A New approach to Lean

Business901 Podcast Transcription
Implementing Lean Marketing Systems

Approaching Lean from a Different
Perspective
Guest was Robert Fritz

Related Podcast:
A New Approach to Lean – Robert Fritz

Sponsored by

Copyright Business901


Robert Fritz has been around the
Dr. Deming world, which we
discuss in the latter part of the
podcast, since the 1970s. You may
even recognize his work as he was
an instrumental part of the original
Systems Thinking Group with Peter
Senge. Peter actually offers a
marvelous introduction in the book.

Robert Fritz, composer, filmmaker
and organizational consultant is the
founder of Technologies for
Creating. During the past twenty-five
years, over 80,000 people in 27 countries
have participated in trainings created by
Robert Fritz. His insights on the creative
process and structural dynamics serve as
the foundation of meaningful and lasting
change for both individuals and
organizations.

In Robert Fritz’s, The Path of Least
Resistance for Managers (In the new
edition, Robert has added a chapter on
Lean in the update) and calls it “The New
Lean.”


Transcription of Podcast
Joe: Yes, how did your workshop go? Were you pleased?

Robert: Great. It was really great. It was a three -day
workshop and we covered traditional Lean and then
transferred it into the structural approach to Lean and
everybody saw how much more efficient it was. The
structural approach toward it created these tremendous
efficiencies, we designed many, many systems.

We had a couple of experimental ones, model ones,
demo ones but then the rest of them were all from real
life, from people in the room. It was really quite
extraordinary to see how quickly through more of a
compositional approach they could design very, very
comprehensive and economy of means types of
systems.

Joe: I'm intrigued by it, because are you familiar with the
Toyota Kata work that Mike Rother did because it's
very, very familiar. I mean it's very similar type
thinking and talk.

Robert: It's not. Not in orientation - not in orientation at all.

Joe: Really, why?

Robert: I really think, Joe; we're breaking new ground here in
reinventing the whole subject matter. So it's not like
theme in variations. It's really like a new song; it's like
a new... It's like another generation of Lean.

Joe: I think you are breaking new ground with it. It’s
discovery. It's creating that tension. It's in creating


really that structural tension with the customer.

Welcome everyone; this is Joe Dager the host of the
Business901 Podcast. With me today is Robert Fritz.
Robert is a composer, filmmaker, organizational
consultant, and founder of Technologies for Creating,
and author of numerous books, including the bestseller,
"The Path of Least Resistance." His latest, I believe is a
re-write of "The Path of Least Resistance for
Managers."

Robert, I'd like to welcome you and mention that I'm a
long-time fan back from the mid-90's in my systems
thinking days and where I first ran across your first
book and later read your book "Creating". I have to
admit that I lost track of your writing and did not read
"The Path of Least Resistance for Managers" until
probably around 2006 or so, when a colleague of mine
recommended it by saying that, "I wish this would have
been the first business book that I've ever read."

Give me the elevator speech in why you re-wrote "The
Path of Least Resistance for Managers."

Robert: The reason I wrote the first version of it was because
what I was seeing in organization. First of all, let me
sort of describe what I mean by the path of least
resistance - just the phrase itself because there are two
meanings to that. One is the colloquial meaning, which
is the easy way out and the other is the scientific
meaning which is an energy moves where it's easiest
for it to go.

What I'm referring to is the scientific meaning, not the
colloquial meaning. What I saw in organizations over

the years was that organizations were often structured
in such a way that success did not always succeed. I
saw that there were two patterns that were common.
One was advancement in which you set out for
something; you get it, and the success becomes a
platform for future success, and of course that's how
we would all like it to be.

But too often it's not that way. It actually is something
that's a different pattern, one that oscillates. That is
you set out for something, you get it, and then
something happens and there's a reversal, and you lose
what you gained. This kind of oscillating pattern we've
seen over and over, over the last 30, 40 years in
organizations. Where organizations build up capacity
and then they downsize, and they build up capacity and
then they downsize.

They decentralize decision-making, and then they
centralize it again, and they decentralize and centralize.
They focus on shareholder return on investment and
then they switch to customer satisfaction, and then
back to shareholder and on and on we can predict, we
can see these oscillations and they are predictable. And
the question then became what gives rise to these
obvious patterns of behavior.

By the way, when you're in those systems, they're not
obvious, but when you back out of the system and just
look at it from a longer-range time frame, they become
kind of hard to miss.

