giant Ford Motor Company plant built during WW1 on the River Rouge near Dearborn, Michigan. That Plant, and the sister Highland Park plant in Detroit, together produced some 15 million model T Fords by 1927. All Black! Low cost per unit The high profits that Ford earned in that setting – dedicated to making 1 model round the clock year in, year out – is usually attributed to the plant’s remarkable “efficiency” – where “efficiency” is equated with LOW COST PER UNIT. The principle Ford followed was to produce one variant of a product without interruption, at full capacity, until demand satisfied. Alfred Sloane working at General Motors at about the same time put rigour into running organisations through “managing by the numbers”. Manage by the numbers His principle was that in a large, amorphous organisation where it was hard to know which bits of it are making money, one needed to be robust about the costs associated with each part. The profit and loss accounting process was born enabling Sloane to know which bits of the organisation were “making money” and therefore which bits to close and which bits to keep open etc. But… What did this focus do to the design of work? Here we need to understand the transition from making things with craftsmen to mass production. Let’s take a pin maker… Lets explain about the break up of the tasks in hand-making pins… Functionalise and De-Skill Now back to Ford: It was the production schedule that pushed material at a relentless pace - sustained by having machines and workers (little more than cogs in the gears) performing repetitive tasks as fast as possible… And Ford needed workers – gogs – for this thirsty plants. Luckily at that time boat loads of immigrants were arriving into the US looking for work. They suited his low-skilled factories perfectly however there was a problem – communication… Arise the superintendent – the first level of management. But what did this cause? Separate decision making from work A sign of the mechanistic roots supporting this mass production system is the relation between information and the flow of work. The primary information influencing the flow of work originates OUTSIDE the process in the schedule and the layout of the plant. Neither the materials of workers who transform it supply any information to guide the process – they are literally “pushed” by external information. Underlying that information is a design that defines the laws governing the motion of materials and workers and features homogeneity of inputs and outputs (uniform material and interchangeable parts) Standardisation Economies of Scale The uninterrupted flow of homogenous units at a rate as fast as possible insures the lowest possible unit cost of output – a rule enshrined in the phrase “economies of scale”: That costs per unit fall as the speed and volume of output rise… And Ford was hugely successful. The River Rouge plant produced about one vehicle per minute in 1925 in a total lead time of about 3 days and 9 hrs from steel making to finished vehicle. Cut costs and double wages! Famously Ford was able to CUT COSTS and double wages! Why did he need to double wages? Doubling wages was only helpful for a limited time because the work was still repetitive and boring! There was an assumption that you should leave your brain at the door when you check in, as you won’t need it once you’re inside the factory!

MANAGEMENT FACTORY SLIDE 2 Separating parts of the system to accommodate their different operating rates made inventories and warehouses indispensable. But… Warehouse Workers in independent parts of the system cannot receive feedback from workers in the next operation hence errors go undetected and have to be remedied through re-work. Re-work The continuous flow as seen in the River Rouge in the 1920’s no longer existed by the 1970’s. And… this way of working required people and equipment to make sure things arrived at the right place at the right time. These people, referred to as “overhead” … Overhead bubble … were employed in activities such as scheduling, controlling, expediting, storing, inspecting, transporting and reworking. Arise the management factory… Management Factory BUT… There was a fundamental problem: Mix of varieties produced does not automatically mesh with the mix of varieties that customers wish to purchase Not designed against demand

Arise Command & Control! Perspective Design Decision making Measurement Management ethos Top down, hierarchy Functional Separated from work Output, targets, standards related to budget & plan Manage people, hit budget and plan NOT DESIGNED AGAINST DEMAND BUILDS IN WASTE AND INHIBITS FLOW

