Problem Solved: The IISE Podcast

Welcome to a special From the Archives
edition of Problem Solved, where we're

revisiting standout conversations
from the podcast's history.

Today's episode was chosen by David
Brandt, who hosted and produced

Problem Solved for many years.

It's a thoughtful conversation with
IISE fellow and longtime ISE Magazine

performance columnist Kevin McManus
about the surprising connection

between industrial engineering
principles and everyday life.

The episode originally aired May of 2019,
but before we listen to the conversation,

here's David with a few thoughts on why
this episode remains one of his favorites

The essentialism episode is
important to me and special

to me for a number of reasons.

One of which was it was my first podcast.

So I I had never done a
podcast before that point.

I'd been a print reporter and switching
to audio was a very new experience.

The other reason it's important to me is
because the book itself, Essentialism:

The Disciplined Pursuit of Less, which
was written by Greg McKeown, that

book's important to me because coming
out of my cancer experience, which I

explain a little bit in the episode
that was a book that sort of helped

set me straight and got me past the
post-traumatic stress of having cancer.

The idea behind essentialism
is largely about the vital

few versus the trivial many.

A lot of the lessons in the book,
in the discipline of essentialism

line up with principles of
industrial and systems engineering.

And Kevin McManus, who was the
magazine's performance columnist for

a very long time, he was sort of the
most forward voice in, in a, in a way,

and he writes in a way that I, not
being an engineer, could understand.

So I felt like he was the most adamant
person I could interview who would

find parallels, the same parallels
I found between industrial and

systems engineering and essentialism.

My guest in this episode is a fellow
ISE Magazine writer and, in fact,

also an IISE fellow, Performance
columnist Kevin McManus, whose writing

I've been a fan of since I first
joined the institute many moons ago.

Before we get into our discussion,
I have a personal and journalistic

responsibility to give you some background
about what drives the primary topic of

this episode, which is the parallels
between work and life when it comes to

the application of industrial engineering.

First off, I'm a cancer survivor.

I had a battle with Hodgkin's
lymphoma several years ago.

It goes without saying that it was
a challenging time in my life, but

as I've described it to friends,
the most difficult part was figuring

out how to move forward again
after experiencing such a trauma.

So over the course of time, I devoured
numerous books about self-improvement

disciplines, covering various isms and
ologies, and I came across a book by

author Greg McKeown called Essentialism:
The Disciplined Pursuit of Less.

A brief summary won't do it justice,
but the book describes the value

of committing focus to the task
or decisions that matter most.

In short, as McKeown writes, it explores
how to best distinguish the vital few

from the trivial many, and that sort
of thinking helped me a great deal

as I tried to determine how to best
move my life from stuck to unstuck.

Yet given my many years of interviewing
engineers and writing about their

work and solutions, it took me much
longer than it should have to realize

that the core of the essentialist has
great commonality with the goals and

targets of industrial engineers, such
as eliminating waste or determining best

practices for continuous improvement.

But Kevin McManus seems to have realized
the connection for a long time now,

as his monthly column has shown,
particularly over the last few years.

You can find his Performance column
online at iise.org/isemagazine.

But right now, you can hear more about
his thoughts on how useful industrial

engineering is in both work and life.

Today we're interviewing Kevin McManus.

He's our performance
columnist in ISE Magazine.

He's been our performance columnist
for how many years now, Kevin?

Oh, goodness, I think
we're approaching 20 years.

Yes, you've been a columnist
since before I started here, so

you've been a staple nonetheless.

I appreciate you taking the
time to talk with me today.

I wanted to talk about the parallels
that I've observed in industrial

engineering applications between
work and life, and the comparisons

to the discipline of essentialism.

After years of writing about the
professions we support here at IISE,

and following my personal battle with
cancer in 2010, I've been practicing

essentialism which is largely
based on the book by Greg McKeown.

Simply stated, the goal behind
essentialism is to make decisions that

help focus on operating or living,
quote, less but better, end quote.

I've observed a sense of commonality
between essentialism and industrial

engineering such as the process
of continuous improvement, the

removal of waste, distinguishing
the vital from the trivial.

In your columns over the past few years,
and in your social media, you've pointed

out similar parallels between ISE and
your career and your personal life.

Has the comparison always been
obvious to you since the start of

your career, or was it a discovery
made over time through experience?

All right.

Well, first of all, David,
thanks for having me.

Looking very forward to sharing some
thoughts with you and the audience.

It's really interesting in the sense
that when I went to university at the

University of Arkansas, I really had no
idea what type of engineering I would

end up in, and it was really a lot of
this has been serendipitous in my life.

