It occurs to me to start a new thread on this topic, since there seems to be so many conflicting opinions about whose concept of Lean should prevail.

I wrote elsewhere in the Cove:
I am a charter member of Lean Enterprise (Forum/Division) of ASQ.
In point of fact, we are in the process of trying to create a Body of Knowledge for Lean.

If you have ideas or comments, you can address them to me or to the BOK chair

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lean newsletter)
The interest in creating a Body of Knowledge for Lean is on the rise. George Alukal, Past Chair, is heading up that committee. If you are interested in helping please contact him at galukal (AT NO SPAM) hotmail.com

All current and prospective ASQ members interested in Lean are encouraged to add this Division to their membership.

...there seems to be so many conflicting opinions about whose concept of Lean should prevail.
Why must a single concept prevail? Personally, I never cease to wonder at the hubris (which some would euphemistically call "intiative") of ASQ in appointing themselves the grand definer of bodies of knowledge. Of course a cynic would point to the potential for revenue inherent in new BOKs, and the cynic would be at least partially accurate, but I think it's actually a case of delusions of grandeur. More and more, I see ASQ as a meddling nooge.

"Nooge"?


Much the same might be said of "Standards" whether they are for products (thread standards, material standards, flammability, etc.) or systems (Quality management systems, environmental, etc.)

I tend to take the view that government regulators (except FDA) have taken about medical device regulations. Many of them have chosen to go the route of "harmonizing" by choosing a "best compromise" among competing ideas of necessary regulation to protect people using or affected by medical devices. The form that this harmonizing has taken is to require medical device manufacturers to achieve registration to ISO 13485, and no manufacturer is allowed "grandfather" privileges. Everybody has to toe the same line before beginning the race (no handicap "leadoffs" for anyone.)

The Body of Knowledge in any field is really a compilation of "best practices" contributed by practicing workers in the field. Almost any school curriculum in any field of study is created in the same manner. There is still room for individual variation, depending on what aspect of the total BOK is most important to the practitioner.

Certainly, a certain amount of arrogance can be attributed to any individual or group which sets forth as an "authority" on a subject. As in anything, however, we look for documented evidence to back that authority, not merely the chutzpah of a bald statement. Even Muhammed Ali had to win some fights before people believed his claim, "I am the greatest!"

Nooge"?
A wonderful Yiddish word that (like many wonderful Yiddish words) is hard to adequately translate, but it describes a person who is an incessant pest.

Much the same might be said of "Standards" whether they are for products (thread standards, material standards, flammability, etc.) or systems (Quality management systems, environmental, etc.)
No, standards come about as a result of a need for agreement. Are you suggesting that the need for congruity in fastener threads is even similar to an alleged need for a Lean BOK?

...necessary regulation to protect people using or affected by medical devices.
Again, the impetus is a bit different, don't you think?

The Body of Knowledge in any field is really a compilation of "best practices" contributed by practicing workers in the field. Almost any school curriculum in any field of study is created in the same manner. There is still room for individual variation, depending on what aspect of the total BOK is most important to the practitioner.
I get nervous when I hear the phrase "best practices," especially when it's set off with scare quotes. Once again, the idea of hubris surfaces; "best" according to whom? What makes a committee of "practicing workers" qualified to make such grandiose pronouncements? What useful purpose (other then the aforementioned new source of revenue) would a Lean BOK serve?

There is still room for individual variation, depending on what aspect of the total BOK is most important to the practitioner
That's a relief. I'm glad you're not suggesting making fealty to ASQ and its holy BOKs mandatory.

Certainly, a certain amount of arrogance can be attributed to any individual or group which sets forth as an "authority" on a subject.
There's a difference between a hubristic, self-styled "authority" and an altruistic body seeking a confluence of methods for the greater good.

As in anything, however, we look for documented evidence to back that authority, not merely the chutzpah of a bald statement. Even Muhammed Ali had to win some fights before people believed his claim, "I am the greatest!"
I rest my case.

I rest my case.
OK.
Any other views from other Covers?

It may be hard for some to understand that ASQ is NOT some monolithic monster - the committees which make up the BOK for various topics are comprised of regular folks. At least some of our own Covers are on the committees which determine questions for certification exams and contribute to the BOK behind those exams.

As far as I know, any ASQ member may volunteer to be part of one of those committees. Last time I checked, there was no secret handshake or password to join the ASQ. That pretty much means ANYONE may ultimately be part of the committee which compiles a BOK.

Look at it as analogous to voting in elections. If you have the opportunity to register to vote and you don't register, you can't vote. If you don't vote, whether you were registered or just eligible to register, but didn't, then it will be pretty tough to give credence to your complaint about elected officials if you didn't make an effort to be part of the process.

My view on "Lean" is primarily from an Operations Research perspective. Lean and JIT were an outfall of efforts to optimize the total cost of inventory versus costs of stock-out. You can further extend this to a cost optimization of the whole system, as long as you are indeed capturing TOTAL costs, not just short term costs or easily retrievable direct costs.

There is an interesting paradox. I have seen lately folks complain that we shouldn't rely on "guru" positions (such as don't blindly follow Juran or Deming or Harry or whomever). Yet, there is an advantage when a single person defines a management theory. We have to rely on his/her opinion and take it or leave it.

With "group" developments like "Lean" or "Six Sigma" there is no single owner - and thus we end up with different interpretations of what the "program" entails. Witness the latest fun with Six Sigma on the ASQ Discussion Boards.

"Nooge"?

Nooge

a person that has set themself apart with ridiculously shady behavior.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nooge

There is an interesting paradox. I have seen lately folks complain that we shouldn't rely on "guru" positions (such as don't blindly follow Juran or Deming or Harry or whomever).
You think it is good to blindly follow something, or someone?

Yet, there is an advantage when a single person defines a management theory. We have to rely on his/her opinion and take it or leave it.
Affirmation of the consequent, I think. Where is the advantage? Why do we have to rely on anyone's opinions? I think it's a good to learn from experience, even if the experience is someone else's. Thus in solving a problem I might well draw on something Deming, or even something Crosby. I also might draw on something Harold, who's a smart guy I used to work with. But if Deming, Crosby or Harold's ideas don't seem appropriate, I feel free to ad lib and trust my own intellect and experience rather than doing what Harold said to do, just because he's Harold.

You think it is good to blindly follow something, or someone?
Perhaps straying a little off topic. No, I am not proposing blindly following someone.

However, several of the gurus' management theories are in fact systems. For example, Dr. Deming's 14 points are meant to work together, in their entirety. If I choose to only implement those points that I decide I want to, and then fail and stop without implementing the remainder, I cannot blame Dr. Deming. Dr. Deming's answer was that I should eventually discover the need for all 14 points.

Yes, as we gain experience we form our own theories as to how the world works. Yes, I have personally blended a little Tom Peters in with Dr. Deming. But I do so at my own risk.

Coming back to the topic of Lean - I would recommend going back to whatever research team or company first applied the term "Lean" and understand what they intended, what they meant. No, don't blindly follow it, but also, understand it as they intended.

I have seen so many improvement efforts fail, and then be blamed on buzzwords from "TQM" to "Reengineering" to "Six Sigma" to "Lean" without any understanding of what the originators of those buzzwords intended. I remember a manager who was officially "TQM" though what he did had no relation to the theory behind "TQM". He then switched to the newer buzzword "Reengineering" but just kept doing the same failed things.

I got some good advice from a mentor once - if you want to understand something, go back to the source. Go back to whomever first proposed it. I learned a lot about SPC and how it came about from reading Shewhart, as an example.

Perhaps straying a little off topic. No, I am not proposing blindly following someone.

However, several of the gurus' management theories are in fact systems. For example, Dr. Deming's 14 points are meant to work together, in their entirety. If I choose to only implement those points that I decide I want to, and then fail and stop without implementing the remainder, I cannot blame Dr. Deming. Dr. Deming's answer was that I should eventually discover the need for all 14 points.

Yes, as we gain experience we form our own theories as to how the world works. Yes, I have personally blended a little Tom Peters in with Dr. Deming. But I do so at my own risk.