Variety in the context of continuous flow MANAGEMENT FACTORY An alternative solution… AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION SLIDE 1 1940’s during General Mac Arthur’s administration of occupied Japan, W E Deming worked with Japanese looking at the management of organisations as systems. The Japanese needed to build cars. Toyota people went to the Rouge to see how it was done… Flow What they saw was invisible to Ford. They saw work flow through each part of the plant – literally through each individual work station – at the same rate, the rate that finished units flowed off the line. (Continuous) linking and balancing (of steps) They perceived that if every step in a continuous flow works at the same rate, then at any moment, each step consumes only the resources required to advance one customer’s order one step closer to completion. With all steps linked in a balanced flow, no worker did more than was needed to prepare only the work called for by the next step. Returning to Japan, a huge problem for Ohno was that he did not have access to the huge finances for plant and equipment that was available to Ford et al. With his limited machinery he realized that in order to achieve this linked and balance flow, the time spent changing over individual machines was CRITICAL. (Focus on) individual changeover (times) From the 1950’s to 1970’s Taiichi Ohno and colleagues focused on an unremitting campaign to reduce individual changeover steps for all stages in their manufacturing process with each worker able to design and control what they performed. Through process improvements they brought the set up change time of their pressing machines down from 10 days to 10 minutes. Consequently virtually all work requiring changeover was incorporated as much as possible into continuous flow. Batch size of ONE The traditional thinking at the time was if you move to small batches as Ohno was doing, costs would go up automatically… Bulb What do you think he unravelled…? For Ohno it was a counter intuitive moment… Variety built into the line Ohno perceived that if the time needed to change over every step in the system were actually less than the time interval between units flowing off the line, then it would be possible for every unit coming off the line to be different from every other unit, and still costs per unit would be nearly the same as if every unit were identical. Those conditions, in other words, would make it possible to build a unique product for each customer at Model-T costs. SLIDE 3: Variety achieved in the context of continuous flow By the mid 1970’s Toyota had created a continuous flow that focused on connecting workers with customers in self-organising relationships that are capable of continually generating unique outcomes – diversity. When Toyota looked at the process end to end in this way, with less time taken to reset the machines: Throughput increased Lead times fell Quality increased Work in progress was also much lower Importantly, Ohno treated the work itself as the information required to inform production - all the information needed to direct operations is in the work. Operations are not driven by external information and controls. No Management Factory! Their continuously linked systems featured much smaller machines and each step operated at a slower rate – at just the rate required to complete the requirements for one customer’s order at a time – “to carry small loads and make frequent trips”. Key factors were managing the flow of material and the value stream to the customer integral to which was measuring end-to-end time. Each trip had to matter – so right first time and striving to reduce waste was the key focus. Different thinking His success was a result of how he thought about it… Lexus is the top selling luxury car. A German competitor takes more time repairing vehicles at the end of the line in rework, measured in (man hours), than it takes to build a Lexus. Variety in the context of continuous flow

Summary of TPS Features Pull Flow Waste Measures Decision making Management role The Lean Path Shifts the focus of management from organisation and assets to the product Differentiates Value from Waste Reconfigures the process to eliminate time and non value adding activities By successively removing the constraints to flow and pull

The Toyota Production System “The number of man hours it takes to build a Lexus is less than the man hours used in re-working a top-of-the-line German luxury car at the end of the production line, after it has been made." The Machine that Changed the World Womack, Roos & Jones 1990

Vanguard - translation for Service Service differs from manufacturing! The customer is involved in ‘production’, Their Demand triggers our work… Variety of customers and demand is huge! What’s the difference? Talk here about how traditionally we do not pay attention to the NATURE of demand, only VOLUME. Explain the difference! And how we rarely measure What Matters i

Systems Thinking Principles Perspective Design Decision making Measurement Management ethic Outside - in Demand, value, flow Integrated into the work Related to purpose, and show capability Act on the system

Change this Thinking Tools here System Performance improve Service For over 25 years, V has been working with service organisations to improve performance And what we mean by performance is 4 areas How? By working with leaders and those in the work to understand how their organisation works as a system What do I mean by system? And this is nothing to do with IT! This is about looking at what we from the outside-in, customer point of view, as a system; it means understanding the points of transaction that we have with our customers, and the E2E processes that are in place to deliver that service. For it is as a result of the design of this system, and what the people in the system are focused on, that results in the performance. And how have we arrived at these processes and pre-occupations? The third critical element is to understand the empirical link between the leadership focus and thinking (that ultimately underpins this) and performance Performance improve Service Efficiency Revenue Morale