I think there's a bigger plan for me
out there than one I set for myself.

But I went to school at, at Arkansas.

I struggled actually to get into
the engineering program simply

because they weren't sure if my high
school calculus was good enough.

But we got over that hurdle,
and then I came across Dr.

John Imhoff, and just in talking
with Dr. Imhoff, it was very clear

to me that that was the engineering
program I wanted to get into.

Now, having said that, I really did
not know what IEs did at that time,

and I have to say that even in my first
four years or of employment, I really

didn't have a total picture of what an
industrial ins- or systems engineer might

do in life outside of work or in work.

I was learning the different
skills of an industrial engineer,

different skills I picked up at
each of those first two plants.

I got to my third plant, still
was just looking at it as a job.

I, it, I had no involvement with
this, with work outside of work

hours, and the key distinction there
is my third facility I went to got

me more into facilitating teams.

That's where I started using personal
computers for the first time.

I think that started to ignite
some passions within me.

I won't say, though, that I was even a
time freak at that time, and I'm easily

a self-professed time freak right now.

So as time went on and there's nothing
wrong with that in, in my mind.

I, I have learned to tone it down a tad.

But as I worked more with teams, I
started to appreciate the human side

of what the profession provides in
addition to the technical side, you know.

And it really had been a technical thing.

We'd had teams in these other
facilities I'd worked in, but I

hadn't been that engaged with them,
and so my interactions with folks on

the floor tended to be from a time
study or a project-based perspective.

However, as I worked more with the
teams at this site, it was very high

percentage of self-directed teams.

It made me interested in that side,
and so when I went back for my MBA

during that third job, I got my
major in organizational development,

and that just further accelerated
that desire to work with groups.

However, I'm still just
seeing it as a job.

Really, what made the difference is
when I went to my fourth employer, I

had my best boss ever at that site.

He encouraged me to be my best, challenged
me to be my best, and that included

getting involved with volunteer-type
efforts that were team related and process

improvement related outside of work.

And that is really what got me
started in I, I hate to say it,

but almost making work almost too
much of my life at that point.

But what I discovered is that had been
kind of a part that was missing in there,

and I think that's why I really just saw
it as a job during those first 10 years.

Another thing Don introduced me to, in
addition to working outside of work from

a volunteerism perspective was the works
of, of Stephen Covey and the work of Peter

Senge, and he also had me reading Dr.

Deming.

I started seeing the parallels between
those three authors and thought leaders.

And the other thing that it got
me into was thinking about what

my personal mission was in life.

And as I worked for the five years
at that candy plant, I was really

kind of wondering, "Why am I taking
all this time away from work?

I'm already commuting an
hour each way to work.

I'm leaving at 4:00 in the morning.

I'm getting home about 5:00 in the
afternoon, and then two or three nights

a week, I'm headed off doing volunteer
stuff." And I'm going, "Well, what's up

with that?" Well, as I worked through
my personal mission, I started to

realize that I wasn't getting enough
of that at work, the people side of

things, and my personal mission really
is about helping people achieve their

potential a- as best that I can.

And that's where I really started to get
engaged in it and working with it more.

And from that point forward, what I was
trying to do in the companies I would

work with would be put in systems that
appreciate the potential of all the

employees in the organization, which is
very different than how IE got started way

back in 1910 or so with Frederick Taylor.

But as I, I worked with it more, I just
continued to see just everyone in an

organization doing great things, and I
realized how that not only enhances your

competitiveness, but it also enhances
the sustainability of the organization.

And by that point, I was sold.

One of the last things I got
involved in at the end of the '90s

was being an examiner for Baldrige.

I've been doing that for 20 years now
as well, and that gave me the chance

to see that there are organizations
out there that truly do this and

that it's integra-- you know, truly
do engage their people in a very

meaningful way across the workforce.

That gave me further validation that that
is the best approach for running or, for,

you know, for running an organization.

So by then I'm sold because my
personal mission's getting satisfied.

I'm also getting to use the technical side
of skills that I really enjoy applying.

I mean, just as much as I hate wasting
time, I, I really like the way you

identified industrial engineering
as you related it to essentialism.

You know, we do try to get rid of waste.

We do try to find the vital.

I found that we tend to overcomplicate
things way too much And most

importantly, I enjoyed that
process of continuous improvement.

And as we get into some of these other
questions that we've got, I, I think

that's gonna continue to come back.

But when you get to both experienced
organizations that practice those

philosophies and then also see
other organizations that have become

very successful doing that, it just
really gets your, your fuel going.