Coming back to the topic of Lean - I would recommend going back to whatever research team or company first applied the term "Lean" and understand what they intended, what they meant. No, don't blindly follow it, but also, understand it as they intended.

I have seen so many improvement efforts fail, and then be blamed on buzzwords from "TQM" to "Reengineering" to "Six Sigma" to "Lean" without any understanding of what the originators of those buzzwords intended. I remember a manager who was officially "TQM" though what he did had no relation to the theory behind "TQM". He then switched to the newer buzzword "Reengineering" but just kept doing the same failed things.

I got some good advice from a mentor once - if you want to understand something, go back to the source. Go back to whomever first proposed it. I learned a lot about SPC and how it came about from reading Shewhart, as an example.
I've always been a big fan of primary sources. I also fully agree that to blame a deceased (or living) guru for one's own errors is lame.

I'm not sure there is much disagreement about the Body of Knowledge contained in the ASQ Six Sigma Black Belt Certification Program
Six Sigma Black Belt Body of Knowledge (http://www.asq.org/certification/docs/sixsigma_bok.pdf) (PDF, 35 KB)

There is, however, a great deal of controversy about the application of the BOK in an actual operating organization. (As Vince Lombardi was often quoted, "Execution, Excecution, Execution!")

Part of the controversy evolves from the situation where several "consultants" set themselves up as the EXPERTS in 6S and proceeded to operate schools and training courses before ASQ got into the picture.

Unlike some, I have a healthy respect for the ASQ SSBB BOK, but not much respect for some folks who seem to me to be misapplying the concepts contained in the BOK.

I don't intend for this thread to devolve to a 6S shootout, but I do want to suggest that I would be willing to entertain a new thread to discuss the ASQ SSBB BOK, without the personal slurs at ineffectual practitioners. (Actually, the proscription against personal slurs would have to be aimed mainly at me, because I have very little patience with folks who set themselves up as experts in 6S, but would be unable to pass the ASQ SSBB certification exam.)

Nooge

a person that has set themself apart with ridiculously shady behavior.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nooge
I used an incorrect spelling that I picked up from an unreliable sourcem(mea culpa) It should be "nudzh":
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/n/n0188600.html

I again feel like Tevia, in Fiddler on the Roof, in saying, "you are both right", or at least that I agree with both "sides" of this discussion.

On the one hand, I can understand taking a tool or concept that has evolved higgledy-piggledy and creating an outline of common understanding and practice. Even current texts on SPC have gradually come to common conventions (e.g. how many points to a trend, uses of moving range, etc.) from inconspicous origins used in different companies in different ways. Even the guilds of the past sought agreement in methodologies throughout their respective trades.

However, I am also loath to support a "Body of Knowledge" (BOK) for a tool, concept, or methodology. I fear that having a BOK will lead to having yet another certification. Yikes! CLEE (certified lean enterprise engineer). Already, the perfectly fine CQE has been overshadowed by a subset (yes I mean subset) of that BOK, namely six sigma. That would be like the Cobbler's Guild have a BOK on lace threading. Let's stop encouraging that pattern.

I used an incorrect spelling that I picked up from an unreliable sourcem(mea culpa) It should be "nudzh":
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/n/n0188600.html
In this case maybe nooge is more appropriate.
Nooge
a person that has set themself apart with ridiculously shady behavior.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nooge

In this case maybe nooge is more appropriate.
Nooge
a person that has set themself apart with ridiculously shady behavior.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nooge
You said it, not me:D

In this case maybe nooge is more appropriate.
Nooge
a person that has set themself apart with ridiculously shady behavior.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noogeNow in my opinion it could be spelled nudge, noodge or nudzh (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nudge). :topic:You know that there can be more than one side to an argument held by the same person.

That's a really valid criticism, Rob. It cuts through a lot of the fog. I absolutely agree that there are no new tools in 6S, but the 6S crew have been absolutely masterful at getting buy-in and dollars out of top management at a variety of organizations, ranging from hard core manufacturing to service organizations like banks.

Perhaps Lean, which has no real new tools, could be similarly successful at catching the eye of top management to get them to loosen purse strings.

Sometimes, just sometimes, seeming familiarity with tried and true methods makes them seem less valuable to folks cloistered in their ivory towers. Do we keep to our old rut and let the other folks take our tools, wrap them in a new package and beat us over the head with them as they curry favor with the guys in the executive suite?

Maybe some folks like beating their heads against brick walls and becoming frustrated when Joe Somebody Else gets more pay and glory than they do.:frust:

One of the first things I would do with Lean is dump ALL the Japanese terminology and acronyms and stick to plain English terminology to make the entire system more accessible to non-geeks. Deming said (paraphrasing) "Dump slogans, mottos, exhortations, remove fear, and gain profound knowledge about your operation."

Anytime we set a system to create an "us vs. them" situation, we are adding a level of dissension to the mix. Note that ASQ is not charging for a copy of the BOK, unlike ISO which charges for a copy of the Standards it creates. Is there a difference between a Standard for a Management System and a BOK for a "subset" of established Quality tools? What do you think?

I'm not sure there is much disagreement about the Body of Knowledge contained in the ASQ Six Sigma Black Belt Certification Program

You're kidding, right?

Part of the controversy evolves from the situation where several "consultants" set themselves up as the EXPERTS in 6S and proceeded to operate schools and training courses before ASQ got into the picture.
So the problem isn't that ASQ jumped on the bandwagon, the problem is those pesky consultants who had the temerity to proceed without the imprimatur of the (naked) emperor.


I don't intend for this thread to devolve to a 6S shootout,
Then don't provoke one.
but I do want to suggest that I would be willing to entertain a new thread to discuss the ASQ SSBB BOK, without the personal slurs at ineffectual practitioners.
With you defining what constitutes an "ineffectual practioner"?

(Actually, the proscription against personal slurs would have to be aimed mainly at me, because I have very little patience with folks who set themselves up as experts in 6S, but would be unable to pass the ASQ SSBB certification exam.)
Suggestion: The suggested thread, conceived as it was with the assumption that the ASQ BOK is unassailable, would be better for the ASQ's own forums.

Well, this has certainly been an interesting read. I'll admit to getting a little tired....

Wes, I would actually be interested in following (and possibly contributing to) a discussion regarding what constitutes 'good' lean information vs. 'bad' lean information. In my own personal quest to learn more about lean, I would appreciate the opportunity to hear from busy lean practitioners, as opposed to my occasional dabbling in 5S and value stream maps. I think we all have valid opinions and ideas. It is up to the recipient to sort out what is useful.

I will refrain from commenting on the creation of a BoK. The engine is in neutral.

I will certainly go to the ASQ forums. I will watch this thread, or perhaps a new thread that will re-focus efforts on the topic. Not everyone goes to ASQ forums, for a variety of reasons.

Already, the perfectly fine CQE has been overshadowed by a subset (yes I mean subset) of that BOK, namely six sigma. That would be like the Cobbler's Guild have a BOK on lace threading. Let's stop encouraging that pattern.

I do have to comment back to Rob. Bravo! Couldn't agree more. :topic:

--QG

I have three ASQ certifications: Certified Quality Manager, Certified Quality Auditor and Certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Those who have taken the CQE say I probably know enough to also pass the CQE and some of the other certifications.

The reason for pointing that out is overlap in BOK's as more certifications are created by ASQ. Six Sigma is constantly criticized because it is nothing more than the CQE body of knowledge with some new buzzwords. As someone who researched the history of Six Sigma, I am at a loss as to why Lean Enterprise was included in the ASQ exam. Now ASQ has decided that is not enough so they want to create another BOK for Lean. Eliyahu Goldratt and James Womack promoted theory of constraints, continuous flow manufacturing, and other lean techniques both when TQM was the fad and then re-invented it as Six Sigma later on. I learned many of the lean concepts both in engineering and also in my Operations Management and Quantitative Analysis MBA courses so it is not necessarily owned by the quality profession.

What I am seeing in job ads now is references to those with "Lean Manufacturing experience". It has become a buzzword as much as Six Sigma with no real meaning of what it is or how you prove you have it. There are a lot of psuedo black belts our there who took a few courses from GE or where ever and now claim expertise and get jobs based on the designation. I hope Lean Manufacturing is not suffering the same fate. That is also the reason why you are working on a BOK for lean and will probably lead to yet another certification.