The rise of Tools Six sigma Centred on a powerful problem solving and process optimisation methodology, 6 Sigma is credited with saving billions of dollars for companies over the past ten years. Define Measures Analyse Improve Control

… and plenty more! 5 s 4 actuals 7 wastes Tact time Value Stream Mapping Brainstorming Cause and Effect Control Charts Decision analysis Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) Force field Analysis Pokeyoke (Failure Proofing) SIPOC (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs and Customers) Spaghetti Chart Treatability Matrix Takt time is the demand (units of production ordered by customers) divided by the time available to produce them. It is an essential method for understanding at what rate parts need to flow to meet the requirement of the whole, and the requirement of the whole is driven by the rate of customer demand. In simple terms, takt time is mathematics for managing flow throughout the system at the rate of demand. In German, ‘Takt’ means ‘heartbeat’ or ‘rhythm’. It is not a Japanese word. In the 1950s, Ohno had a problem. Toyota’s trucks and tractors were in high demand because of the Korean war, but because of the war it was difficult to bring in raw materials. As a result Ohno found he often ended up trying to complete a month’s production in the final two weeks of the month. Ohno set out to deal with this problem by seeking to understand what the system would need to do in order to meet demand. He took the expected demand over a given time and divided it by the time available to meet that demand. This gave him the ‘takt’ time, which allowed him to understand if the system was producing enough or too much at any given time and in any place. Ohno did not use the label ‘takt time’. He saw the ‘heartbeat’ as a way to manage production. In their book Lean Thinking, Womack and Jones define five key steps for going ‘lean’: Identify the value stream, understand value, flow, pull, perfection. VSM is primarily concerned with the second and third steps: understanding value and flow. Without managing value work through a flow, it is difficult if not impossible to make any real steps towards a true ‘pull’ (make-to-order) system. The ability to identify key product flows and understand them from end to end is central to the improvement of manufacturing flows. VSM can be used to illustrate problems and trigger solutions or to build information required to redesign a manufacturing flow entirely.

Do they change this? Thinking System Performance improve Service Are we doing the wrong thing righter? Have we actually changed the underlying assumptions about the design and management of work to make change sustainable? Think about this…Ohno insisted we should not codify method … Why? Performance improve Service Efficiency Revenue Morale

i Focus outside in, design to absorb variety Unhelpful? Costly? These Vary! CUSTOMERS DEMANDS PROCESSES OUTCOMES “WHAT MATTERS?” What do we do to inhibit the ability to absorb variety? Functional specialism Procedures and scripts i

£ Nominal Value TAGUCHI - Leading thinker in the quality movement. Challenged the idea of working to standards / working within tolerances Showed that setting any (nominal) value and continually working to reduce variation around it reduced costs and improved quality. If an organisation understands and responds to what matters, you experience good service and the organisation is likely to be delivering service in the most economic way

Costs of departure from the nominal value Mum & Kids Businessman Fisherman Quick & Hot Coffee I/V Laptop DnD Kids 1st then me Customer sets nominal value and thus the response of the service. After this slide get team to do CHECK FEEDBACK and then let managers out into work and feedback i

The place to start is Check

Check Do Plan i How does change typically happen in your experience? Many managers believe their job is to decide or ‘plan’ and the staff’s job is to ‘do’ This is a mistake! Unless you start with ‘check’ you don’t have the knowledge to make change ‘Check’ tells you what you are predictably achieving now and why Check enables you to ‘plan’ what to do to improve performance (you can predict improvement against measures) When you then take action ‘do’ you can measure the results of your action ‘check’ Link: the process of check – getting knowledge - the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of current performance i

