Making Do, A Novel Distinction of Waste
August 22nd, 2004 by HalMaking Do: The Eighth Category of Waste, by Lauri Koskela.
I've written about the eighth waste in my posting introducing Two Great Wastes™. A number of people want to update Taiichi Ohno's taxonomy of materiel waste. Lauri Koskela is the most recent. Lauri's eighth waste is the most novel. He claims we incur waste when we fail to use the tools, materials, and processes that are called for. He calls this making do.
Lauri calls making do the opposite of buffering. He distinguishes that as the urge to keep the process going in spite of not having everything ready. When buffering materials are waiting on processing. With making do processing continues without all appropriate wherewithal. Lauri claims,
"Making do is usually applied when there is unexpected unavailability of a (standard) input. Making do is another penalty due to variability."
I really like his formulation. Lauri is getting at something that we all know well. Have you used a screwdriver when another tool was called for? I have. Have you improvised steps for accomplishing a task rather than use the standard called for? I have. Have you substituted one material for another rather than stop to get the right material? I have. I imagine at one time or another we have all taken an expedient action. We were making do with some intention to just get the job done.
Blindness is not making do.
While I wasn't present for his presentation and discussion I heard that some people thought he was stretching it. Here's their argument: how can we be making do when we are working with all we have? And if we are, how would that be a waste? We can think of scenarios where we are in the wilderness, or far from a source of material, or in a country without access to the best resources. Lauri is not speaking about any of this. He's speaking about the situation where we have the time to do planning. We have clear direction about what is preferred. And we have access to sources of materials, tools, skilled labor, and process. It is in these usual project situations that making do is so wasteful.
One problem is people think waste is observable. It is not observable only assessable. What do I mean? We can observe someone is using a screwdriver. We have the opinion that a different tool would get better results. That is our assessment. There is not given waste. Further, if people are blind to other possibilities, then how can we call it waste? Do you open a paint can with a screwdriver? I do. Did you know there is a special tool for opening paint cans? Well, I didn't. One cannot claim I am making do when all I know about is the use of screwdrivers for opening paint cans. Blindness is not making do.
I'm still curious about the underlying contributors to making do. It seems to me that resignation, laziness, expediency, habit or custom, blindness, and deliberate action all contribute to the waste. Local economics and market conditions have a great impact on whether we call an action making do or doing good. When I can hire laborers for a few dollars a day am I making do when I choose not to rent equipment at two or three times the cost? Of course not! Economics matter. There is no universal standard for assessing that one is making do.
I have one last comment about the formulation. Lauri presumes cognitive action. Lauri says that it is our response to the unexpected unavailability of wherewithal that is the waste. Sure, but I think he can go further. In the project setting variability is a function of the performance of the planning system and practices. We can engage in a way that minimizes the unexpected unavailability. Doing so would reduce the urge for expediency. That could lead to a significant reduction in this waste.
Lauri offers a new distinction for engaging with the world that allows people to observe and assess waste. Read Making Do: The Eighth Category of Waste. Share the paper with your team. And begin observing and assessing where you are making do.
Check out other IGLC papers and commentaries.
Related Posts
- Project Killer Phrases Listen up! If you hear any of these phrases, then it's time to have a conversation with your project manager or your...
- Norman Bodek Invents Ninth Waste People can't seem to leave Ohno's Seven Wastes alone. Norman Bodek, godfather of lean, made the latest addition. He ...
- Source of Greatest Project Waste When doing construction projects there are four usual lead roles: project manager, project architect, superintendent, ...
- 5R Project Protocol (Proposal) For the sake of this discussion let's use the example of a project that is strictly virtual. There is no one workplace....
- Fault, Flaw, and now Fizzy One key objective of lean is reducing waste. Doing so requires paying attention to surroundings and assessing something...
August 23rd, 2004 at 7:34 am
Lauri is right when talking manufacturing. Stop-th-line is a well known example of not making do from Toyota.
But making do is often nesessary when dealing with complex and dynamic systems such as construction. Take for instance the weather, which is not always optimal.
In complex projects there often are windows of opportunities, which much be used even at costs.
I feel we need to understand the condcept of waste in not-ordered systems much deeper.
Of cause we should establish penalties for making do when we could have established better conditions by timely action, but as the physicist Per Bak stated: the propability of something improbable happes is very high, because so much improbabble can happen.
Sven