Joe: Do companies do that when let's say they, change
CEOs? I know in football, it always seems like you have
an offensive type coach and what you need is defense

so the next time they hire a new head coach, they
always hire the defensive guy then because that's what
they're doing wrong. Is that kind of the oscillation that
you mean?

Robert: Sometimes it's within the same management system
and sometimes it's the change of a management
system which then changes back, which then changes
back. It almost doesn't matter if they're in a structure
that gives rise to an oscillating pattern of behavior. The
last point I want to make before saying why I rewrote
the book is that it is the underlying structure.

By “structure," I'm not talking about reporting
relationships. I'm talking about the combination of
ingredients of all the elements, the desires, aspirations,
reward systems, market, product, etc., etc., etc. All of
those things combine to create a like a musical piece.
They combine to create a tendency for behavior.

If you don't change the underlying structure, and if it's
not an oscillating structure, and if you try to make a
change happen within an oscillating structure. We will
see the pattern of the change first being accepted and
then being rejected. It doesn't matter how good the
change effort itself is, it's the underlying structure that
will determine whether or not it succeeds.

Joe: Is that the culture?

Robert: No, it's something that causes the culture, the
underlying structure. A good example of a change of
underlying structure is when Steve Jobs came back to
Apple. If you remember at that time, Apple was being
talked about as being sold; they were being talked

about as being a clone, like a PC clone. When Steve
Jobs came back he changed the underlying structure of
the company and of the business strategy and that's
led to their tremendous success.

But a change of underlying structure was required and
that's what Jobs did when he came back is he really
changed not the culture. The culture is a by-product.
People talk about culture, but it's ridiculous because
they never ask, "What causes the culture?" It's the
underlying structure that causes the culture. If I don't
have a change in the underlying structure, I don't have
a change in anything. So the best efforts can fail
because there's no change of what's causing the
behavior that we're seeing.

I rewrote the book because 12 years later after I wrote
the original version I had seen so much, I had put so
much to the test of what was in that book. I had so
many more examples and it was 12 years later and it
really needed an update. So I rewrote it and added
probably 100 pages, emphasized leadership more than
ever as you and I have just been talking a new chapter
on what I'm calling the new Lean or the structural
approach to Lean, which is a rethink of Lean
management.

Joe: Smaller picture we see it practically day to day. So
what you're talking about doesn't necessarily have to
apply just in the big picture, the Apple to Steve Jobs
thing, this also plays in day to day work.

Robert: Oh sure. Look, I'll just give you a quick example. If I
reward the sales of folks for building up sales and I
reward the factory for making quality and suddenly the

sales overwhelm the factory where their quality goes
down and then what happens from that is customers
start going away. When they do that, the sales senior
sales people say we need more sales; they build up
more sales.

Again, there's a cycle where it overwhelms the factory
and you have oscillating quality; you have oscillating
sales, and often it's thought that you have a personality
conflict between the head of sales and the head of the
factory and you don't. What you have is a structure in
which rewarding people for doing two different things
that are contradictory.

The way to change that is to really have the sales goal
and quality goal be exactly the same, so we don't make
more than we sell more than we can make, but we do
sell as many as we can make. But that's thinking
relationally. I'm thinking about quality and sales
together versus fragmenting them like most
organizations do.

Joe: But that's not really possible. I mean you're always
going to have an unbalance aren't you? I mean, there's
never going to be that commonality in that example. I
mean there's always . . .

Robert: No, it's not possible if you don't do it. But it's possible if
you do it. And that means I've got to get sales and I've
got to get senior management in the room. This is
where leadership counts. You know we just don't sort
of reward, set these guys off on their journeys, reward
them for success and not notice that if one of them is
successful, it's going to hurt the other one.


We really have to think about it more systemically,
more holistically, more structurally, more like putting a
composition together, more like how music is written
where the parts really fit together rather than
inadvertently fight against each other. When I look at a
lot of organizations all, I see is bad composition. By the
way, I'm a composer, so my reference is how we write
music.

I look at these things and it's really not that
complicated both to understand but also to change
because what I've got to do then is start to understand
the relationships or the networks of relationships and
the dependencies of them to each other and then how
to better organize the goals.