Understanding your organisation as a System The Vanguard model for ‘check’ What is the purpose (in customer terms)? 1 Demand : T&F, V&F What matters? 2 Capability of response 3 Before making changes it is essential to establish what is currently happening and why from the outside-in or customers perspective - we describe this as the “what and why” of current performance. When you understand how the system and processes are working today, what they are reliably and predictably delivering (capability) to the customer and why (causes), then you are in a position to make informed choices about change. This end-to-end learning crosses boundaries through which the work may flow incorporating partners, subcontractors and others involved in provision of integrated services. It also uncovers the supporting infrastructures such as IT. We call this carrying out “Check” which forms the vital first step before planning and implementing any restructuring of a department or organisation for effective and efficient service delivery. Firstly, one needs to understand what matters to customers – the type and frequency of demands that they place on the organisation, understood from their point of view. Only by having this knowledge can you review how well you deliver against what matters to customers. One then needs to ask what is the purpose of the system or process? It is important that this is clearly defined and understood as this provides a focus for the work activity. The purpose of each process should be defined in terms that reflect what matters to the customer: efficiency and revenue and in particular service, for it is operational measures of service that will be central to the solution. To understand the current capability of any system or process one needs to understand the nature of demands being placed on the organisation and measure how well, and how predictably, the organisation responds to those demands. The ability of the organisation to respond to demand is determined by the flow of the work – it is here that the identification and elimination of waste will mean improved process efficiency. System conditions, for example measures, roles, process design, IT applications, procedures and so on all affect performance – they may be helping or they may be creating waste. Many - for example targets and standards - may have been established with good intent by management but their real contribution will be exposed through ‘check’. Management thinking. The resulting ‘systems picture’ helps managers understand how their managerial assumptions have helped or hindered performance in the organisation. This is a process of informed choice, for there is no change without leadership. Managers of successful organisations recognise that their role is not “command and control” but taking and leading action on the system to support their people and enable them to do better work.

Understanding capability data Much of what we currently report on are percentages or averages in relation to targets (static data points) Few of these targets relate to the real experience of the customer Because of the way it is reported it is hard to see the effects of changes and decisions that we may be taking

Understanding capability data Statistical process control charts (SPC) or Capability Charts are a powerful way of looking at our data and understanding the performance of our system They capture statistically the capability or predictability of our system in delivering service for customer over time Normally used to understand frequency of an occurrence or elapsed time (end-to-end)

How they work Statistically we can measure the variation or predictability – what it feels like for our customers What’s important is knowing the extent of this variation and why – the causes No. of Days 100 Every system has inherent variation UCL x 50 mean LCL We tend to only pay attention to the average Cases

Understanding your organisation as a System The Vanguard model for ‘check’ What is the purpose (in customer terms)? 1 Thinking 6 Demand : T&F, V&F What matters? 2 Capability of response 3 Flow : Value work + Waste 4 System Conditions 5

Change based on knowledge… analysis action change …act on the Thinking System Performance improve

Case Study 1: Housing benefits

What you learn from Check What do customers want? “Can I make a claim?” “My circumstances have changed”

What matters to customers? “I get an answer quickly so that I know whether or not I’m going to get help” “Deliver payments quickly so that I don’t get hassle from my landlord or the CTax department” “Make sure my benefits keeps track with changes in my situation…” “You help me through the process” “I can understand the letters & forms” “I don’t mind waiting a bit if I know it is going to be sorted”

Pay the right money to the right people as quickly as possible Purpose Pay the right money to the right people as quickly as possible

Capability (how well are we meeting the purpose in customer terms?) We don’t know! Because we don’t measure it! But … we do measure: BVPIs & position relative to ‘similar’ authorities Waiting time in reception AvHT, wrap, etc. in the Call Centre Number of cases per day in the back office

So what do customers experience? Ucl = 152 mean = 52

Workers’ activity ‘managed’ Learning to see HB as a System Multiple Sorts & Checks Cases fragmented Scanning/Indexing errors “I want to claim” 64% passed back Manage queues 34%V 66%F Sort Scan Index Hand out forms Take in documents Handoff 22%V 78%F HO 44%V 56%F Workers’ activity ‘managed’ Allocate 1-10 cycles to clean (ave.4) 95% cases over-specified 20% docs. duplicated HO 99% claims ‘dirty’ No case ownership CTax fragmentation Letters unclear 87% Decide HO HO HO Pay Notify Inspect 0-152 days to pay 3% visit once 60% errors Rework