Bill Pflanz

I have three ASQ certifications: Certified Quality Manager, Certified Quality Auditor and Certified Six Sigma Black Belt. Those who have taken the CQE say I probably know enough to also pass the CQE and some of the other certifications.

The reason for pointing that out is overlap in BOK's as more certifications are created by ASQ. Six Sigma is constantly criticized because it is nothing more than the CQE body of knowledge with some new buzzwords. As someone who researched the history of Six Sigma, I am at a loss as to why Lean Enterprise was included in the ASQ exam. Now ASQ has decided that is not enough so they want to create another BOK for Lean. Eliyahu Goldratt and James Womack promoted theory of constraints, continuous flow manufacturing, and other lean techniques both when TQM was the fad and then re-invented it as Six Sigma later on. I learned many of the lean concepts both in engineering and also in my Operations Management and Quantitative Analysis MBA courses so it is not necessarily owned by the quality profession.

What I am seeing in job ads now is references to those with "Lean Manufacturing experience". It has become a buzzword as much as Six Sigma with no real meaning of what it is or how you prove you have it. There are a lot of psuedo black belts our there who took a few courses from GE or where ever and now claim expertise and get jobs based on the designation. I hope Lean Manufacturing is not suffering the same fate. That is also the reason why you are working on a BOK for lean and will probably lead to yet another certification.

Bill Pflanz
Everything you write has some validity:

ASQ BOK do overlap
Many agree there is too much "specialization" to the end result nobody is "general" enough to coordinate the specialists.
Not much new in Lean besides a few buzzwords that I, personally, dislike
The value of any certification, especially an ASQ certification, depends on the perception of the hiring officers - publicity and public relations are important in creating and maintaining value. Once a person has a designation, he has a vested interest in maintaining the value by pumping up the publicity.
ASQ as an entity did NOT create the Lean Division - it began as the "Advanced Manufacturing Interest Group" - even I am not sure of the genesis of the evolution to "Lean" - some say Lean was chosen to encompass non-manufacturing organizations. An Interest Group is formed by a few like-minded individuals within ASQ who have a special interest in a topic. Almost every existing Division began as an interest group (no dues fees for interest groups, but ASQ provides services to interest groups as extensions of services they offer members.) Apparently, once an interest group reaches a critical mass, ASQ offers to let them become a Division.
Pseudo black belts and pseudo Lean gurus will continue to be a problem for years to come - the question is how to differentiate a pseudo from a real. In my travels, I've come across ASQ certified folk who strike me as pseudo and non-certified folk who strike me as real. "Handsome is as handsome does." still holds true. I'm pretty sure other professions also have a similar problem (doctors, lawyers, accountants, stock brokers, carpenters, plumbers, etc.)
The bottom line from my point of view is
"Do I want to sit on the sidelines and snipe?"
OR
"Do I want to be part of the decision making process so I have less to snipe about?"

The bottom line from my point of view is
"Do I want to sit on the sidelines and snipe?"
OR
"Do I want to be part of the decision making process so I have less to snipe about?"

I hope this becomes a topic of discussion of the big meeting in Milwaukee of Section Chairs and Division Chairs in October.

For me the best place to start to describe a BOK for Lean Manufacturing is that described in the Six Sigma Black Belt BOK from ASQ. They are listed as follows with a brief summary of what I understand they are. What I do not know is how many other concepts, methods and tools should be included if one is practicing true lean manufacturing.

Lean Concepts

1. Theory of constraints as introduced by Goldratt in The Goal and then expanded in Theory of Constraints. Removing bottlenecks from a process was the primary target of the theory with the goal of increasing throughput, reducing inventory and lowering costs.

2. Lean Thinking as introduced by James Womack in The Machine That Changed the World and a follow up called Lean Thinking. Understanding and adding value to products and services was the primary focus. It became associated with the Toyota manufacturing system, just in time production and flexible work forces.

3. Continuous flow manufacturing focuses on a continuous flow of production that is smooth and uninterrupted. The goal is to reduce the time to move through the process and meet or exceed customer requirements for delivery with lower costs and higher quality.

4. Reduction of non-value added activities in inventory, testing, rework, transportation, storage.

5. Cycle time reduction which includes the concepts of 5S, visual management, motion studies, muda (wastes) and kaizen events and targets having a clean, efficient organization that reduces wasted motion.

Lean Tools

Lean tools are such things as visual factory, kanban, poka-yoke, standard work, SMED for cycle reduction, and TPM for reducing maintenance down time (see below).


Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

TPM focuses on corrective and preventive maintenance to increase throughput.

My thoughts: Assuming I have included the main concepts, there is enough theory and conplexity in the concepts that one could create a body of knowledge that adds more detail to my summary. If that is the goal of ASQ than it would clarify what is Lean Manufacturing and what is needed to implemented it.

Bill Pflanz

As a lean pad wan. I have only been practicing for about 16 yrs.

I am tired of buying the lasted version of books, so I now wait 5 to 8 yrs and examine the change. On a recent purchase of a lean book 10 yrs old, it is clear to see we starting writing before we started understanding.

Basically I try to treat all information as I would a fish dinner.

Eat the good stuff, throw out the rest.

So from this perspective a BOK would be great. I can still not eat the bones.

I have found that not every process works for every manufacturing situation. But I have also found that every philosophy works for every manufacturing situation. (with respect to lean of course)

Lean has nothing to do with tools.

It has to do with how we use tools to meet our specific needs, and yes, as far as i can tell, most of these tools have already existed for years.

If someone thinks they can make a fortune because of this BOK, thats Americia. Me, for one, wouldn't mind weeding through another 100 pages of crap to find one that is good.

[/list]The bottom line from my point of view is
"Do I want to sit on the sidelines and snipe?"
OR
"Do I want to be part of the decision making process so I have less to snipe about?"


OR

"Do I want to hang around and see exactly what people are including in the lean tool set so I can try to make some sense out of it?"

Now, let me turn the tables a little.

What is better about kanban or kaizen or poka yoke than CPM/PERT?

CPM/PERT Critical Path Method/Project Evaluation Review Technique has a long history of actually working, but its buzz words have fallen out of favor with the intrusion of new buzzwords.

CPM/PERT is still taught in some places (here's one site - caution! annoying music! http://www.snc.edu/socsci/chair/333/stones/page3.html )

I have a strong dislike of attaching people's names to an existing process which the person has merely described or popularized, not invented or discovered.

Ergo, I don't expect to see John Doe's Theory of Walking or Mary Roe's Algebra in the same way as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Similarly, Ishikawa did not invent the herringbone diagram, but he did use it to great effect.

I have at least one Japanese acquaintance (an ASQ Fellow and holder of a number of ASQ certifications, including SSBB) who has been a top Quality consultant in Japan for over 25 years. He absolutely ridicules the terms kaizen and poka yoke as being "stupid" and the techniques they represent absolutely NOT invented or created in Japan and, most importantly, says they are often detrimental as they are applied wrongly in Japanese industry.

He prefers the terms improvement and mistake proofing, as do I.

He prefers the terms improvement and mistake proofing, as do I.

Now there's an interesting idea...words we can understand, and even know how to spell...gee that sounds like "Lean meets vocabulary." Wes, you might be starting the next great movement in quality...

Now there's an interesting idea...words we can understand, and even know how to spell...gee that sounds like "Lean meets vocabulary." Wes, you might be starting the next great movement in quality...
From your lips to the controlling Deity's ear.

One of the first things I would do with Lean is dump ALL the Japanese terminology and acronyms and stick to plain English terminology to make the entire system more accessible to non-geeks. Deming said (paraphrasing) "Dump slogans, mottos, exhortations, remove fear, and gain profound knowledge about your operation."

Anytime we set a system to create an "us vs. them" situation, we are adding a level of dissension to the mix. Note that ASQ is not charging for a copy of the BOK, unlike ISO which charges for a copy of the Standards it creates. Is there a difference between a Standard for a Management System and a BOK for a "subset" of established Quality tools? What do you think?

Isn't it great to be in America where we can not see beyond our own arrogance?

