We are a company who for the last year has gone down the lean path. In our attempt our lean guru's cry has been to eliminate inspection. As the lean people say "inspection is muda (waste)" and the customer does not pay extra for that. (Funny the customer pays nothing for the nonconforming created by not inspecting).

My biggest gripes is moving to zero inspection in recieving. The vendors are not capable currently of meeting most of our requirements to push no inspection at this time is suicide.

Reducing inspection internally would be woth while if our operator took responsibility for their actions but when you hire temps and don't train them on quality you get what you deserve.

I like the first pass yeild info if its not fabricated. Our quality guru won't let anyone even look at the numbers or discuss how he got there. It easy to have high first pass yeild when you have various sorts before the parts enter the cell.

Lean for us is an attempt by the manufacturing people to bypass quality.

I think that most would agree that inspection is a cost factor. The less you do the better off you are. Will inspection be completely eliminated? No, in my view. I guess that my question would be "Why have suppliers that are not capable of meeting your requirements, What are you doing to help them, if you are stuck using them? All of our quality numbers are posted, nothing is hidden. Sounds like that there are real problems with quality. Keep in mind that for many companies "lean" means different things(that may not be a part of lean) and have become Americanized, getting by with the least amount of people, doing away with things.

We are a company who for the last year has gone down the lean path. In our attempt our lean guru's cry has been to eliminate inspection. As the lean people say "inspection is muda (waste)" and the customer does not pay extra for that. (Funny the customer pays nothing for the nonconforming created by not inspecting).


Defects of any sort are one of the cardinal sins of Lean. The ultimate goal should be to eliminate inspection and attack the root problem. Eliminating inspection and not doing anything about the cause solves nothing.


My biggest gripes is moving to zero inspection in recieving. The vendors are not capable currently of meeting most of our requirements to push no inspection at this time is suicide.


Is there a plan in place to work with the vendors on improving their quality? At the very least is there a line of communication to the vendor so that they are aware (not just a phone call saying something is bad) of the problem? Have the vendor come in with a group of their people (quality, engineering, production folks, etc) and go out in your process and see how the problems are affecting things. Then, take a group of your people and go through their process and see what jumps out.


Reducing inspection internally would be woth while if our operator took responsibility for their actions but when you hire temps and don't train them on quality you get what you deserve.


I was in contract manufacturing (wire harnesses/cable assemblies and whatever else we could get our hands on during the economic downturn). We used temps and didn't have a large problem with them. Of course, we sat down with the agency and gave them very clear requirements of the people of the people we wanted.

We also had pretty clear standardized work instructions, and an organized shop. Keep in mind that this was done in one of the poorest counties in North Carolina where tobacco was king, and High School diploma in some cases was uncommon.


I like the first pass yeild info if its not fabricated. Our quality guru won't let anyone even look at the numbers or discuss how he got there. It easy to have high first pass yeild when you have various sorts before the parts enter the cell.


That's a problem. I'm typically suspicous of people that don't describe the method they used or that won't share the data.


Lean for us is an attempt by the manufacturing people to bypass quality.

Sad to hear that, but your not the only person I've heard who has had that problem. There are also people who expect "Lean" to be some sort of magic pill to solve their problems and don't understand that it is a long term journey.

Wayne

Funny the customer pays nothing for the nonconforming created by not inspecting.
If your company believes that defects are created through lack of inspection, you'd better keep the inspectors. I'm sure they'll have plenty of work to do.
My biggest gripes is moving to zero inspection in recieving. The vendors are not capable currently of meeting most of our requirements to push no inspection at this time is suicide.
So, in addition to inspectors who, by their absence, create defects, you also have suppliers you know are not capable of meeting your requirements. Another good reason for inspectors. Has your Lean "guru" thought about examining the cost of inspection versus the cost of having capable suppliers?
when you hire temps and don't train them on quality you get what you deserve.
Absolutely. Sounds like an acute case of penny-wise/pound-foolish.
Lean for us is an attempt by the manufacturing people to bypass quality.
Doing foolish things and fudging then numbers and calling it "lean" is, as you well know, meaningless. My prediction is that somewhere down the road the Lean guy will be sent packing, and the bosses will talk about what a crock Lean is. I feel your pain.