Is there opportunity to improve? How would you realise it? i

i What is the Thinking That has caused the System … to result in Performance i

Workers’ activity ‘managed’ Learning to see HB as a System Multiple Sorts & Checks Cases fragmented Scanning/Indexing errors “I want to claim” 64% passed back Manage queues 34%V 66%F Sort Scan Index Hand out forms Take in documents Handoff 22%V 78%F HO 44%V 56%F Workers’ activity ‘managed’ Allocate 1-10 cycles to clean (ave.4) 95% cases over-specified 20% docs. duplicated HO 99% claims ‘dirty’ No case ownership CTax fragmentation Letters unclear Decide HO HO HO Pay Notify Inspect 0-152 days to pay 3% visit once 60% errors Rework

Case Study 2: The IT Helpdesk This pulls together in a real example the model for check BUT stops half way through to test their understanding of the THINKING underpinning the system…

If there is an issue, sort it: One-stop or manage my expectations What’s its PURPOSE? If there is an issue, sort it: One-stop or manage my expectations This one is a case study pulling it together

The IT Helpdesk … What a user experiences? What’s going on?

Predictably up to 5 people A Story of IT Support Work done R & R Diagnosis Fixing Ordering … Reasons for wait: Reallocation suppliers engineers user Calls not being fully fixed first time Ongoing problem Not set up properly Calls closed Bounced between people / teams Predictably up to 5 people 3 teams FIX CLOSE LOG QSM @ CUST FIX CLOSE DW 1:1 MORE WORK WAIT DW 1:1 CUST FIX CLOSE TO TEAM A or S 16% 33% 51% 1.5 min 1 Hr 58 Hrs 83 Hrs Vanguard www.lean-service.com

What underpins this design & performance? Handoff Batch Check Rework = DELAY Functional Design HelpDesk Core Techs. Remote Techs. Operations Development FIX CLOSE LOG QSM @ TO TEAM A or S CUST DW 1:1 MORE WORK WAIT 83 Hrs Vanguard www.lean-service.com

What underpins this design & performance? Focus on Close NOT Fix = MORE WORK Prioritise jobs = DELAY Functional Design KPI’s Reopen Raise Job Stop Clock Close Job Logging data FIX CLOSE LOG QSM @ TO TEAM A or S CUST DW 1:1 MORE WORK WAIT 83 Hrs Vanguard www.lean-service.com

What underpins this design & performance? Control over IT people and costs = DELAY = STAFF FRUSTRATION We say “No!” = USER FRUSTRATION Functional Design KPI’s Procedures & Authorisation FIX CLOSE LOG QSM @ TO TEAM A or S CUST DW 1:1 MORE WORK WAIT Vanguard www.lean-service.com

What underpins this design & performance? BUDGET CONTRACT Functional Design KPI’s Procedures & Authorisation Stick to the letter Ensure we hit the numbers (and don’t get fined) Juggle resources between support and development Focus on the numbers “Lower Cost” staff for “Simple” jobs Juggle resources between support and development Say “It’s chargeable!” Authorisation to “control” spend FIX CLOSE LOG QSM @ TO TEAM A or S CUST DW 1:1 MORE WORK WAIT Vanguard www.lean-service.com

Thinking System Performance Focus on revenue Meet the budget Stick to the contract Manage the people Improve through Projects Thinking Demands equal units of work Functionalised design Managers make decisions Focus on productivity, output and prizes Workers follow procedures Hand-off, batch & Q, checking, reworking System Hard to get through Poor first time resolution Long E2E time High failure demand Rising complaints Poor retention Rising costs High staff turnover Performance