With English being the World language of business, as foreigners come to this country, we expect them to speak English. And, as we go to a foreign country, we also expect them to speak English. (Thank goodness many of them do). How arrogant is that.

Does this really mean we should no longer say "Kanban" without any implied acronyms? Should we call this "purchase order", or "invoice" depending on its function? Should we call it " ticket that makes purchasing 90% obsolete". Or should we simply call it "Kanban" with an English translation of its function?

How dare us to steal a function from another country that was stolen from us and was made more simple in its application and more functional in their environment.

Need we be reminded that the Japanese culture is not our enemy, but our competition. We should not strive to use these tools to be as good, we should improve on them to make them better.

When we fail to implement lean manufacturing concepts into our environment, are we not arrogant is saying, this only works in Japan because of their culture. Are we so blind to our own faults to admit our failure and lack of understanding? Or are we just arrogant enough to blame someone else for our poor understanding, and worse, truly believe it?

Isn't it great to be in America where we can not see beyond our own arrogance?
Trying to make sure that everyone understands the requirements isn't arrogance.

With English being the World language of business, as foreigners come to this country, we expect them to speak English. And, as we go to a foreign country, we also expect them to speak English. (Thank goodness many of them do). How arrogant is that.
You said yourself that English is the language of business, and that's the way it is, like it or not. Businesses outside the US have a choice--they can conduct business in the native languages of the people they want to do business with, or not. I understand the "ugly American" syndrome and agree that it is at times too true and it is indeed arrogant, but that has little to do with the point that Wes was trying to make.
How dare us to steal a function from another country that was stolen from us and was made more simple in its application and more functional in their environment.
And yet you deny the signifcance of cultural differences :confused:.
Need we be reminded that the Japanese culture is not our enemy, but our competition. We should not strive to use these tools to be as good, we should improve on them to make them better.
No one here, as far as I can see, is suggesting any kind of enmity proceeds from cultural differences in business (although it obviously does in politics).
When we fail to implement lean manufacturing concepts into our environment, are we not arrogant is saying, this only works in Japan because of their culture.
Wes was making the point that there is reason to believe that some "tools" we identify as Japanese, with transliterated Japanese names, are inaccurate representations even in Japan. No one is saying that x won't work in the US because of cultural differences, but if you don't acknowledge that adjustments might be necessary in order to account for cultural disparities, and that some strategies which are wholly dependent upon cultural norms might not make sense at all, then you're denying the bloody obvious.
Are we so blind to our own faults to admit our failure and lack of understanding? Or are we just arrogant enough to blame someone else for our poor understanding, and worse, truly believe it?
I don't completely share Wes's opinion regarding what we call things, so long as the substance is properly understood (a rose by any other name...). We confuse the container for the thing contained too often, imo. But Wes made a good point in saying that it doesn't make much sense to use the terms kaizen and poka yoke when (a) they might not make sense even in Japan, and (b) we can just say "improvement" and "mistake proofing" and be sure that everyone will understand what we're talking about.

Isn't it great to be in America where we can not see beyond our own arrogance?

With English being the World language of business, as foreigners come to this country, we expect them to speak English. And, as we go to a foreign country, we also expect them to speak English. (Thank goodness many of them do). How arrogant is that.

Does this really mean we should no longer say "Kanban" without any implied acronyms? Should we call this "purchase order", or "invoice" depending on its function? Should we call it " ticket that makes purchasing 90% obsolete". Or should we simply call it "Kanban" with an English translation of its function?

How dare us to steal a function from another country that was stolen from us and was made more simple in its application and more functional in their environment.

Need we be reminded that the Japanese culture is not our enemy, but our competition. We should not strive to use these tools to be as good, we should improve on them to make them better.

When we fail to implement lean manufacturing concepts into our environment, are we not arrogant is saying, this only works in Japan because of their culture. Are we so blind to our own faults to admit our failure and lack of understanding? Or are we just arrogant enough to blame someone else for our poor understanding, and worse, truly believe it?
There's no doubt whether I may be arrogant. Power and privilege do, indeed, reinforce arrogance and lead to hubris. In this instance, though, I am not substituting my own, unaccompanied point of view on the topic, but a SYNTHESIS of the points of view of many of my colleagues around the world who are on the day-to-day firing line in a multitude of corporations. I add to that the point of view of a Japanese national who continually harps on the theme that kanban, kaizen, poka yoke are bastardized versions of techniques and tools perfected in the USA long before Deming went to Japan after WWII.

Normally, I would just link to the following exchange in the ASQ Forum, but it lies in a members only section of the site. I think it illustrates a large part of the issue. I've been lucky in my own career where "expert from afar" has earned me money and some prestige. Certainly, any of us who travel from the USA to a foreign country to consult are taking advantage of the cachet that "expert from afar" adds to the pearls of wisdom we drop.

Note, especially, that I did not take part in the following series of posts.
ASQ Discussion Boards » ASQ Member Discussion Boards » Quality Disciplines and Technologies
Topic: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Replies: 24 Pages: 2 Last Post: Sep 22, 2005 10:23 AM by: Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Gregory Barnes
Posts: 4

Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 8, 2005 7:33 AM Reply

I believe 100% in Kaizen philosophy and was looking forward to getting hands on experience with it when our company was acquired by a Japanese corporation.
Unfortunately, the implementation has not gone well. Here are some of the problems we've seen:
1. Lack of training for all but the top personnel. Even the "Kaizen" advocates who direct day to day activities have not received more than a couple of hours training.
2. Lack of commitment. Management holds quality circles but gives them poorly defined projects (projects in areas out of the groups' control) or will not give the circles time to do tasks (need to get that production out).
3. Inability to manage change. Kaizen was introduced at the same time the company was going through a crisis and had to lay off 2/3 of its staff and workers. Also, another plant that made radically different products was closed and merged into ours. This doubled the workload for the plant. All of this happened in two years!
I am a beginning quality engineer, but am very passionate about Kaizen. I have no direct control over the Kaizen efforts. What could I do to help save our Kaizen efforts?
Part of the problem is cultural. The Kaizen mindset is different for Westerners, but it can be learned and it can succeed. The learning curve is going to be slow. How could I help explain this to our Japanese leaders without being disrespectful?
Thank you for your help.
Greg Barnes
Atlanta, GA
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 8, 2005 10:02 AM Reply

Dear Greg:
I believe kaizen is 100% stupid and useless. It is not the improvement, but just the game of most stupid kindergarten level people. I wonder why you are passionate about “kaizen”. While waiting for your reply to this question, my comments are as follows:
The company who acquired your company looks to be a very typical company with Japanese style of management where top management do not have any responsibility, with no commitment, no policy, and doing nothing value-added. I call it “topless management”.

If you check all other responses of mine in ASQ Discussion Forum/Boards, you can entirely agree with me. It is Japanese actual status. According to Japanese old saying, “there is neither medicine nor cure for idiots, except death”. You are experiencing it now, as I have repeatedly warned you all, and some (or rather many) of you were unhappy with my comments. I am honest, sincere and serious.

I am a Japanese management consultant covering all of quality management, quality assurance, good manufacturing practice, and quality engineering. I am the first ASQ CQE, the first CQ Manager, and only one ASQ CSSBB in Japan. I am telling all clients of mine in Japan never try to do “kaizen” and “lean” because such things are the most stupid things in the world.

The best therapy for your company is that the capable (serious, diligent, intelligent and cognizant) persons leave the company. The stupid company should be operated only by the stupid people. It is not the place for the intelligent people to work.

This is not the problem of culture. Japanese culture is not so poor, but some crazy Japanese people have lowered the culture level of Japan in the past 50 years.

One more thing. None of kaizen and lean people have passed the ASQ CQE and CQManager exams so far. All such people are not the quality professional but the fake, I dare say.

If you stay with lean kaizen poka-yokel company, you will become really lean (in brain), and poka-yokel bumpkin or monkey in a couple of years.
Akio Miura, ASQ CQA/CBA/CQE/CQManager/CSSBB
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
William Pflanz
Posts: 289

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 8, 2005 11:22 AM Reply

Gregory,
Akio has very strong opinions about blindly following Kaizen, Lean and other heavily promoted Japanese methods. The same comments can be applied to TQM, Six Sigma and other American quality methods that are not properly supported and led by management. During the last few months, Akio and others have discussed the myths related to Japanese quality, Deming's influence on the Japanese and how the U.S. can compete. Like everything in life, there is variation in the implementation of the methods.