And so my last two organizations I worked
in, I just continued to refine that model.

And so in the transportation company I
was with, we doubled our sales in five

years without doubling the workforce.

And in my last job as plant manager,
we doubled sales in three years

without doubling the workforce.

And I have to say, it was industrial
and systems engineering concepts

that helped make that possible.

But it-- I want to stress that it's both
the people side and the Technical side.

And one thing I'm really proud of
relative to all that is my son is

now, I think, in about his 11th or
12th year as an industrial engineering

manager, and he went to school thinking
he was gonna be an aeronautical

engineer 'cause he liked math.

But then once he saw the people side
as well that sold him on IE, and he,

he's gonna be an IE for life like me.

Now, he's not as addicted as I am, but he,
I think he will be an IE for life as well.

Well, that's definitely fascinating.

It seems like there was definitely a
career evolution that I would think of as

essentialism, but applied to your work.

Right.

I mean, it, it was very serendipitous.

I call it divine intervention in a few
cases because there was a couple ca- times

where, I mean, I was actually ready to
take a job at another organization, but

the recruiter talked me into, you know, to
going to do a second interview at another

company, and that led me down a path I
really had no intention of going down.

But it, it's amazing how those things
happen, and I think sometimes that's

the interesting part of being an IE is
you can plan out certain things, but

you also have to leave room for the
more holistic higher level things, the

meta things that could end up happening.

So I, I think that's our value if we can
learn to convince others of that value.

What was your process for learning
from or extracting lessons

from mistakes in your career?

Foundationally, I think that's
where being an IE helped because it

does teach you to recognize waste.

It does teach you to recognize rework.

The first thing that popped into mind when
you asked that question, and this is more

on the technical side, I had to learn that
you can't get it exactly right on paper.

You know, you, you can, you can wish
for that, strive for that, but you gotta

be willing to let certain things go.

If you, if you want exact numbers,
if you want everything to add up,

that's really not the real world.

So that's, that's one of the first
hurdles that I had to get over, and

it's also one of the hurdles I know my

son's had to get over.

I think the other challenging part,
learning to work with people in

a true relationship-building way.

You know, IEs already have that
hurdle to overcome to begin with.

I mean, a lot of us are sent out to do
time studies or work studies or just watch

people work and come up with improvements,
and if we can't learn how to build those

relationships first as we're doing that,
we're gonna go through some rough spots

because people think we're, you know,
we're playing cop, we're spying on them.

It was interesting because in my very
first job, my direct boss was a big

proponent of engaging employees, but his
boss, the VP that was at the toy company,

he would hide behind pillars with a pieces
per hour watch He would time the people

working on his pieces per hour watch that
gave no allowance for any kind of fatigue

or other types of things that could
delay their, their, their true output.

And then he'd come back to us and say,
"You guys have your standards wrong.

You need to go out and raise your
standards. I just timed these folks." And

so it was interesting to, you know, in
hindsight, to watch how that played out.

And I think even my first boss, I was
fortunate to have someone that appreciated

the human side and helped me kinda put
industrial engineering into perspective.

So that, that was you know, wor-
learning to work with people

better, that was a challenge.

Also you know, not always having it
perfect on paper was a second challenge.

And then I think the final one
was, and this is where a lot of

IEs end up going, was What happens
when you have to supervise people?

Because then the role shifts even more
because now we're not just building

almost a peer-type relationship, we do
have a formal, a reporting relationship

that we also have to work with.

And again, you have to find that balance.

My first time around as a
supervisor, I was way too soft

because I wanted to be liked.

You know, it was kind of more the IE side
of it versus the IE/manager side of it.

And I hate to say it, but
I kinda got walked over.

But the next time around after that, I
learned to find that balance, but you have

to be able to find that balance in a, a
way that doesn't damage the relationship.

So those are the three main
things I know I've had to get over

hurdle-wise as my career progressed.

In your February 2018 column, you
talked about establishing process

capability for purposes of goal setting.

I was wondering if you could elaborate
on that topic for our audience and

explain a little bit more about your
best practices for goal setting.

Sure.

I, I would love to share that
because I also think it's an example

of looking at the vital from the
trivial, and less is less but better.

One of the things we- I get to see
in working with Baldrige and also

through, through my other work where
I get to see a lot of different

organizations, it's amazing how weak
the work system for setting goals is,

and I just wanna make sure we leave
this thought before we you know, get

too deep into, into other things.

You know, I think ISE's are
responsible for redesigning our

work systems in organizations.