I have been through this. One of the companies I worked for hired a guy from Dell, as director of operations. The first thing he did was eliminate final inspection. When defects went through the roof he blamed the quality manager (my boss at the time). We were making customized computers for groups like Jet Propulsion Labratories, Cal Poly and MIT among many other university scientific research centers with 1543 different configurations. I don't know how many times I have heard inspection adds no value, probably doesn't if one makes the same widgets year after year. Anywho the biggest issue was that he implemented nothing to take the place of that inspection. They tried to integrate that inspection into assembly operators procedure and created a bottle neck. For some reason management couldn't figure out that having 203 difficult steps then adding 24 more inspection steps to one person's procedure was no different than have a final inspection. The results were disasterous. The only thing you can do is push improvements upstream and hopefully you find a few product and process engineers that actually practice robust design. :bigwave:

I want to say up front I have a bias in favor of "correctly applied Lean." I am one of the original members of the ASQ Advanced Manufacturing Interest Group which has recently been granted "Forum" status by ASQ with a new name "Lean Enterprise Forum."

Sadly, just as in TQM, Zero Defects, Six Sigma and many other so-called Quality Initiatives, there is a propensity for "wanna-bes" to jump on the band wagon of the latest "buzz term" armed with only partial knowledge of the Body of Knowledge behind the buzz term.

It sounds to me like your organization has been saddled with one of these wanna-be characters who does NOT deserve the appellation "guru."

One of the important characteristics of Lean is to make sure product or service quality does NOT suffer. Eliminating inspections only comes AFTER preventive practices are in place which eliminate the NEED for inspections. In place of final inspections of "detection," Lean employs in-process inspections, SPC, and other techniques to ensure control of processes to produce conforming material.

This is a sad situation. Like some others here in the Cove, I fear this "semi-guru" will taint the well for a real guru to come in and salvage the situation.

Your instincts are correct, in my opinion, psyched1. What this character is doing is not real Lean. It is absolutely not Lean style to act like this:
"Our quality guru won't let anyone even look at the numbers or discuss how he got there."

Having said this, I need a lot more time to consider a plan of action for you and your coworkers to deal with top bosses to remedy the situation before your organization becomes too dysfunctional. This is definitely not a situation where I can pull a solution out of a hat.

I wish I could do more right now than merely offer confirmation of your view and sympathy for your situation.

I agree with all the comments that inspection does not prevent defects but it does prevent the customer from receiving them.

We still 100% test all product leaving (gov. req.) When I started here the company rejected 20% of final goods, had no concept or tracking for what the problems were. We had a supplier base that was based on price (and who had the best sports tickets). We have improved to 4% at final and it was my hope that lean would push us further.

I have seen succesful lean companies in action but always they brought their quality people to the table with them. We have a lame duck QM who does not have the brass tacks to tell our owners what is really happening.

I do like the focus on one piece flow, balancing lines and the order that this method creates in assembly.

I'm not sold on reductions of inventory. When one machine goes down you end up shutting down your production base. So now you have to have a big inventory of replaceable machine parts rather than goods that could be sold.

As I wrote before - your instincts on Lean are good. Many wannabes try to squeeze delivery windows for components and materials so they carry zero inventory. The problem is the burden is merely pushed on to someone else, somewhere else. Worse, you have no control or visibility over the potential pitfalls at the "someone else."

You point out the penny-wise, pound foolish situation of idling a plant when a production machine accidentally breaks and skews the supply.

This doesn't mean that an organization can NOT work out an optimum mix of JIT delivery and inventory to keep the organization's production running. It's like any FMEA problem, you figure out what could go wrong and try to install processes to counter potential failures according to the degree of severity and frequency of occurrence. An important factor is continual monitoring and evaluation of processes in the Lean system to avoid surprises.