Corporations fail in their quality efforts since many executives believe they can purchase quality philosophies that will solve their problems. Leadership is the key to success. Training is not useful without some objective. Quality circles are not useful unless they are working on problems that have been identified through data collection and are understood to not just be normal variation. Getting out of a crisis does not take quality methods since it is too late at that point. Some of the changes that your company has gone through may have been needed to stay in business.

Once your company stabilizes, the tools need to be taught so they can be used to work on immediate problems that have been identified through not meeting customer requirements, being wasteful or not meeting competition. Each should be supported by management since they should relate to the strategic goals of the company.

The problem does not appear to be cultural so much as looking for an easy fix. All quality engineers would like to see that but the truth is that if it was easy to fix your problems, it would be done already.

I would recommend leading a project with defined objectives, that is important to the company and that is supported by one of the enlightened managers. Your job would be to show how to collect data and use the problem solving process and tools.
Bill Pflanz
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Gregory Barnes
Posts: 4

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 8, 2005 11:30 AM Reply

Wow! That is not a response I expected! What about Toyota and Honda? Don't they use Kaizen principles? Of course, auto makers are in a distinct class of manufacturing because of their size and complexity.

Like I said, I am new to quality and Kaizen certainly sounds good. From my limited experience, it has seemed to work well, also.

I have applied Poka Yoke concepts to eliminate data entry errors and they worked very well. Obviously, the idea can be taken to extremes. People are going to have to think, no matter what system you put into place. If you are not careful, you can end up spending more and more money in an effort to make something completely idiot proof. I use Cost of Quality to help determination the point of diminishing returns, although there may be better ways. Maybe that is not true Kaizen.

I believe in Quality Circles when they are given time to do what they need to do. My background is in manufacturing engineering. I worked in one very well run plant that used a lot of input from operators to drive continuous improvement. We had quality circles without the title. Taking ideas from the best operators and systemizing them, we were able to bring a very unstable process under control very quickly. Only senior operators who do the work everyday would have observed some of the things we implemented.

However, it also seems to me that a big part of Kaizen depends upon individual behaviors that can be difficult to control. I am curious about what may be done to change these behaviors. In the good plant I mentioned above, teamwork was part of the culture. The teamwork tradition was established because of the founders' personalities. They attracted like-minded people and it became the norm for the company.
Greg Barnes
Atlanta, GA
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 8, 2005 10:56 PM Reply

Bill Pflanz is correct, but I would like to add something.

I may look to have very strong opinions about Kaizen, Lean and other heavily promoted Japanese methods. However, I have checked many Japanese friends of mine before posting my comments on them. In my network, there are people of Honda, Mitsubishi, Mitsui, and some other leading Japanese companies. They do not disagree with me. They know well that so-called kaizen, lean, and poka-yoke are merely the casual thoughts or makeshift or perfunctory suggestions of shop floor level operators. The smart company management does not take them important. This is the fact.

Good things and good people are good, and wrong things and wrong people are wrong, in any country in the world. I’m not saying that Japan is any wrong, but I’m trying my best effort to prevent my good friends in the world from being misled or contaminated by wrong things. A friend of mine, Henrietta Morgan, is the Quality Manager of a big U.S. firm in the Great Lakes area. Her company has decided to adopt “Lean” and started that project with some Japanese “sensei” a couple of years ago. Henrietta found something wrong or strange, and asked me “what is lean, kaizen”. I replied the same way as I did to you, and she entirely agreed with me. She is a CQE/ CQA/ CQ Manager, smart enough, altogether different from such a stupid sensei who cannot solve any easy multiple choice question of the CQE exam. Her company did not fire such sensei and is still doing that project. So they are still suffering from many wrong things and has deteriorated considerably, she confessed to me when we met at Seattle in May. Another friend of mine, Johnny Blackbeard who was the Quality Director of a big Japanese manufacturer in New Jersey has left the company saying that there is no management responsibility and support and he got sick of it.

To your question “What about Toyota and Honda?”, I know them because I have friends in such companies and I taught quality to some people of Honda and some other auto makers 10 to 12 years ago. Their sense of quality is terrible. They have no CQEs at all. Their kaizen is not improvement in my sense and concept. It is only for their own purposes. I wrote the fact about Toyota’s kaizen in some other thread a couple of months ago. They made some Japanese post offices in a mess and caused many mails and parcels to disappear. If increase is improvement, this is a great improvement in the numbers of troubles and problems, most Japanese people agree. You may admire and believe Toyota and Honda. It is up to you.

When asking a question, some people have their own answer or have some preconception, and would not listen to any right answer if it is different from theirs. I just hope you are not that type. I am a sincere, honest and conscientious man, and teaching the improvement, in the way of the sincere and honest people. It is altogether different from selfish or dishonest kaizen.
Have you checked some other threads about the stat of Japanese kaizen? More than 99% of self-claimed kaizen turned out to be stupid and made the companies into a mess, according to the report of a big research institute in Japan in 1990s.

Quality Circles is not the Japanese system. Very low level new companies who did not know quality at all learned it from AT&T through Deming, etc. about 50 years ago. Many of smart or cognizant Japanese companies are now sick of Quality Circles.

I do not like the word “Poka Yoke” because it is the slang of rather indecent people (maybe sort of “yokel”) as I wrote before. It should be said “mistake proofing” or “error proofing”. It is nothing new, but the practice in all countries in the world for many centuries.

>> . . . it also seems to me that a big part of Kaizen depends upon individual behaviors that can be difficult to control. I am curious about what may be done to change these behaviors. >>

This is one of the reasons why I am not recommending Kaizen to Japanese clients. It merely makes the organization in a mess.

Teamwork is important in everything. Almost all cultural heritages of human being, such as pyramids in Egypt and Mexico, the Great Wall in China, good temples and cathedrals in Asia and Europe are the products of good teamwork, I think. In the meantime, there is another type of teamwork in this world. In Japan, auto manufacturers association has established an ISO registrar, who are assessing and registering auto manufacturers and auto part suppliers. It seems that they are taking it as a good “teamwork”. I warned them years ago because I did not like them to be unethical, but they did not listen to me at all. This is another reason why I do not like Japanese auto and auto parts companies. The sincerity with fairness – the quality of heart – is most important.

This is my tentative reply before I get your reply to my question “why you are passionate about kaizen?” In my previous post, I sympathized with you, but you look to be dissatisfied with the fact and my sympathy.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Gregory Barnes
Posts: 4

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 9, 2005 7:12 AM Reply

Bill and Akio,
I appreciate your comments, although I was surprised at first by Akio's response. But, I also much appreciate the candor. I think that the long and short, is that there is no substitute for leadership. There is no "magic" pill that will make problems go away.

You cannot buy a "canned" solution. I learned that early on when an employer bought a complex automated line to solve their production problems. There was a whole new set of problems implementing a complex piece of machinery.
What I am seeing is a lack of leadership. The best thing I can do is exhibit leadership so others may follow my example. And, I should not be afraid to politely challenge thinking when it violates the laws of common sense.
Thank you, Bill and Akio, for your insights.
Greg Barnes
Atlanta, GA

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
William Pflanz
Posts: 289

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 9, 2005 9:13 AM Reply

Gregory,
Please revisit and share your successes - and failures. There is much that can be learned from the Discussion Board so continue to ask for advice. You sound like you are not a rookie and were looking for confirmation about your suspicions. Based on your replies, you also have much to offer others who need help so feel free to give advice too.
Bill Pflanz
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Dan McLaughlin
Posts: 17

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 9, 2005 9:30 PM Reply

You paint a pretty bleak picture with layoffs and other chaos going on. Some times you have to take a step back to move forward again. Maybe it is career decision time for you. Leadership is the key. Doesn't sound like they have it.
It may take the company years to get on track again. It is very hard to tell what is going on at the Senior Leader's level. Without their commitment don't expect to do anything but flounder. Whatever quality initiative is tried.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 10, 2005 11:13 AM Reply

Greg:
I feel very happy because you have two very good friends here, Bill and Dan.
If you are not a rookie in quality engineering and management, you should read “Quality Planning and Analysis” by Frank Gryna and Joseph Juran, published by ASQ. It is not only useful in our day-to-day quality business but in the ASQ CQE exam. It is far beyond the level of Toyota, Honda and Nissan, who have no CQEs at all. It is a very enjoyable book if you read it. In Japan, there is almost no person who understands its plain English except my deputy and me. This is the reason why there is only 7 CQEs in Japan and it is a serious problem with the current Japanese quality. The good company having a good quality control written in this book and your company are both extremes, I’m afraid.