Joe: I think that's the key understanding the networks. Is
this, what hinders when we talk about the failures of
any type of a transformation and mostly in my world,
we talk about a Lean transformation and how often
they fail. Is this underlying structure the key to why
these failures occur?

Robert: I think there are two keys to why those failures occur.
One is certainly structural. But the other I think is also,
there's the nature of the way traditional Lean has been
set up that builds in its failure. It's just the nature of
how it is. Let me say about traditional Lean, I think
there're some very good things about it and I think
when it has worked it has produced some tremendous
results.

But as most Lean people know it really is hard to put it
into an organization and have it sustain itself. I think
there are reasons for that, structural reasons for that.

That's the nature of the beast. I've gotten interested in
over the last number of years is to redesign, reinvent in
a way, the whole process of Lean so that in fact, it is
sustainable, it does work.

People are interested in it and enthusiastic about it not
from a devotee kind of point of view. Because a lot of
times when you look at Lean organizations, you've got
a group of folks who are almost like religious nuts.

You know and everything is waste unless it's value to
the customer and their complete purists and there's the
rest of the organization who hates them.

Joe: Is this what you mean by the new Lean? What you're
proposing here?

Robert: Let me tell. Let me say some of the differences
between traditional Lean and what we're doing.
Traditional Lean is problem-based. So the first thing
that people do is they look for problems and then they
try to eradicate the problems and here's just a fact that
all of us as human beings will know. You can solve all
of your problems and still not have what you want.

One of the things that, if you notice, in my books, I'm
always criticizing problem-solving, particularly if it's
chronic. I know managers love problem solving but
probably one of the worst things you can do is spend
your time problem solving. What the difference is when
we work with organizations one of the first things we
do is help them change their orientation from a
problem orientation to an outcome orientation.

Rather than asking the question, "What are we trying

to get rid of? What problems are we trying to solve?"
The question becomes, "What are the outcomes we're
trying to achieve?" What are we trying to produce?
What are we trying to create?" And that's not just the
change of a question it really is a change of orientation.
How we think about things.

The second step in that orientation is to look at current
reality. Where are we now in relation to where we want
to be? That will not only include the problems. It will
include everything: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
You know, everything there is to see that's relevant to
that outcome we need to be looking at and that
includes the advantages as well.

The question becomes how do we move from where we
are to where we want to be and that's really the key to
innovation. That's when we begin to understand and
conceive of things, we hadn't thought of before, some
of which will be real innovations in process
improvements. In a way, limitation of traditional Lean
is its problem based.

Joe: One of the things that I want to ask you before you go
on though. It seems a lot of people have problems with
identifying current reality. I hate to say it that way but
there's always a “What if?” Or “This isn't quite true,” or
they paint different scenarios than really accepting
what current state is and you expand on that in your
work. I'm not sure which book cause I got them kind of
comingled in my mind a little but is there a secret to
defining current reality?

Robert: Well, remember one of my famous quotes according to
Google is, 'reality is an acquired taste'. And I think

that's true, but if we start with, "What is the outcome
we want?" We're not looking at general reality, "What is
existence?" We're looking at reality specific to the
outcome. And when we can measure that we measure
that.

It's not so much a matter of opinion because, let's say
you and I are disagreeing about what it is instead of
fighting it out about who's right and who's wrong, we
ask each other questions. "Why are you seeing what
you're seeing?" "What do I need to know to understand
the difference between what I'm seeing and what
you're seeing?"

You would ask me the same question, "What do I need
to know?" "How are we to explain the discrepancy?"
Let's together look and study reality and find out what
there is to see and we'll either change our minds or add
insight or we'll certainly come up with a fairly objective
understanding, an adequate understanding of where we
are in relation to where we want to be.

The other thing is we'll test that out over time because
as we create a strategy to move that strategy will let us
know how well we're doing because what we expect is
that reality will change in favor of what we want and if
it doesn't we then study it some more to find what we
got wrong. So instead of just being an opinion dump
what we really do is become students of reality. We're
motivated to do that because we want the outcome.

Joe: It sounds like a great way to enter a sales
conversation.

Robert: It's one of the best ways to enter a sales conversation

because the essence of really, real sales
professionalism is to find the match between the
customer's motivation and desires and the offer that
we're making. If it's really a good match, we have a
basis of doing business.

The professionals, the really great professional
salespeople study the motivation of the customers. I'm
really on purpose now saying motivation rather than
need because people don't always do what they need,
but they always do what they're motivated to do. So
how are they making their choices? How are they
deciding what they're deciding?