And so if we can come back to that
a little bit later, I'd like to

comment on that a tad bit more.

But goal setting is a great example
of that because even in some of the

very good companies, they still use a
very simple process, which is look at

this last year's number, bump it up by
a percentage, and then try to get it.

And that totally ignores, you know, the
systems that produced last year's number.

And process capability, I mean, you can
get real deep into the heavy math with

it, and get into design of experiments,
and Taguchi's work, and all that

type of thing, but it's really just
about what is the process capable of

doing from a statistical perspective?

Really, when we go to set goals, we
should be running those control charts

on the systems that we're setting goals
for, and we should be looking at the

probability of achieving whatever goal we
might desire and be realistic about that.

The other key thing we need to do
is look at the action plans that

are part of our strategic plan and
time out how those action plans are

going to impact last year's number.

And it's not a complicated thing, and
it's one of those examples where you

don't have to get the exact numbers
right, but it's a far cry better

from what most organizations do.

A, a lot of organizations will set a goal
for the coming year that they probably

have a 5 or 10% chance of achieving
if you actually looked at the control

limits that were part of the systems
that produced the prior year's number.

That's a very frustrating thing
for the people in any department.

It damages relationships.

It affects the credibility of
the leader in a negative way.

And I, I, I think one of the things,
and this is the Deming side of me coming

out, but- You know, Dr. Deming said many
years ago, if he had to boil it down

to one thing, the simplest thing, the
most vital thing, yeah, I added those

words there, but he said it's all about
reducing variation, and yet very few

managers even know the difference between
common cause variation and special cause

variation, let alone how to, you know,
create a basic control chart and c- and

get probabilities from that control chart.

So it's no more complicated than
that, but it's just a step above on

the technical side than what most
managers are willing to get into.

So I don't think we realize the damage
that our current approaches are causing,

but we s- so often set goals that are
unattainable, especially in the near term.

So it's one of the things I
probably battle on a regular basis

Isn't it a bit of a human instinct
for us to chomp off more than we can

chew sometimes, perhaps when we've
set the bar so high that maybe we

fall just short, and then it causes us
to scale back a bit as a precaution?

Is there a way to overcome that
feeling, as to say that just because

you didn't hit that mark doesn't
mean that it's not achievable?

Yeah, I mean, I think there is, and
the way that I suggest that folks look

at it is it's good to have ideals.

And I'll give you the most
common example I come across.

It's in, it's in the world of
safety and environment, where

people want zero incidents.

You know, they don't want
anything bad to happen.

And that's an admirable ideal, but
from a goal perspective, a system gives

you what it's designed to give you.

And I think where we get challenged
is we're not willing to make the

fundamental system changes necessary
to achieve the goals that we aspire to.

And I think at the root of it is
we don't understand the systems

that we're setting goals for.

It's our weakness in understanding our
processes and systems from a numerical

perspective is really quite weak.

We're lucky if you see har-
very many processes at all

that are trended over time.

So often it's snapshots
that we try to manage by.

You know, we reward people
for being under budget without

really looking at the waste.

One saying I've come up with in the last
couple years is, "If managers knew the

true cost of the daily errors that were
occurring, they'd make very different

decisions." And I think that's where,
again, industrial and systems engineers

have a role to play in using technology
to come up with easy ways to capture

those daily problems, analyze them, break
them down, and help show people how if

we truly want to go after these goals
or achieve these ideals in a shorter

timeframe, here's where the leverage is.

Folks understand that in the financial
world in some regard in terms of

investing, things like that, but often
when it comes to work systems, we don't

realize there's leverage points in these
systems, but they are waste-driven.

I mean, meeting waste is a great example.

If you simply track your meeting defects,
I would say over a four to six-week

period, and review those trends during
that timeframe, you will eliminate most

of the things that make meetings wasteful.

And yet I've met so many managers that
don't want to treat meetings as a process,

even though they're highly repetitive and
occur quite frequently in organizations.

So, it's a bit of a mystery, but
I'm hoping that we can take a role

in turning those light bulbs on,
hopefully sooner versus later.

I, I've got my own plans for trying
to do those types of things, at

least in terms of sharing content,
but I think the folks that are in

organizations, we need to start turning
our industrial and systems engineering

lenses further up in the organization
versus staying on the front lines.

I think we've about optimized a lot of
the front-line performance from a micro

scale, and we have to start getting much
more macro with how we apply our tools.

You wrote a really interesting
post on your Facebook page.

It appeared in late April this being the
Facebook page for Great Systems, and I'm

gonna describe for our audience the image
and the text you, you applied with it.