Referring to your earlier post: a big part of the monitoring is free and open communication among all the facets of the Lean organization - NO SECRETS!

O.K., I had to go to the public library to retrieve a book.
Plus, I ran the first post by one of my people. He thought - Is there more then what has been presented?

Now, for a few catch phrases -

Stealth quality versus no quality
Jennifer Kirley

Every associate is a quality manager!
Qualitygoddess

I do not believe that inspections are "muda", since Taiichi Ohno seem to spend alot of time designing inspection processses.

How does one reach zero defects without inspections?

From the founders of the Lean concepts, inspections are important.

So at this point, I refer you to Wes' earlier posting and one should determine what is this person attempting to accomplish?

I do not believe as indicated that it is a culture of lean.

Reduction in inventory can bring great benefits to a company. Some articles about TPM or Toyota may help u understand better.

About your earlier quotes, I suspect no gap analysis is done before the decision to go lean is reached? It can takes ages to argue to go or not to go lean, but we need to understand where we are, what are needed to be done before the target is reached.

Going lean is fundamentally a number game, too often the top understand the benefits without realizing the perception change / cultural change is a tricky thing that may back fire!

Another facet of Lean is ISPC (In Station Process Control).
The fact that there may be issues with training, which is the corner stone of communicating lean, is clear when temporary workers are concerned.
ISPC allows an internal operator to accept or reject what they have been supplied with, the internal supplier is informed of the defect sent to the internal customer and, the gap is closed regarding root cause due to back tracing.
The production operator is the most important element in this area of Lean. As I have said in previous threads, this is where the process approach with emphasis on assessing Person, Item, Equipment, Information and Service is invaluable.
Wallace.

Great posts by all of you and a hearty thank you.

Culture change is not the problem but I'd like to see the quality department working together with the lean people to make this work.

:frust: Hopefully thsi will not destroy our company but be just another fad the pointy haired bosses will forget about once real metrics (profit/loss) take effect.

Culture change is not the problem but I'd like to see the quality department working together with the lean people to make this work.

There seems to be an internal contradiction in that sentence. The fact that the quality department isn't working with the lean people is prima facie evidence of culture issues. Corporate culture is the product of leadership, or lack thereof, and solving the issue is akin to trying to convince an alcoholic to stop drinking. It's never going to happen until the person with the problem admits to it and resolves to change.

I do not believe that inspections are "muda", since Taiichi Ohno seem to spend alot of time designing inspection processses.
How does one reach zero defects without inspections?
From the founders of the Lean concepts, inspections are important.

When looking for "MUDA" you must determine what is "Value Added", what process or processes adds value to the product. Inspection does not add value to a product, inspection is a necessary evil due to limitation in processes.
How do you reach zero defects with inspections? If you have zero defects why do you need inspection?
Lean does not always mean doing more with less. It means refining processes, error proofing processes, Value Stream Mapping processes and eliminating redundant handling and inspections.

How do you reach zero defects with inspections? If you have zero defects why do you need inspection?
It's a moot point, because no one ever reaches zero defects. It might happen episodically, but despite our best efforts, defects, like death and taxes, will always be with us. The most we can hope for is optimization--a perfectly serviceable concept that was dressed up in a new suit and called "Lean."

The most we can hope for is optimization--a perfectly serviceable concept that was dressed up in a new suit and called "Lean."

Are you using a Lean type of system at your location? If not, I would certainly be interested in knowing what and how you use your form of Lean.
Wallace.

Are you using a Lean type of system at your location? If not, I would certainly be interested in knowing what and how you use your form of Lean.
Wallace.

The company I work for is large (~10,000 employees) and I have no direct connection with manufacturing operations at present (I work as a QE in an R&D setting, mostly with suppliers). The company is certainly very lean-minded, however, and the implementation has met with varying amounts of success (we also have several far-flung plants).

Thanks James,
It's always good to get a larger profile of fellow Quality colleagues at the Cove.
Wallace.