How does that compare to what we're offering and if
there's a good match, I call this the secret to good
business strategy. Make them an offer they can't
refuse. Not in “The Godfather” sense, but in the sense
that it's so good that you really want to say yes to it.

Joe: You know it sounds similar to Toyota Kata and then we
have a current condition, a target condition, and we
aim for that. Can you explain some differences between
what the new Lean is as you describe it and the Toyota
Kata?

Robert: Yes, ironically I think that in the process of Lean itself,
there's a lot of waste.

Joe: Oh, you'll stir up someone on that one.

Robert: Let me give you an example of this. We just did a
training here last week on the new Lean and I did it
with Elsie Ford, who's a traditional Lean expert; she's
also a structural consultant, so she's done a lot of our

work and Elsie's role was to sort of educate the folks or
remind them of the traditional Lean approaches like
Toyota.

She brought with her one of the games that they do;
it's the putting a pen together thing and there're
instructions and so on, and the way the traditional Lean
would work is you go through this exercise and you get
rid of all the wastes and you go through cycles where
you get rid of the waste and eventually you can put a
pen together.

What we did is, after the first iteration, we just
designed a process by which to put a pen together.
Two or three iterations to perfect it and at the end it
was perfect. I mean perfect in the sense, optimal in the
sense that you really couldn't make it any better than it
was given the assignment and the resources.

Now, I've taken. If you read my chapter in Path for
Managers the new version on the new Lean, I've taken
all the wastes and turned them in to instead of things
to get rid of, things to put into place. One of the lines I
think you'll get a kick out of Joe is that I wrote in that
chapter is that, "you cannot put traditional Lean in a
start-up new company. First, you have to screw it up
and then you can put Lean in."

Joe: I highlighted that in the Kindle version.

Robert: What we're looking at is how to create processes that, in
fact, are efficient, have economy of means, make a lot
of sense. I mean some of the things from traditional
Lean I really like are minimizing steps, are minimizing
handoffs, some of the ergonomics, where you put

things physically, where we're also looking at economy
of transportation, at economy of scale, and economy of
production, and workload capacity relationships.

In a way Lean is very much fixing, fixing, fixing versus
designing. If you throw away the current process and
you rethink it all in terms of the outcome you want but
have a really good fix about where you are which will
give you the current process. Okay, current process is
current reality. And here's where we want to be.

You can rethink the whole process and bypass a whole
number of steps. Well, let me give you an example. I
work with one company and this is a car dealership.
Once a week for 45 minutes I'm in a meeting with their
service department guys doing design work. That's it,
right, 45 minutes over the last two years, same set of
folks, and same number of folks.

In fact, I think they have a few places they need to fill,
and they have increased their volume. And just that
one group alone, you have to remember this is the
garage at the service department; they have increased
their efficiency in revenues $500,000 a year, same
group of folks.

That's just from little iterations every week improving. .
.designing what they're doing?

First of all, I'm describing where we're really looking at
the outcome we're after, where are we now, how do we
move from here to there. The other thing I really like
about the notion of Lean is that it's grass roots. That
it's people around the table really working it out who
are there close to the situation and another, I know you

read this in my chapter.

But a real irony about traditional Lean is the whole
black belt and sensei deal. Because Lean is really
designed to be grass roots rather than expertise and
certainly, at first there needs to be some guidance or
some facilitation but the notion of some kind of master
coming in really misses the power of the original quality
circles and all the Deming stuff that made it so
powerful.

Joe: I think the real true Lean people that I'm familiar with
believe that there is that hierarchy that has developed
in six-sigma.

Robert: There's one more thing that happens. We've seen it
with the quality movement as well is that originally it
was designed to be mindful. You know people sitting
around thinking. Then the forms really are designed to
be mindless so you don't have to think, you fill out the
form. It really takes away from the actual creativity
that we need around the room.

I'll tell you, it's very impressive of how creative people
are when given the opportunity to think about how to
better a system.

Joe: I think you bring a point when you're talking about the
service guys. Everybody is always worried about failing
and major changes. But when you do everything at the
place of work and at Gemba as we call it in Lean,
changes are all minor. There's not a drastic change that
when you do fail that the whole company structure
drops down.