The image is basically a sign at
a local soccer field, and it lists

some instructions for visitors
and I guess primarily adults.

The sign says, "Please
remember, one, these are kids.

Two, this is a game.

Three, the coaches are volunteers.

Four, the referees are human.

Five, this is not the World Cup." And the
text that you wrote with it reads as this:

"The relationship between work cultures
and social cultures is a symbiotic one.

They feed each other.

This sign at my local soccer park
reflects poorly on our social culture.

One can only wonder how the same
systems and behaviors that created

the need for this sign are also
affecting daily job performance.

Cooperation and true teamwork,
not ultra-competitiveness, is

needed for higher performance.

Change systems to shift
culture and keep improving.

To what degree can our competitive
nature in athletics be used

to achieve tasks in our work?"

Yeah, it was interesting because I
drive by that sign when I'm home about

every other day, and I probably went by
it 10 times before I said, "I'm gonna

take a picture and make a post on this,
'cause it's just bugging me too much."

But I also think about well, 'cause,
you know, I, I get where it's coming

from, and, you know, I think we've
even heard people talk about this in

the mainstream media, where so many
parents in the current generation

are living through their kids.

And I, I think it says a lot about what's
happening at work, because I believe

if you were getting more significance
from work, if you felt that you were

contributing more and gaining more
benefit from work, growing more from

work, then you wouldn't have to look
at your kids so much as validation that

you're a good person or a good parent.

So that's the first thing that I see.

In terms of competitiveness, I think
competitiveness is necessary in the

world of business, but it's the type
of competitiveness that we need to

really give heavy thought to, you know.

And this is another thing I learned
from Deming, but one-winner systems

are, they're harmful, you know.

They, they may give some short-term
benefit to the one winner, but

what do they tell all the other
people that tried real hard to

contribute in one way or another?

And I know with myself I'm a, I support
this philosophy that I've heard some

others share on other podcasts where
Don't worry about your competition

as much as compete with yourself.

You know, are you getting
better, you know, year over year,

month over month, day over day?

I mean, are you truly-- do you
have evidence that you're truly

practicing continuous improvement?

I am high-- I, I would say I'm probably
overly competitive with myself, and I

know my my watch, my Apple Watch has
made me competitive in managing my sleep.

It's made me ma- competitive in managing
my fitness even more than I already was.

I know if I started punching in
food data into that thing, I'd

get even more competitive there.

And so I, I think if we compete with
ourself, we're okay, but when we start

singling out individuals that count
on a team to be successful, that's

where we really get into trouble.

I know in our trucking company,
when we were able to double sales in

five years, one key change we made
is we eliminated sales commissions.

And what we found is that our salespeople
were more focused on getting any kind of

business that they could find, whether
that compromised the, the effectiveness

of the freight system or not.

And so they'd land a new customer 10 to 15
miles away from any n- existing delivery

route just to get the revenue, and now
we had to add a new truck you know,

dedicate more equipment, dedicate another
driver and the driver's time just to go

out there and pick up that new freight.

And it was amazing how the focus on
the commission was detracting from

the focus on the larger work system.

And conversely in organizations where
I've seen the team focus on a team

set of metrics that are process-based,
and they all share equally in

the benefits or a reas- you know,
equally from a relative perspective

based on skills and contributions
that tends to work very, very well.

I think the athletic world is, is
very interesting in this regard

because I think a lot of teams and
individuals do compete with themselves,

and I think some coaches could…

or managers could set whatever goals
they would like, and I think the,

the athletes are just naturally going
to compete with themselves more.

I'm not gonna say that's across the board,
but I do see, I mean, if I look at where

metrics are used the most effectively
right now, and this is the higher lever

metrics, you know, the algorithms, the
meaningful ratios, things like that,

it's in both sports and gambling, where
there's a high incentive, but anyone can

win if they, if they achieve the goal.

So, it, it's gonna be very interesting
to see where that plays out because those

two groups are just doing unbelievable
things with really their IE skills.

It's simulation, it's Monte Carlo
simulation, it's regression analysis,

and it's basic, and it's basic
s- statistical process control.

But they're taking those, what I
consider to be IE industrial and system

engineers tools, and they're using them
to really understand those systems.

I mean, the, the ability to predict
player value both in the near term

and in the longer term is just
accelerating in terms of accuracy.

If you just look at, I think the
oldest pitcher in Major League Baseball

is now, I think we might have one
that's 40, and I think the next one's

37, and all the rest are under 35.

Just the way the average age of a
Major League Baseball pitcher has

dropped, and it is all database.