In our company it appears the Lean Coordinator a Logistics Manager is attempting to circumvent the Quality System.

This is a political fight that my lame duck QM cannot even begin to understand never mind defend himself.

When I ask questions like "On what basis do you purpose we determine which vendors should be inspected and at what level" I am not supported. I am told to "not make waves". :bonk: When our assembly line is down for two days due to a part that was missed due to our one peice recieving inspection I'm told "don't make waves". :frust:

Management see's the increased through put but does not realize that their is a cost. With the company reducing inspection without a just cause Quality can not quarantee our product is to spec. On a reason dock/product audit I created waves in measuring the key components only to find 25 dimensions out of spec.

At some point we will miss something that causes a major recall. It took us three years to rebuild our name after the last one. That will be the tsunami that my little waves could have stopped.

I think lean can work if you do the work upfront that will make the program a success

1. Rate vendors by the quality of product they provide and the controls they have in place
2. Establish design reviews and internal controls within the process
3. Establish your inspection plan based on the quality of the product provided
4. Internal PPAP determine capability of processes then determine an
inspection plan.

Exactly [I]psyched 1 !

Now, we all know Lean could work, but we tend to look at things from our own perspective - Account people at $$$ , Quality people at QQQ. Where is the common platform or baseline?

I believe there is a lack of parameter for the top management to evaluate quality , and associate Q to profit/loss. Now if you can relate the 2, and have it communicate, the battle is half won.

I may be wrong, but 'never try never know'.

May LUCK be with you!

About zero defect....

the pursuit for zero defect is no difference with that 'do the right thing at right time',
it is not the number that counts, but rather the approach - in other words, number is just an effect.

yeah, I do agree that 'balancing act' - inspection is needed, but I doubt that is it required across the processes ? Shall we take away some inspection from some processes thus freeing up the man power to concentrate at areas where defect is still detected? We may not be a perfect man, but at least we can be a perfect father or hubby - hope others understand what I say.

We are a company who for the last year has gone down the lean path. In our attempt our lean guru's cry has been to eliminate inspection.......... The vendors are not capable currently of meeting most of our requirements to push no inspection at this time is suicide.

I have heard this approach called fast gun....slow bullet.

No competent lean guru would ever reduce receiving inspection before ensuring suppliers were capable.

You are correct to worry that the quick saving this "guru" is after could prove to be very costly in the long run.

We had a similar horror story with a so called expert hired to help us implement self directed work teams. He waved a magic wand and presto-boingo we had SDWT within one week. We then got rid of all lead hands and foremen the next day. It took many years to clean up the mess.

Turns out there was a hidden agenda - get rid of middle managers for cost savings. This turned a lot of people against SDWT forever. Too bad, because when it is done right it is very powerful. But it takes time and many small steps.

Sadly we want it all and we want it NOW...so we jump at the quick fix.

Good luck to you...you are right...the guru and your boss are wrong.

Please be careful what you do next, unless you are prepared to leave.

Sounds like their minds are made up, if you confuse them with the facts - they may well shoot the messenger and fire you.

Got shot in the foot by that slow bullet today as we are sorting on the line assembled parts that the vendor did not drill a hole in.

Got shot in the foot by that slow bullet today as we are sorting on the line assembled parts that the vendor did not drill a hole in.

Read through all these posts. Psyched1 appears to need full body armor, particularly for the feet. I suspect with the "guru" making all these lean changes, that more bullets will be fired.

Y'know, I think you should just keep making those waves. If you get a tsunami, you might achieve great change! :biglaugh:

Got shot in the foot by that slow bullet today as we are sorting on the line assembled parts that the vendor did not drill a hole in.Sorry to hear that, but by the sound of things it was bound to happen sooner or later. This time it was something that caused problems in assembly. Next time there may be a problem further downrange...