Principles for ‘Plan’ (Re-design) Where do we need to act? Remove System Conditions Clarity of purpose 1 6 C U S T O M E R What are the value steps? 3 What are the management roles? Add value 5    What are the ‘core’ roles? Design against demand 4 Clarity of the permanent measures 2

Workers’ activity ‘managed’ Learning to see HB as a System Multiple Sorts & Checks Cases fragmented Scanning/Indexing errors “I want to claim” 64% passed back Manage queues 34%V 66%F Sort Scan Index Hand out forms Take in documents Handoff 22%V 78%F HO 44%V 56%F Workers’ activity ‘managed’ Allocate 1-10 cycles to clean (ave.4) 95% cases over-specified 20% docs. duplicated HO 99% claims ‘dirty’ No case ownership CTax fragmentation Letters unclear Decide HO HO HO Pay Notify Inspect 0-152 days to pay 3% visit once 60% errors Rework

Change thinking, improve performance Pay the right people the right money fast Purpose Measures Method mean = 142 Experiment: find & act on causes of variation

Change thinking, improve performance Pay the right people the right money fast Purpose Measures Method mean = 142 mean = 12

The Systems Solution: design against demand “I want to claim” Obtain clean information Make a decision Notify the claimant Pay if entitled Value Work Put the claims expertise at the front end Enable assessors to pull support on demand Build Ctax expertise into the flow And measure against purpose Expertise

“Something’s broken…” Service Level, AvHT Diagnosis & SoR Parts/material Priority Activity, Time, Cost Prop. o/heads Repairs as a System Bonus “Something’s broken…” Target Times, Budget “What’s going on!” “It’s not fixed!” 65% Repair Call Centre Works order Supervisor Cancel WO’s favouritism Re-allocate Argue No. Jobs Type of job 95% WO’s Reworked Diagnosis,Bonus, Fix Tradesman Materials Access Delay 40% fail Distrust

What would you do? Think about… “What Matters?” to the tenants What is the VALUE work? How could we just do the value work? What would we need to do to help those to do their jobs? What are the implications on roles? What should we measure?

Should we worry about people of process?

The importance of measures

Causes of Variation? UCL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x LCL

Setting a target that exceeds capability UCL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x LCL

Setting any target ? UCL x Target x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x LCL

What’s important? What’s important is knowing the extent of this variation and why – the causes UCL x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x LCL

Capability vs Targets Targets Capability Measures Arbitrary – “plucked out of the air” Derived from the work Increase disorder in systems Lead people to work in ways that increase order and control Focus people on the wrong things – survival not improvement Focus ingenuity on how the work works No value in understanding and improving performance Understanding causes of variation provides a focus for improvement De-motivating – no understanding of capability Motivate – put control and understanding in the right place

What makes a good measure? Measures must be derived from the work – relate to purpose Measures must help us understand and improve performance Measures must demonstrate capability and variation over time Measures must be in the hands of the people doing the work, to control and improve the work Measures must be used by staff and managers to take action on the system i

Summary – the key issues Not paying attention to demand Damaging the ability to absorb variety Managing people not the process Using the wrong measures Demand Demand is treated as units of production No understanding / measure of value / failure Not understanding “What Matters” (Nominal Value) Wrong measures Test of a good measure is… Problem with targets… (examples from fieldwork) Leading / lagging measures It’s the People (not process) Performance is affected by process not people (systems conditions from fieldwork) Role of the manager is… Importance of designing to absorbing variety Service is different! Need to design vs demand – to be able to absorb variety! Caution inhibitors: Scripts, procedures, activity measurement, IVR, automated work scheduling and ‘work flow’ systems and so on….

Reading List Vanguard Stuff : www.lean-service.com Freedom from Command & Control, John Seddon I Want you to Cheat, John Seddon Recommended The New Economics, W. Edwards Deming The Toyota Production System, Taiichi Ohno The Machine that Changed the World, Womack Jones & Roos Lean Thinking, Womack & Jones Understanding Variation, Donald Wheeler Punished by Rewards, Alfie Kohn Interesting but Dangerous - you work out why… The Principles of Scientific Management, Frederick Winslow Taylor