Those are database choices.

And I, I think it's very interesting
to look at how data's being used in

these high-dollar industries to you
know, help people make better choices.

And my argument is, if you look
at corporations, a lot of them

aren't that much different.

It's just the money's
allocated differently.

But it's amazing stuff for me to watch.

Of course, I'm a bit of a sports fan,
but at the same time it's great examples

of how you can use data to both optimize
systems, identify performance potential,

and just understand a system in general.

I'm constantly thinking about how
much ISE principles can positively

impact a workspace or home life.

I practice it at home myself now.

I always think of things in terms of
value add, because aside from practicing

essentialism, I also practice minimalism.

So I'm constantly thinking about what
would an ISE do in my apartment, you know?

Like, what, what would they do to
help improve how I can use my space

for work, how I can sort of keep my
bedroom just to be for rest and not

for, you know, bedroom plus office
plus television, et cetera, et cetera.

But it seems that the roles and
capabilities of ISE's are still

misidentified at large and in
some cases slightly mythical.

I sort of think the general public
understands notions of supply chains

and logistics thanks to companies
that have marketed themselves as such,

you know, UPS, Amazon, et cetera.

Then again, pop culture has
sometimes misled people about what

it really means for a business
or organization to be efficient.

It doesn't just mean fire everyone like
the Bobs in the movie Office Space.

So my question for you is, what
are your thoughts on the exposure

and/or the public perception of
industrial and systems engineers?

What needs to change to better
clarify who, for lack of a

better term, makes things better?

It's interesting because, you know,
you use the example of yourself, and I

would suspect that just, you know, all
the time you've spent both studying and

writing about and living in the world
of industrial and systems engineering,

you've done the tangible things that
exist in your world, and I think supply

chains were one of the first things
we attacked that were more nebulous,

you know, less tangible more holistic.

And even now, it's not even a
chain in a lot of people's minds.

It's more of a network.

So I think that's the challenge
is how can we make tangible the

types of things that we can do?

And it's interesting to me because
it really has to be about, I think,

making life better for people both
a work life and a personal life.

I, I struggle to find any examples in
the media, and I tend to watch a little

more pop culture than maybe I should,
but I rarely see work talked about

as something that could ever be good.

It, it's almost like work is expected
to be bad, and you're expected

to live for the weekend because
work's never going to change.

We see the same type of thing with
the Baldrige process, and I think

one thing we need to do… Well,
maybe two things come to mind there.

One is we need to make much more
visible what industrial and systems

engineers have done in organizations,
and often they do that as managers.

It's really amazing to me how many
managers and directors and vice

presidents and folks like that that I
come across that have been industrial

and systems engineers, and I think,
you know, inside, in their heart

and in their brain, they still are.

You know, I think they practice both
the more direct tangible skills on

a regular basis, but I also think
they can see systems better, and

I think there's some value there.

And so maybe with technology We're gonna
have the ability to help people better

visualize, first of all, what is a work
system, and then how can industrial and

systems engineers help out with that?

I-- But I think telling stories is
probably the best way to reach people,

and that's telling stories of success.

You know, both success i-in the role
that had that title, but also success

in changing departments, changing
plants, changing organizations,

using industrial and systems
engineering skills as a foundation.

If, if we can't make it tangible, I
don't think we have much of a chance,

and I know people relate to stories
better than anything else, and I think

we have to speak to the people side.

You know, how can we make work not
only a better place, but that's where

we spend so much of our waking hours.

How can we make it a place
we almost desire to go to?

'Cause I think even in the
high-performing companies, people

would rather be with their families.

They'd rather be out having fun.

Work's not a number one priority.

But it's back to that thing,
you know, about the, the

social and the work culture.

What takes place away from work affects
what goes on at work, and vice versa.

And somehow I think we
need to tie that together.

Real quick follow-up.

In twenty twelve, I wrote about the
presidential election for ISE Magazine.

It was called Industrial
Engineer at the time.

And I wrote about the adaptation of Lean
Six Sigma from, say, the executive branch.

There was a gentleman from Motorola who
wanted the candidates to sign a pledge

saying that they would implement Lean
Six Sigma if they were elected president.

Of course, the only two candidates
who didn't sign the pledge ended up

being Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

My point to all of this is to ask the
role of the industrial engineer in

government from a civil perspective,
is it frustrating sometimes observing,

just in whether it be in communities
at the state level, at the national

level, our inability to solve problems
sometimes simply when you know there

may be an ISE principle that could
be applied and just make it happen?

Y-yeah, most definitely.