/Claes

When I worked in the Mil-Q-9858A environment our process was add something to the product then inspect. every step of the process was followed by an inspection. Then 20+ years later I find the following:

each employee is directly responsible for inspecting and testing the quality of the products and services that they provide. Quality Assurance monitors and audits the quality system, processes and procedures, as well as the product itself.

There is NO INSPECTION per sey. QA does audits and first pieces. Seems to work quite well and we are not "lean". Although we have started down that path.
So my point is that companies do operate without inspection and do so without "lean".

That works well with a trained work force but if your management does not see the value in training their employees or hiring full time employees over temps then you get what you pay for. Our inspectors always find the problems while the operators tend to ignore them.

Lean has pushed a throughput (production) first culture on us. We dont stop the lines when a problem occurs (true lean) no we ignore it so our temps can get their quotas. Then the quality inspectors, checking 2 parts a day per machine, are the only people catching nonconforming product. :mad:

Since we have so many nonconforming product, true root cause analysis never takes place.

We are told by upper management we save $8K per temp over full time people. So that is our direction.

So what have we learned about lean?

Production first, inspecting parts is waste and full time employees are waste. Lean is the same old production dogma with a fancy name.

That works well with a trained work force but if your management does not see the value in training their employees or hiring full time employees over temps then you get what you pay for. Our inspectors always find the problems while the operators tend to ignore them.

Lean has pushed a throughput (production) first culture on us. We dont stop the lines when a problem occurs (true lean) no we ignore it so our temps can get their quotas. Then the quality inspectors, checking 2 parts a day per machine, are the only people catching nonconforming product. :mad:

Since we have so many nonconforming product, true root cause analysis never takes place.

We are told by upper management we save $8K per temp over full time people. So that is our direction.

So what have we learned about lean?

Production first, inspecting parts is waste and full time employees are waste. Lean is the same old production dogma with a fancy name.

I know I have used this euphemism before but I will reiterate it here as well: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water! Don't disparage Lean initiatives just because your upper management wants to be greedy and uses the term "Lean" to do so. What you are describing is NOT a true Lean initiative, and certainly would offend any true Lean supporter (as much as it does you).

Let’s call it by what it is: GREED! If I were setting in your shoes, I would be making inroads towards finding employment elsewhere, since sooner or later (unless management changes their direction) this company is headed towards a significant loss of business (customers will react to receiving defective product with their pocketbooks).

As an alternative to leaving, perhaps you could somehow define how much defective product is being manufactured, how much it is costing to rework/replace it (cost of waste) and submit that against the cost of implementing controls for doing it right the first time (poka-yoke the processes).

I am NOT a proponent of separate inspection efforts, and I do feel that operators CAN be the best inspectors, but I also believe that you can help them by creating/defining methods for making the processes as mistake-proof as possible. Lean initiatives require much more effort up front (within the process) than many of us who have spent many years "inspecting in quality" are used to. It is actually more work for us, but the results are well worth it for your company.

Is the glass half-full, or half-empty? It's really your choice (bail, or if you have the authority - or can assume the authority - take steps to mistake-proof the processes and help the company to succeed despite management).

That works well with a trained work force but if your management does not see the value in training their employees or hiring full time employees over temps then you get what you pay for. Our inspectors always find the problems while the operators tend to ignore them.

Lean has pushed a throughput (production) first culture on us. We dont stop the lines when a problem occurs (true lean) no we ignore it so our temps can get their quotas. Then the quality inspectors, checking 2 parts a day per machine, are the only people catching nonconforming product. :mad:

Since we have so many nonconforming product, true root cause analysis never takes place.

We are told by upper management we save $8K per temp over full time people. So that is our direction.

So what have we learned about lean?

Production first, inspecting parts is waste and full time employees are waste. Lean is the same old production dogma with a fancy name.



Training, of course, is the key to all good things. Most of our operators go beyond just inspecting. Most lead the way in the ECR (engineering change request) arena as well. They will not allow a product to slide out of the shop without first fixing it, and then second, chastising the engineer for sloppy design. They insist that I write the ECR to get the design fixed. Talk about continual improvement! :cool:

Perhaps this is an approach that you many find acceptable.