The actual situation you are in would be about the same as depicted by Dan, I guess. They have no leadership, but they will delegate responsibility to you with no right and authority. They will make no good commitment. They do not know “empowerment”. They retain power. This is one of the main features of typical Japanese management with lean and kaizen kanban poka. So you will have a tough time. My friend John, who posted in the thread of the Quality Audit Division a couple of times, know it very well because he worked for Tokyo Branch of some big oil company six years in 1980s, and entirely agree with me. According to him, everything is “saka-sama”, which means “upside down”, “inside out”. It is in my words, “left is right, and right is wrong”. Your right things will be wrong for them, and they may ask you to make some “kaizen” in their sense.

You have to be tactical enough in every action at your company. There will be no poka-yoke (fool-proof) measures for your situation. It will be a challenge for you. Sorry I cannot help you because there is no good medicine for such idiots according to Japanese old saying. Only one thing I can advise you now is to look for some good refuge – non-poka (non-idiot) company for your new career decision, as Dan advised you. I like to play baseball (currently, only practice). I used to be a substitute pitcher in bull-pen, and sometimes a pinch-hitter in a non-pro company baseball club because I was no good in running. However, I learned from baseball many good things useful for our day-to-day business and management. For example, the good back-up formation system in fielding (really good teamwork), and having good inventory of enough substitute players in dugout.

Also I used to play saber fencing, and learned a good thing from an American fencing coach 40 years ago. It was that we have to practice and use various alternative techniques for every action and reaction, either in defense or offense. Otherwise, we are easily trapped and beaten by the opponent. Conditional response in one way is most vulnerable in fighting, because the opponent is observing our movement and doing “trend analysis” during fighting. He used to say “just one thing is nothing”. (Its equivalent in Japanese old saying is: “the idiot (poka or baka) knows only one way.”)
You may have been surprised at my comments on Toyota, Honda, etc. A friend of mine who is an ISO registrar auditor audited and approved Toyota Kentucky upon their initial ISO registration. He said to me Toyota’s management system is good. However, I knew it better than he because another friend of mine, Greg, helped them conform to ISO standards. Greg was my baseball friend, and live in KY. (He was an MLB candidate catcher 23 years ago.) From this fact, I do not think Toyota system was not so good before, and I am not sure if it is really good now.

I am not interested in criticizing Japanese manufacturers, but the reason why I know they are not so good is that I taught them and helped several Deming Prize holders including one big car manufacturer get certified to ISO about 12 years ago. They were big companies and were proud of their Deming prize, but their quality management system was terribly poor to my astonishment. So I had tough time to correct and help them. They were proud of numbers of kaizen cases. However, they did not know the correct meaning of kaizen in Japanese – their own language. Their “kaizen” is merely some change, independent of whether for better or for worse. They do not care. Therefore, in some ASQ books, it is defined as “incremental changes”. It is not the improvement at all. (In correct Japanese language, kaizen is improvement. Improvement is different from correction and corrective action as I explained in the thread of “ISO Discussion Forum” two years ago.) I saw many cases of kaizen, poka-yoke and kanban, and found that they are really crazy and ridiculous. Therefore, I cannot say that lean and kaizen are any good. Many Japanese newspapers and magazines wrote the same thing in the past decade many times, quite irrespective of me. According to them, the IQ Level of lean people is about the same as kindergarten kids.

To all readers: If you believe such junk books and your company wants to get into a chaos, do kaizen, lean and poka yoke as you like. I hope you all understand the actual status of such tools.
Take good care.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 11, 2005 6:46 AM Reply

About Kaizen in their actual practice:
If you observe the Lean kaizen companies, you will find that many of them are boasting of numbers of kaizen or changes they made, i.e., they are repeating changes bit by bit, and sometimes calling it “continuous improvement”. Their kaizen is actually not the improvement but mostly fixing or correction, or merely the change. They cannot tell the difference of correction, change and improvement. In case of change, they believe change is improvement, and they do not care whether it is for good or for bad. I found that their processes are mostly deficient, and their operation procedures and instructions are poorly written, or quite often, they are not in place. That caused lots of errors and troubles, and hence they need kaizen or poka-yoke.
As the first management system consultant in Japan, I have taught more than 100 companies since 1990. In many cases, I prepared their Quality Manual and key operation procedures. In case of most of my clients, there are very few opportunities for CAPA and improvement. At good companies among them (who honestly followed my advice), there were no needs for kaizen or poka yoke or lean. It was because I have included all good preventive measures for errors and troubles in their processes and operation procedures.

The cases of poka-yoke or kaizen by Shingo or Imai are mostly for the trivial components of operation processes and the matter of the floor level workers. They are not aware that the root cause of errors, deficiencies and shortcomings in operation processes is mostly in the process or procedure. The system, process or product that needs continuous improvement (actually, patchwork) eternally is always deficient, insufficient or something wrong. If the good process is designed and a good operation procedure is prepared for it, there will be almost no need for devising error proofing after starting the operation of the process. It is the matter of management and the process engineering function.

If you have any question, please do not hesitate to ask me.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Gregory Barnes
Posts: 4

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 15, 2005 7:28 PM Reply

Thanks for the advice, everyone!
I have to admit that I have felt sometimes lost with the new system. The best quality system I worked in was governed primarily by the Pareto principle. Instead of fixing everything at once in a flurry of unfocused activity, we would focus our energies across departments on the vital few. We were able to accomplish huge gains quickly because everyone was focused and because everyone was accountable. That seems to be 180 degrees from our current Kaizen system where everyone is going in a different direction.

This company did not have titles (those of you familiar with American manufacturing may have guessed the company). Production folks freely shared their ideas and were treated as equal members of the team. The production folks on our team helped interview job candidates. It was a neat experience.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Manoj Mathur
Posts: 13

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 17, 2005 11:44 PM Reply

Most Respected Akio Miura Sir,
I Bow my head for the Truth you said sir. But Kindly reply me that If you Leave the things as it is, considering people are stupid and they do not consider Leadership is a real issue. Is it not Escapism. If you leave one such organization, join other what is the guarantee another is also good.

Sir, Second thing I would like to ask, If Organisation is good, People are wise, Leadership is prudent then what is the role of Guru or Sansei or Consultant ?
Sir, Whay i am asking this point that has validity. Because I am working with an organisation which is on path of Improvement. In this company everything is there but it needs a teacher who present the shop floor improvements in such a manner that it's replication (Horizontal Replication as well as Vertical Replication) becomes easy and not only its replication but promote a motivation where people think outside Box Thinking.

Sir, For that matter I am here in this company and Sir, Due to above mentioned reasons I used to promote World Class Manufacturing (WCM) Concept in my plant which includes TPM, Kaizen, Poka-Yoke, Six Sigma, SPC/SQC, JIT/SCM etc.

I am WCM Coordinator for this plant.

Please Reply sir that will help me to decide my future course of actions.
Regards,
Manoj Mathur
manojmathur@adityabirla.com

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 18, 2005 3:52 AM Reply

> I have to admit that I have felt sometimes lost with
> the new system. The best quality system I worked in
> was governed primarily by the Pareto principle.
> Instead of fixing everything at once in a flurry of
> unfocused activity, we would focus our energies
> across departments on the vital few. We were able to
> accomplish huge gains quickly because everyone was
> focused and because everyone was accountable. That
> seems to be 180 degrees from our current Kaizen
> system where everyone is going in a different
> direction.
>
Greg:
Right. Vilfredo Pareto’s principle is the best way to identify vital few problems or causes. After your Pareto analysis, you will find:

1. There is no commitment of management, and no awareness. They are lack of training, but they do not think so. They think they are knowledgeable and competent enough.