The polarization of our country
bothers me significantly, and I don't

think it bodes well for our future.

Just like with organizations, there are
communities out there that are doing

excellent things, and I would imagine
that there's industrial and systems

engineers working behind those communities
And I think maybe some research is

needed to go out and find those folks.

It's similar to healthcare.

We've got some very good healthcare
systems out there now, and I think

that number's slowly growing, but it's
not growing near as fast as it should.

And I know industrial and systems
engineers are involved with

a lot of those organizations.

I think a lot of it's just a, a better
job of promoting who's doing what and

what are some of the great things they're
doing, and maybe build some mass in terms

of attracting more people to a profession
that can have that kind of impact.

And I know that speaks to the hearts
of a lot of our younger generations.

You know, the-- if work isn't a good place
to focus, let's look at the community.

Let's look at thing-- systems that support
the community other than the workplace.

I, I think there's some value there,
and I, you know, I don't know of any

specific ones, but I do think there's
some universities that are starting

to try to position the industrial and
systems engineering focus to start

to include some of those things.

I look at what John Corless is doing
relative to sustainability up in the

Northeast, and John, I think, has had
some pretty significant impact outside

of the workplace in terms of talking
about sustainability with industrial and

systems engineering at the root of this.

You know, and John's
an engineering fellow.

In fact, I think he's leading
the fellows group right now.

Very active in that kind of thing.

I think he's done some
very powerful things.

And so I think it's just taking models
like that, promoting them, attracting

interest to maybe something that's
outside of work, and then that feeds

back into the workplace by osmosis.

To your knowledge, in academia
now, are professors and instructors

sort of teaching students to just
ke- always keep an eye out for

a problem that needs solving?

I really couldn't speak to that.

I would have to defer to someone
that lives in that world.

I think they're somewhat bound by
the curriculum, and I would say that

if we started looking globally at
industrial and systems engineering

departments, we might have a little
better chance of finding that.

I know I worked with the University of
Mayab down in Northern Yucatan, and they

are making curriculum modifications to
look at, you know, look at Lean more, look

at teams more you know, look at problems
that go outside of the traditional

US industrial engineering curriculum.

Mm-hmm.

And I imagine if we looked at other
universities around the world that are

teaching this, we would probably find
some examples of where this is occurring.

Just as I think they are in the United
States, the percentages are just so small

and, and, and, and that's where I'm hoping
technology can help spread the word.

I know that's one thing I wanna do as
I go forward is, you know, find ways

to share best practices, get them out
there, and maybe attract some desire

to start improving what's going on.

Okay.

In another column you wrote last year
in ISE Magazine you quoted Socrates.

You said, "The only thing I know is that
I don't know it at all." Becoming the web

editor for IISE invited me into the world
of coding, and it's an education that I've

pursued that helps me improve how well I
can digitally build and code, and it makes

me think of an article that I read on
the seven stages of software engineering,

which in short, give guidance on how
someone goes from being an innocent toward

a skill or discipline worker, and then
to being a master of a particular skill.

When it comes to continuous learning
and improvement, given the many, many

distractions in this digital age, how
do we best gauge our own progress?

How do we know when we've been
appropriately tested, or do we just

never stop asking ourselves, "Am
I a master of the skill or will

I always be just a journeyman?"

I think it depends on your worldview.

If you limit yourself to, you know, your
department or your plant or your hospital

you know, your little small world, then
I think you may see yourself as a master.

But just the pace of change in
today's world and then whatever's

going to build off of what's already
going on, I'd be surprised if we

ever got close to mastering it.

I mean, I think you can master certain
approaches, but that's a relative mastery.

As time progresses, what once was mastery
level prof- a level of proficiency ends

up becoming almost apprentice again.

So I learned a quote from Peter
Drucker, I think it was about Oh,

30 years ago now, he started talking
about every 200 years we have a

significant transformational change.

You know, things like the Renaissance,
the Industrial Revolution, and now

what he was calling the Information
Age back when he was talking about

that every 200 years concept.

And that one really stuck with me.

It was probably 1992, 1993
when I came across that.

And that plus Moore's Law, what that's
doing with technology, it is just

so radically changing everything.

I know myself, I, I
won't ever quit learning.

I, I won't ever get to the point where
I consider myself a master of… I don't

even know, of a certain type of code.

I mean, I look at all-- I learned five
languages in my undergraduate degree,

and all of them are irrelevant now.

And I think by the time I learn, you know,
something like Swift or Xcode or something

like that, it may also be obsolete.

I think I've just committed myself to
almost learning something new every year.