"Since it is difficult to fight lean ignorance and stupidity with your lean guru, fight with lean savy".......by Arthur

(I always wanted to create my own quotes)

We can concede that inspection is a waste. We can concede that the customer expectation is good quality. We can concede that we will not do incoming inspection.


This means when defective parts are found at the line, we must do one of two things... either sort them, or send them to the customer. Since we already know that we can not send them to the customer, we must sort. Since sorting is expensive we can do one of two things, we can do this sort and charge the customer, or we can have the customer come to our plant and sort for us.

Since we must ship good quality parts .... how would you like us to do this sort?

In another note.... Don't you have a supplier quality assurance program? If so this would be your means by eliminating inspection at receiving. By certifying your suppliers, inspection will not be necessary. (Unless of course there is some leakage).
It is one thing to stop inspection at incoming receiving, it is another to make it so that inspection is not necessary.

Since sorting is expensive we can do one of two things, we can do this sort and charge the customer, or we can have the customer come to our plant and sort for us.
Did you mean supplier?

Silly me...

Yes charge the supplier.....

i read with much interest on this topic. great stuff here. i have a question on 'ínspection'
if inspection is non-value a waste in lean concept then why we are encourage to do self inspection by Taiichi Ohno ? what is so different self-inspection with final inspection?
self-inspection= value add?
final inspection=non value add?

i read with much interest on this topic. great stuff here. i have a question on 'ínspection'
if inspection is non-value a waste in lean concept then why we are encourage to do self inspection by Taiichi Ohno ? what is so different self-inspection with final inspection?
self-inspection= value add?
final inspection=non value add?

"Self inspection" would entail an activity performed by an operator either during the course of the activities at their work station, or, just prior to moving the product to the next operation. For example, an operator should be self-inspecting the piece/s of equipment they are working with using all their senses to determine if something is out of the ordinary (different noise, unsual vibration, an off smell, etc.) Hence the concept of autonomous maintenance.

"Final inspection" has a few reasons why it isn't viewed fondly:

1) People will have a tendency to view quality as the job of the QC inspector and not necessarily themselves.

2) A simple premise within the Toyota Production System on quality is, "Don't get it, don't make it, don't send it." This becomes especially critical when the process flows and any little error would result in the entire line being shut down. Toyota views a line shutdown not as something necessarily negative, but as an opportunity to learn and get improve.

One of Toyota's biggest problems with new supervisors is that they don't shut down the line as often as they should. In at least one of the Toyota facilities, when a line is stopped, the alarm consists of the Beatle's song "Hey Jude". Think of the phrase, "take a bad thing and make it better" contained in that song,

Largely, I think it comes down to a philosophical viewpoint that Toyota takes which views any time contact is made (physically or visually or sensory) there is an opportunity for an "inspection" activity to occur. There should also be application of poke-yoke to prevent or reduce the possibility of a problem, thereby eliminating the need for inspection.

Don't forget that in some instances final inspection is necessary such as those cases where a certification to a standard or regulation is required.

Wayne

1) People will have a tendency to view quality as the job of the QC inspector and not necessarily themselves.


:agree: this is the situation similar in production companies from our country. And what is most interesting, that this opinion is coming from management.
When we are talking about Lean manufacturing first of all we are talking about basic - change of culture (first step is 5S). And inspection is not the main waste what we have. As one clever guy told:
"Toyota achieved the best results when average people managing well developed processes, other companies achieved similar results when the best managers managed poor processes".

Quality is created in a process, not during inspection. Inspection is only tool for improvement.

:agree: this is the situation similar in production companies from our country. And what is most interesting, that this opinion is coming from management.
When we are talking about Lean manufacturing first of all we are talking about basic - change of culture (first step is 5S). And inspection is not the main waste what we have. As one clever guy told:


Your right about the opinion largely coming from management (mid and upper). Unfortunately, your also right about 5S being the typical first step. The first step should be the Hoshin process though. Not to say that a lean initiative can't be successful by foregoing this step, but at least management has thought about the potential changes through this exercise. Hopefully, they have then decided to provide their support.