2. Inability to manage change – no knowledge of change management.

3. They think the “Quality Control” is “holding quality circles”. They have no knowledge of quality system and quality engineering.

That is, the same as your first impression on the company’s new management. Also you find that the meaning of kaizen in their term is merely some change either good or bad, as I wrote previously. The challenge will be how to train management with your leadership. Good luck.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 18, 2005 4:34 AM Reply

Mr. Manoj Mathur:
Thanks for good questions.
The initial poster, Greg, has the difficult challenge that he has to train or lead his new boss(es). While there is no reason for him to be permanently loyal to the new management who recently acquired the company. If you were a captain of a ship and that ship was wrecked, you would tell all crew to leave the ship using life boats. Escaping, avoidance, or evasion or some other alternative will be necessary strategy for Greg. It is up to Greg whether to prepare refuge or not.

As a consultant, I worked also for some good organizations with wise people and prudent leaders. Then I made them much better, smarter and more prudent. It is the true improvement in my definition – making good things much better. They are very happy. Me, too.

You may continue shop floor improvements, as long as you identify needs of improvement there, but if you have good management system and good processes with good operation procedures, the opportunity of such improvements will decrease dramatically.

If you have good management system with good management practices, you will not need such junk or monkey tools as so-called TPM, kaizen, poka, and JIT/SCM. By the way, can you do and manage all of these junk tools? Have you ever tried to practice them and found that they are any good? I saw lots of cases of terrible or miserable results.

Traditional Shewhart/Deming/Juran’s SPC/SQC and statistical techniques based on probability theory (topics of CQE and CRE) are useful for good management. They should be used as necessary.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dan McLaughlin
Posts: 17

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 18, 2005 11:32 AM Reply

My expereince has shown that many companies are trying to use quality tools like DOE when they should focus on the more basic tools. Pareto charts and basic check sheets can tell you a whole lot about the process if applied properly. My thinking is if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be duck. No need to check its DNA for verification.
Pick the low hanging fruit and hold the gain. In most companies that will keep you busy for a whole career.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Aug 18, 2005 7:39 PM Reply


> My expereince has shown that many companies are
> trying to use quality tools like DOE when they should
> focus on the more basic tools. Pareto charts and
> basic check sheets can tell you a whole lot about the
> process if applied properly. ...
>
It is a good idea for any people to pick the low hanging fruit and hold the gain.

I have never said such a thing that DOE, Pareto chart and check sheets are part of stupid kaizen or Lean. These are very traditional tools and proved to be useful for decades. Pareto analysis was devised by Vilfredo Pareto in 1906. Checksheets have been used by many people in various countries for centuries. DOE was devised by some mathematicians and scientists many decades ago. All these good tools are included in the BOK of CQE for decades. They are not unique to Lean or poka.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Muhammad Imtiaz
Posts: 2

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 18, 2005 2:25 AM Reply

I totally agree with Mr. Akio about kiazen and quality circles..I worked as a consultant and provided consultancy to automobile sector and one of my client was Toyota Car Assembling Plant, when I started my work there I got surprised that the incharge of Kaizen/Quaity Circle program was a person who in my opinion didnt know the basics of quality (that I experienced throughout my consultancy assignment and not to mention suffered because of that)...there they adopted a very smart concept (btw thats what they believed not me) that they combined the kaizen and quality circles together and was celebrating annually by helding the competitions between various kaizen project teams, I witnessed one of their ceremony and I totally agree with Mr. Akio that was a total waste of time and resources...not a single kaizen project yielded any improvement rather than just correction and in some cases there were increased set of problems due to new modifications they adopted as a result of a kaizen project.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 18, 2005 9:48 AM Reply

Muhammad:
Thanks for feedback. I am very happy to hear that you were not deceived by such fake or bogus people. Seeing is believing.
We all have to take “preventive action”. I am already old enough and going to retire, but would not like the good friends all over the world to be affected by wrong concepts.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

James Shelor
Posts: 101

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 18, 2005 10:49 PM Reply

Bill, Akio, etal,
Wow, it is good to run into another lively discussion.
I agree that most companies have lots of low hanging fruit that can be picked and make a lot of headway.
I would caution those companies to at least do enough research on which piece of fruit to pick lest you find yourself in an avalanche of low hanging fruit that you were not yet ready to pick and your system gets hurt instead of helped by the low hanging fruit you picked.
Just make sure you are going after the right ones first, etc.
Regards,
Jim Shelor PMP
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

William Pflanz
Posts: 289

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 20, 2005 7:02 AM Reply


>
> I would caution those companies to at least do enough
> research on which piece of fruit to pick lest you
> find yourself in an avalanche of low hanging fruit
> that you were not yet ready to pick and your system
> gets hurt instead of helped by the low hanging fruit
> you picked.
>
> Just make sure you are going after the right ones
> first, etc.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Shelor PMP
Jim,
The problem is not the availability of low hanging fruit or even picking it because it is easy. The real issue is that a Kaizen implementation implies that spending a week on an intensive effort to fix a problem and get immediate gains is the best way to improve.

True quality improvement must also be done on problems that are difficult to identify and solve and do not return as a problem later. When quick solutions are done without longer term monitoring of the data, you are deceived into thinking that you have solved a problem and taken credit for savings that are not really there.
Bill Pflanz

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Muhammad Imtiaz
Posts: 2

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 20, 2005 10:38 PM Reply

Let me clear the issue of kaizen, take an example of having a dinner...now if one continously works on how to imrpove the tools to be used to prepare dinner and design innovative ways of using utensils and saving energy by cutting unnecesary time for cooking and as a end result he gets successful in all the efforts and claims that the project was a success...but the question is without the main ingredients i.e grocerry items, would that project makes any sense? what if the required food items are not available in the market or the end user i.e the person who will eat, will not like the dish itself? then whats the use of that innovation? Same is true for kaizen that it focuses mainly on the production tools to be improved not the main processes and the business itself.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

James Shelor
Posts: 101

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 20, 2005 11:51 PM Reply

Bill,
Let me expand a little on what I meant.
I meant, do the research on the processes and the analysis on the process and fully define the problem you are going to fix.

If you pick the first piece of low hanging fruit you find, you are probably going to cause more problems than you solve.

Just make sure the fruit you pick is not an apple when you wanted an orange.
Regards,
Jim Shelor PMP
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 21, 2005 5:00 AM Reply


> Let me clear the issue of kaizen, take an example of
> having a dinner...now if one continously works on how
> to imrpove the tools to be used to prepare dinner and
> design innovative ways of using utensils and saving
> energy by cutting unnecesary time for cooking and as
> a end result he gets successful in all the efforts
> and claims that the project was a success...but the
> question is without the main ingredients i.e grocerry
> items, would that project makes any sense? what if
> the required food items are not available in the
> market or the end user i.e the person who will eat,
> will not like the dish itself? then whats the use of
> that innovation? Same is true for kaizen that it
> focuses mainly on the production tools to be improved
> not the main processes and the business itself.

Muhammad:
I guess you wrote about some typical Toyota kaizen cases as you actually observed. You must have realized that it is patchwork or cursory retouching for self-satisfaction by shop level workers. In the worst case, it is “tampering”. Therefore it turned out that more than 99% of kaizen cases were not improvement at all, according to some Japanese big research institute. Honest and conscientious people in Japan call it “monkey business”. I think real monkeys in jungle are much smarter than such kaizen people, and know which low hanging fruit they should pick up. I am a professional of management system and improvement and encouraging true improvement, of course, but never recommending to do kaizen.
Akio Miura
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

William Pflanz
Posts: 289

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 21, 2005 8:50 AM Reply

I agree that only focusing on low hanging fruit can be a problem and does not really work towards fundamental changes in the process. Although we all do easy projects at times, it would be unwise to focus on only those. The difficult problems are hard to find, difficult to determine root causes and sometimes have solutions that are difficult to implement.