Robert: No, you're not betting the farm, but on the other hand,
let me give you some real life examples that this
service group had to think about: When to have cars
come in? How to talk to people about when to pick
them up? How to designate who/what mechanic should
be working on what difficulty of job? You know there's
a lot of scheduling stuff.

There are a lot of systems that needed to be in place to
communicate with the customers. Then there's the
relationship between the people taking the phone calls
in the reception area to the technicians. As I'm
mentioning some of these elements, you can see that it
was not anything too elaborate. By the way, that
includes bringing making sure the parts were there
when the technicians needed them.

We were creating a relationship between the parts
department and the service department and these
networks of relationships. They were just able to little
by little by little design systems that accommodated
the outcomes. Which, by the way, the outcomes
included fixing the vehicle first time and having it really
be right, having loaners available for the customers,
having parts available for the technicians, and so on.

Joe: I think you bring something up there that I want to
touch upon is that I see where people want to, they
want these customer experiences and start
collaborating with customers and we talk about co-
creation and open innovation, but unless that structure
is already happening with a collaborative type of
system within a company versus a normal command
and control situation, unless that's happening internally
is it possible to do externally?


Are you going to fail? Is that failure just sitting waiting
to happen?

Robert: The answer is no. It's not that it's impossible. It's
impossible to do it that way. It's also impossible to do it
as grass roots from the standpoint of, management has
to support it. It is one of the aspects of my latest
version of “Path for Managers” that I emphasize
because I saw it in abundance over the 12 years that I
had written the first version to the second version was
a lot of times it was the failure of leadership to support
the kind of change efforts.

Without their support, it wasn't going to go anywhere
no matter how many people within the company
wanted it. You can't drive it through grass roots and so
there's a function of leadership, and so we always have
to drive it up to the senior-most leader to make sure
they're, in fact, not only supporting it, but insisting
upon it.

Joe: If I want to have a collaborative structure externally, I
need to have one internally first. It is the best way to
do it.

Robert: Yes, let me give you an even better, almost immediate,
almost visceral example. When the CEO and the
Executive team are not aligned, how do you expect
anybody else in the organization to be aligned?
Everybody take a real quick survey of the companies
you know and love and notice how often, in fact, the
senior team is not aligned.

You've got the Vice President of this going in that

direction disagreeing with the Vice President of that and
they have what Deming called their own little fiefdoms.
Below them, everybody is supposed to self-organize
into utopia.

Joe: When you talk about your workshop and a structured
approach to Lean, it's a three-day workshop, it's pretty
intense I would imagine for three days. What does
someone learn and what types of people come to it?

Robert: Well, first of all, that workshop there was a prerequisite
what you had to be, have done our four-day
Fundamentals of Structural Thinking. So, all the folks
that came had done that course, so they were familiar
with structural thinking. Because that was important,
they needed that to be able to really go at the pace
that we went.

Just generally what we did was we compared traditional
Lean to the structural approach with a new Lean. We
experimented with both and saw which one was
superior and people got their arms around it and every
person went out ready to put it into place.

Either some of them were consultants and said they
were ready to put it into place in their client's
businesses and organizations and some of them were
practitioners; they were from companies, and they
were ready to put it into place in their companies.

Joe: Did they also have Lean experience or did a lot of them
not have general Lean experience?

Robert: I had everything from people who never did anything to
black belts. By the way, all of them had all the people

that had experience with Lean also had the typical
frustration that people do.

Joe: Does the new Lean follow Deming? I mean is it an
extension of that or do you take a different direction
than Deming?

Robert: I don't know that. It doesn't follow Deming; it is
influenced heavily by Deming and Deming's notion. By
the way, I think Deming was probably the senior-most
wonderful innovator in this area and I'd like to point out
that he was a composer. Well, he was and Drucker was
a musician. There is something about coming from
music where you really understand in an extracurricular
way how things are put together.

So it does, and I'm not just sort of saying this because
I'm a composer, but that what one learns as a
composer actually has an impact on how you look at
organizations because in some ways they're very
similar in terms of elements in relation to each other
and how they work together. It relates to the statistical
approach that Deming has for manufacturing in terms
of minimizing variances and building in quality. So, you
don't inspect it at the end.

It's actually really built in. I think is quite extraordinary
insight and I'm totally in love with it. When people try
to take quality and then put it to other realms of
organizations where they were not looking at
reproduced processes, like real management where you
have to make decisions based on unexpected things
and you can't minimize variance when you're, when
you've got something new that's thrown at you that
you've got to make a command decision about.