Wayne

kind of tricky here...inspection is a waste yet toyota implemented source inspection

Not a reply, but does anyone know any companies in the service industry which use kaizen or 5S.

Sometimes i wonder if there are two identical products, one labelled "Inspected" and the other does not, will there be any different in purchasing behavor of the average consumer ? If yes, does it mean inspection add, at least, psychological value to the products ?

dennis

Last July the same lean manufacturing gurus who promised no one would lose their jobs eliminated my Quality Engineering position. They also eliminated the accountant and two engineers who also opposed the fast gun slow bullet method of manufacturing. I was lucky to have a new job the next day however my comrades were not.

Having spoken with those people still forced to make a beligured system work they are struggling. In one instance a new gasoline swivel was sent to market earlier than desired without all the testing we had put in place completed. This winter they cracked under the cold causing a huge recall. Gasoline Nozzles warranty return claims are back up and sales cant keep up with orders since there is no surplus of stock any longer.

Recieving inspection has been eliminated and I hear the Quality Manager spends his days looking ay Monster.com and ebay when he is not trying to solve the latest snafu. There is no pareto of defects and resolution of supplier issues instead they waste their time in adhering/cheating ISO 9000 rather than making the system effective. They have machining processes which are incapable and print dimensions for drilled holles at +/- .0001 on aluminum castings with no SPC or tool management program. This along with temporary help for machine operators will lead to their downfall.

Lean will be the downfall of this company. Once all the people will are gone to uneployment the Guru's will move on to their next bit of sabotoge.

I've moved on to a pharmaceutical company as QM and what a change for the better. It helps when you have a 300lb gorilla like the FDA breathing down your neck for compliance:)

Last July the same lean manufacturing gurus who promised no one would lose their jobs eliminated my Quality Engineering position. They also eliminated the accountant and two engineers who also opposed the fast gun slow bullet method of manufacturing. I was lucky to have a new job the next day however my comrades were not.
Doesn't sound like a whole story here. If the company must make cut-backs in personnel due to financial reasons, that is one thing. (with or without lean). I have heard of Management removing personnel (not displacement) because of lean improvements, however, I will not work for such companies. I would have to leave if this happens because what I believe in will then be a lie.

Les made an excellent point earlier in this post: "I want to say up front I have a bias in favor of "correctly applied Lean." If lean is not applied correctly, it becomes a scape goat for all failures within the plant.

"They have machining processes which are incapable and print dimensions for drilled holles at +/- .0001 on aluminum castings with no SPC or tool management program." If it isn't measured, it doesn't exit. (Not to mention, this seems to be a very tight specification for a gas pump).

"Lean will be the downfall of this company. Once all the people will are gone to uneployment the Guru's will move on to their next bit of sabotoge."

Lean done wrong or improperly applied can cause great stress on the people, process and company in hole. I have had to clean up some damage in my current company assignment while making lean happen. One of the results are: Now the company is asking outside lean consultants to prove maintained results before payment. ( especially like this one).

I would recommend you see lean done correctly before making a final statement that "Lean will be the down fall of this company" attitude.

As in every thing we do, what ever it is, there is always some success and some failure. Without failure, there is no growth. If we always wait for something to fail and bad-mouth, "that this is no good", our defeatist attitude will prevent us from trying to do better.

We are more that rules, policies, systems and procedures. These things are just tools and guildlines, not perfect means to produce perfect results.

:applause: I fully agree with asutherland

would recommend you see lean done correctly before making a final statement that "Lean will be the down fall of this company" attitude.

