This paper caught my attention because I have been concerned that Lean has been exclusively interpreted by people with a scientific orientation and that we might be missing quite a bit by not understanding how Lean would be interpreted by people with an artistic focus. How do a couple of Lean thinkers with an explicitly scientific perspective view Lean?

The paper proposes Lean as a science of work based on optimizing flow, much in alignment with the perspective of Lean presented in This is Lean written by Par Alhstrom and Niklas Modig. The authors describe Lean as an applied science, and flow as the process of energy moving through a system. A Lean enterprise is full of scientists using the scientific method optimize flow by using less and less energy to create value for a customer.

There are some important points made by the authors regarding the unbalanced focus on waste by some Lean advocates. As they point out waste is only one disrupter to flow, with command-and-control cultures, diffused focus, and blame being other inhibitors of flow. Lean is much more than eliminating waste, and an exclusive focus on waste can result in what the authors recognize as Lean implementation failure. In a related way they note that short-term focusing on tools, waste reduction, and belt expert programs results in unsustainable Lean transformations.

The most important points in this paper relate to understanding Lean as a collaborative science versus a participatory science. In a Lean enterprise knowledge is a social construction as opposed to an exposition of truths as determined by (smarter than us) experts. This is where I suggest that while Lean can be understood as a work science there is still an artistic aspect of Lean that we are overlooking.

First, we need to consider that science plays a role in art. Western music is based on specific mathematical relationships between sound waves. The visual arts consider relationships or colors and perspectives, the most pleasing of which can be described in scientific terms. Movies, books, plays and television program adhere to rules that have been demonstrated through experimentation and practice to communicate stories in effective ways. And yet we call the work products of these efforts art, and not science.

Second, the paper notes that the Lean focus on the present creates real biochemical changes in people that are both rewarding and addictive. This includes increases in motivation, learning, creativity, and innovation. That sounds like changes we expect to find from art rather than science.

This paper makes a point that helps me better understand the possible balance between science and art in Lean. The authors state that flow is the process of energy moving through a system and that the energy must be aligned with enterprise priorities. What are those priorities? Perhaps they are the story we want to tell, not just to customers but also to investors, managers, and maybe most importantly to the people responsible for the work.

That begs a question. Is Lean not only about minimizing the energy moving through a system, but also about designing that system along with its priorities in the first place? Is that story (or image or song) in the domain of science or art? Is the purpose of that story purely utilitarian or does it include the creation of joy and awe? How do we decide what story works best for all of us?

We’re assembling a group of artists for a three-day workshop in May to explore those and other questions about Lean. Contact me if you have questions about the workshop. Meanwhile, I encourage you to read this paper found by clicking here.