On the other hand, Deming really understood this
principle of outcomes. Because he said that "Look you
could really create the perfect buggy whip and it would
be obsolete." So it wasn't simply minimizing the
variances, it was also understanding the strategic
outcomes that companies were after. And also the
other thing is the kind of wisdom; Deming really
understood the wisdom that the rank and file have and
how we are not making great use of that wisdom,
which we should be learning from each other all over
the place.

In the collaborative structures that we're talking about
now because of the ease of communication and
everything, I think goes right along with what Deming
always thought about just in a different time frame.

But remember he's a real innovator. He wasn't just
taking somebody else's system and following it. He was
rethinking systems and so he was so in touch with what
it meant and why it worked, how it worked. . .

Joe: I have to ask you, how did a composer ever get
involved in Lean and structural analysis?

Robert: To make the long story short. I was teaching
composition at the New England Conservatory and I
created this particular approach to teach that and I
wondered if I could use that approach for non-
compositional aspects of life-like people creating
things. I created a course around Boston and I had
teachers teaching this course and so on and some of
the folks at MIT Sloan School of Management took the
course.


The next thing I know I got invited to join a company,
to form a company with Peter Senge, Charlie Keefer,
and myself called Innovation Associates. And then
that's when I really learned about system dynamics and
the great work that's going on a Sloan School of
Management and got very interested.

The system dynamics and structural dynamics are very
similar. But they’re like cousins. They're not identical
and one is more from a compositional process and one
is from a systemic process which originally was maybe
from electronics. There was just great co-collaboration
there.

At first, I was only interested in organizations from the
standpoint of it's a place that people create and so I
wanted to help them be more effective but then I
started to understand the organization itself as a
structure and started to see that success did not always
succeed and understood, came to understand, what
was causing that.

Joe: Is there something you would like to add that maybe I
didn't ask?

Robert: One is the whole notion of customer value and trying to
drive everything through customer value. I really think
that's ridiculous. There are some things that certainly,
where customer value would be the organizing principle
but there are other things, which are not, like
infrastructure stuff or things that are under the hood
that have no impact at all on the customer.

I mean you can always argue that they can, but you

have to get so indirect and convoluted that it becomes
not practical because you're no longer in touch with the
real motivation. So there are other reasons to perfect
systems other than customer value. If you start to
divide the word world into customer value or waste,
you miss so much.

I think that's another limitation. I do have respect for
traditional Lean; I just think that it's really in many
ways obsolete and is based on some wrong premises,
but I certainly love its intention and it often can be
tremendously successful.

Joe: If someone is interested in finding out more, how can
they contact you?

Robert: Two places to go. One is our website, which is
www.robertfritz.com and the other is an online course
that we do with a partner company, and that is a great
thing, by the way, it's a personal on-line course,
lessons every day, me on video; it goes for over three
months, very powerful, and that's www.wisepond
that's W-I-S-E-P-O-N-D dot com.

Of course, all of my books are on Amazon and all of
them except for one are in Kindle. Also, if you come to
our website, you'll see other things that we offer CDs
and so on. So I also write a blog every week on the
Wisepond site and we have a pretty active Facebook
page which is Robert Fritz Inc.

Joe: I would like to thank you very much Robert. This
podcast will be available on the Business901 blogsite
and the Business901 iTunes store.



Joseph T. Dager
Business901
Phone: 260-918-0438
Skype: Biz901
Fax: 260-818-2022
Email: jtdager@business901.com
Website: http://www.business901.com
Twitter: @business901

Joe Dager is president of Business901, a firm specializing in
bringing the continuous improvement process to the sales and
marketing arena. He takes his process thinking of over thirty
years in marketing within a wide variety of industries and applies
it through Lean Marketing and Lean Service Design.

Visit the Lean Marketing Lab: Being part of this community will
allow you to interact with like-minded individuals and
organizations, purchase related tools, use some free ones and
receive feedback from your peers.

Marketing with Lean Book Series included in membership
Lean Sales and Marketing Workshop
Lean Service Design Workshop


A New approach to Lean

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (18)

Similar a A New approach to Lean

Similar a A New approach to Lean (20)

Más de Business901

Más de Business901 (20)

Último

Último (20)

A New approach to Lean