As in every thing we do, what ever it is, there is always some success and some failure. Without failure, there is no growth. If we always wait for something to fail and bad-mouth, "that this is no good", our defeatist attitude will prevent us from trying to do better.

psyched1 's story serves a great reminder how a wonderful approach to better things can fell soooo badly when the upper echelon do not understand it, never involve in it.

i agree.
But i would always remind myself not to overestimate the power of lean. It definitely does not equivalent to "do it and you are perfect". The psychological effect of lean to the company's software (ie. employees) is something that has to be considered but frequently missed.
i believe that lean is a quality that is the result of everyone getting their jobs done right. The "lean thinking" label is just a highlighted to re-prioritize it's importancy in the head of everyone's mind, especially to management.

The last company i worked for embraced lean wholeheartedly. It made a lot of changes based on manufacturing analysis. Lots of Value Stream Analysis and Rapid Improvement Events, but there was no system of checking that everything in the action plan was working.

We then decided to stream lean and QA together, with both teams being cross trained. A QA check being carried out after a suitable period (usually 3 months) to ensure that the changes made were working. Using this system we found that everything followed the EFQM RADAR approach (Results, Approach, Deployment, Assess and Review) quite closely. QA and lean CAN work together if everyone takes off their blinkers and treats them as practical tools, instead of the be all and end all. :cool:

Sorry I've been gone a long while.

The statement "lean will be the downfall of this company" should be restated that "Lean done wrong will be the downfall of the company". Many of the pieces of lean (the Kaizens, the quick set ups and the JIT philosophy) can be a benifit to a company that has and organized quality system.

Their are trade offs that must be made. You can use the lowest cost supplier provided you have the incoming inspection in place to assure quality or you can back inspection down to the supplier and pay a higher price. You can reduce inspection and force it on your operators which reduces their throughput. You can rely on JIT and instead of warehousing WIP you can warehouse maintenance costs and parts to keep your machines running. You can hire competent operators and reduce your final inspection or you can specialize in final inspection.

Whatever your course, to give logistics the total control of quality is always a mistake.

I do think I have benifited the most from this lean excercise! I have a new job in an industry that expects product perfection and I have used some of the tools I learned from my lean experience to improve my processes for my new company.

(PS +/- .0001 is a ridiculous tolerance for a gas nozzle on an aluminum casting with no solid holding points. It just proves how far apart quality, production and engineering were.)

The biggest problem I have seen in Lean is the Strategy being fully adopted by the management, especially the corner office. Most times, Lean is done in the "island" mode - islands of success. But the drive to get it throughout the organization is the only way that it becomes sustaining. I have visited companies that adopted Lean in the past, and those who are still in the culture of Lean are those who have adopted it throughout their organization. I have attached a few slides from a presentation I received that was given by Newport News Shipyard. It really illustrates what they saw and what they knew they needed to do.

I recognize you didn't create the slides, but thanks for sharing them - I found them very instructive.

No. i think there is no chance....Inspection process is very important to production and quality sections....i think you cant elminate inspection but u can reduce it ....

regards

Amazing to read this thread. Was hired into an organization three years ago this Nov, as QM, first "Quality" person in the companies 30 year history. I have taken confomance rate at final assembly inspection from 66% to 99.5%, attained ISO9001:2000 certification in May, and now as they look at lean, am being asked to determine how to eliminate inspection. I have been steeped in the teachings of Deming, and fully understand the need to build quality in, but who tells you when you have a defect? How do you measure the conformance rate to know if you have hit the golden 99.999997% mark? Talk of accountability smacks with disciplining the employee for making errors, so what is the motivation for last operator in the line to stop and say "oops, made this one wrong, better put a tick mark on my nonconformance chart"?

We 100% In-circuit and functional test so the product is solid performance wise, it is the fact that humans put it in the housing, place literature, and the hardware for install in the package. When I arrived one out of three was wrong in this regard, and the owner behind the scenes says, "we have always made a quality product, we don't need Quality!!"

Just wanted to share my fun!

this clears that still people live in "I make you fix" syndrome!

I am also facing similar problems in my new assignment where i am supposed to impart the culture of LEAN manufacturing. tough going ahead for me as people work here ridicule me stating, "we are doing business like this for 3 decades and you are teaching me...?" sort of...