It's the reason you know, with
my own stuff I do it all myself

just for the purpose of learning.

I could-- I could pay money
to have someone do it, but

to me, that's not the value.

It's, I, I think it's just grad- it's
just constant skill upkeep Because

if nothing else, it's how do I apply
technology to more effectively do

what I've been doing in the past
with lesser technological tools?

But the other key piece, and I
don't know, maybe there's people

that are masters of this, but
it's that relationship component.

It's the ability to work with people,
and as our world gets more diverse,

it just gets harder and harder to
ever, I think, to ever say you're a

master at developing relationships.

I think you can do it with folks
that are more like you or folks that

are closer to what you're used to.

But as we just get more and more diverse,
and I think this is partially why we're

polarized so much, we haven't seen
relationship building as really the

foundation to making all of this work.

The technical piece are tools you
apply once the relationships have been

established, but the relationship piece
is key, and maybe that's something

we need to teach more as well.

But to me, that's the difference.

And so with technology changing,
building on itself, world becoming n-

more diverse r- and more global, I mean,
we are global now, the relationship

piece makes it just equally hard, if
not, who knows, a factor of five or 10

harder to become a master at something.

You know, it, it's not like…

It's… It'd be like if we took a violin
and we're changing the design of the

violin on a regular basis, or we're
changing the way music is written or

the way, you know, music is played.

I think you can become a master
within certain worlds, but I think

in terms of the larger perspective,
that's a pretty tough thing to

do with all the change going on.

Very true.

Very true.

Referring back to Essentialism, Greg
McKeown's book talks a lot about

priority, priority meaning one.

There aren't multiple priorities.

It's, it's a word in its plural
form that was just made up at some

point, but priority means one.

So in the context of that, what do
you think is the priority for ISE's

in respect to a particular industry
or segment of our culture that needs

help right now, that needs some type
of improvement most immediately?

I think it's the work systems that
shape organizations, so things like

the way we develop our leaders, the
way we do strategic and action planning

very much the way we engage customers,
both our internal customers and our

external customers the way we use
technology to both analyze processes

better and also just lean data capture,
you know, to capture more data in less

amount of time and then learn to sort
out what is the meaningful data from

what is not, and just get back to a
process-based focus on improvement.

W- because we're creatures of habit.

I think that's the article I'm about to
write for this, the magazine article I'm

working on for IISE this coming month.

People are creatures of habit,
and they do repeatable things, and

those repeatable things are called
processes, and all processes produce

results, but we often don't see that.

And I'm working on a book that kinda
has a higher work system focus.

In, in doing my research, I came across
Aaron Dignan's book on Brave New Work,

and it's more of a conceptual focus,
but at the same time, it's interesting

to see that he starts off the book
talking about Frederick Taylor and how

Frederick Taylor Designed his practices
around a certain type of workplace.

And part of his presentation, he
shows an org chart from early 1900s,

which was really coming out of the
railroads, and that org chart hasn't

changed much, and that's really his
thesis, and I agreed with him 100%.

That's why I was drawn to the book.

If we look at our work systems, those
things I just mentioned, how we do them,

they haven't changed that much in 100
years, and they definitely have not

changed with the advent of technology.

And you know Moore's law you know,
like I do, you know, memory density

and processing speed doubles every 18
months on average, and that curve, we're

still climbing that exponential curve.

And it… Every day we go by without
modifying how we approach work

from a management work systems
perspective, we're losing ground.

And eventually, someone's going to catch
on to that, whether they're in the s-

doing that in the States or whether
they're doing that in India or China or

some other part of the world, and they're
gonna have just tremendous leverage

on other organizations, where they can
learn how to drive… It's almost like

driving work in an engagement-focused
manner and a process-focused manner.

And if they do that, then
think about if we truly had

essentialism in the workplace.

You know, we only focused
on what was truly important.

It would radically change how
organizations are structured, and I

think that's where Aaron's coming from
in his Brave New Workbook and that's also

something I would like to see happen.

So that's what I'd like to see
occur before I pass, is that we can

actually make that, that transition
and bring our workplaces up to the

21st century, if not the mid-21st
century by the time it happens.

I hope it doesn't take that long.

Neither do I.

Well, we're not off to
a good start, but…

Yeah.

Yeah, I can, I can, I can see
that argument, definitely.

Kevin, thank you so much.

Thank you, David.

Thanks for joining us on this
curated episode of Problem Solved.

If you enjoy listening to Problem Solved,
rate and review us on Apple and Spotify.

Join us next time.

Every great solution is
a story worth telling.