My remarks were directed at Kaizen blitzes but it could be any improvement using any methodology that is done in a short term period like a week. Also, as you noted, fixing a problem because it is easy is not always a good idea if it is not a strategic objective for the organization.
Bill
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Akio Miura
Posts: 325

Re: Rescuing a Kaizen implementation
Posted: Sep 22, 2005 10:23 AM Reply

I entirely agree with Bill. Kaizen blitz (like German army in 1940s) is no good at all.

According to the TV news in Japan today, a case of Japanese typical Kaizen (as Honda style) by a big calculator company CASIO was blamed by the Fair Trade Commission of Japanese government, and they have to submit the Corrective Action Plan to the government. I am not sure if they really know that CA is to preclude the recurrence of their misbehavior. Maybe it is “we will never do it again”, but how do they guarantee it?

This kaizen is very unethical, unfair and illegal, but quite typical among auto makers here. I do not write its detail, because I would not like to give you the tip how to make money by an unethical, unfair and illegal way. Fortunately, the auto makers here are not investigated by the government yet. Do you still admire Honda, etc? It is up to you.
Akio Miura

What a mouth full.

As strong as Akio is against kaizen, I am just as strong for it.

In any perfect system, if enough stones are thrown, eventually you will find holes.

In every poor kaizen you will have problems.

In evey good kaizin, you will get positive results.

Just how poor are kaizen activities..... Toyota is now the #2 automaker in the world, thats how poor kaizens are.

In regard to cultural differences, It is fine to teach cultural differences, but with respect to kaizens, if I use these tools in a kaizen, did I effect culture or effect a change in which we do business? Pareto...., Cause & effects, Tick charts or P-charts, X-bar / R charts, etc,etc. All of these kaizen tools are quality tools.... does using these tools change culture (do I have to quit eating beef?).
PERT, VSM, Standardized work charts, these are also kaizen tools. They are also process tools. If I use these tools, am I again changing culture? (Do I have to eat fish on Friday?).

Kaizen is a philosophy of continuous improvement. The tools we use are the same quality and process tools that have been around for years. The application (Kaizen) of these tools develop the direction of the process improvement.

Changing the name of the tool adds no value, unless it makes it easier to remember.
"A rose by any other name, still smells like a bee wiped its butt on it".

Just as Akio would probably disagree with my take on kaizens, I also disagree with his.... no disrespect.... I 've just seen more success in them than without them, as it seems clear buy his statements that he has seen more disaster with them.

I sometimes wonder, asutherland, whether we're even on the same planet :confused:

Your own response supports the "opposing" side. It is just plain weird from my perspective (IMHO).

You are using many continuous improvement tools (some of which existed before "kaizen"), which we all use from time to time, and are simply labeling them "Kaizen". Yet you say, "changing the name of the tool adds no value". But you change X Bar & R to Kaizen???

I have no quarrel about any company using any internal catch phrases they want if it helps them succeed. That's what Motorola and others have done. But they should not "trademark" their terms to apply to tools that came before them.

What you seem to really be saying is, you use continuous improvement tools, and they work. Period.

As to your references to beef and fish, I have no clue what you are talking about. :(

Kaizen is an activity based on a philosophy. Kaizen is not a tool. Kaizen uses tools. Those tools that are used in a Kaizen are basic process and SPC tools.

Some cultures only eat fish on friday... Some do not eat beef.

What you seem to really be saying is, you use continuous improvement tools, and they work. Period

Yes

Kaizen is just continuous improvement which can not be done with out these tools.

FWIW:

"Often, folks think they are doing something wonderful when they blindly repeat something from a book about a topic. The Scientific Method, which much of Quality is built on, requires rigorous experimentation to prove the theory. In the same manner that GE never translated its "billions of dollars in savings due to 6S" down to its bottom line (because they were merely moving dollars from one account to another, never posting an absolute net saving), so, too, do many schemes proposed as theories in books fail to pass the test when they are put under rigorous examination.

To take one ridiculous concept, consider the 5S scheme, which presents standard housekeeping as if it were some wonderful new invention. Folks let themselves be blinded by some Japanese words when they would laugh loudly if the same concepts about wearing clean clothes and keeping debris picked up were presented in plain English. As Quality professionals, we are pledged to consider a root cause analysis (the Scientific Method again) when we tackle a perceived problem. Blindly jumping into a solution (5S) without first determining filth and poor hygiene are the root cause of our problems is to ignore the basic precept of Quality!

Also to be considered is the mental state or competence of business leaders who would let their business become FILTHY and thus have to engage in a massive cleanup."

I sometimes wonder, asutherland, whether we're even on the same planet :confused:

Your own response supports the "opposing" side. It is just plain weird from my perspective (IMHO).

You are using many continuous improvement tools (some of which existed before "kaizen"), which we all use from time to time, and are simply labeling them "Kaizen". Yet you say, "changing the name of the tool adds no value". But you change X Bar & R to Kaizen???

I have no quarrel about any company using any internal catch phrases they want if it helps them succeed. That's what Motorola and others have done. But they should not "trademark" their terms to apply to tools that came before them.

What you seem to really be saying is, you use continuous improvement tools, and they work. Period.

As to your references to beef and fish, I have no clue what you are talking about. :(
I'm with you, Rob and repeated references to beef and fish have made me hungry, so now I'm going to lunch:D

I have the same problem when trying to understand many failures and problems in discussing "Kaizen" in this forum.

If I was to describe Kaizen without any Japanese terminology it would be:
Kaizen is continuous improvement.....period.
How we implement continuous improvement can be described in the systems we use.
Whether we call it QC circles, Cross-functional teams, Problem solving, preventive maintenance, PERT Charts, defect prevention, .....all of these items have been incorporated into "Kaizen". I have not come across any quality or system tool that has been use in a "Kaizen" event that has not already been used in the last 30 yrs.

When we first started Quality Circles, the same tools were used. When we implemented cross-functional teams, the same tools were used.

When I use the term "Kaizen" I use the whole umbrella of SPC tools and process tools that fit the situation.

Some company's are at a level that does not even have tick charts to capture defects.
Some company's capture defects and use lip service to address this concerns.
Some company's use defects charts to address daily problems but do not stratify the data.
So, in my world of "Kaizen" I propose that any quality tool that best fits the environment that needs to be use, should be used in a structured approach to generate improvement.

Is Kaizen always the same so that it can be used as a structured approach? Absolutely not.

The only thing I keep the same is, 1st 5S.

The rest depends on the environment. Example.... In the Sweden project I am working on, I chose to use VSM 2nd to identify bottleneck process, and 3rd Standard work. This means that I did not capure savings on 5S, or VSM. Why, we didn't do any tangable monotary improvement.... we just organized, cleaned, and identified our bottleneck process.

As Wes just stated To take one ridiculous concept, consider the 5S scheme, which presents standard housekeeping as if it were some wonderful new invention.
This is not a new invention...so why do it.

First, most people think this is common sense. If this were so, how come during the 1st S, you can usually remove 2 to 5 pallets of crap that doesnt belong in the work place? If it was common sense, why was all this crap there?
Common sense is only common when everyone that needs to know, knows.
That why we train.....not 5's.....common sense. 5 S is just a canned program.
Is that confusing?.... how about.... we really train common sense, and call it 5S (as it pertains to work place organization.)

5S is not new.

Common sense is new.

Common sense is new.

:confused: Common sense tells me that common sense is not new.

Bill Pflanz

Come, come now.... you have never been told or informed of something you never heard before and said to yourself, hummm, thats common sense.
If so, how could it be common.... you didn't know it? :biglaugh:

Come, come now.... you have never been told or informed of something you never heard before and said to yourself, hummm, thats common sense.
If so, how could it be common.... you didn't know it? :biglaugh:
Well, let's see:
About one billion (thousand million) people speak Manadarin or Cantonese. I don't speak it or write it. Does that automatically remove it from the realm of "common?"

When you are a child and go into deep water for the first time and discover you can't breathe underwater, does it cease to be common sense because you didn't know that before you made the discovery and later found ALMOST everyone else already knew that? As you gained more and more experience and understood how breathing works, you may have said, "Of course! It's just common sense that if there is no air, you can't breathe." Then, if you were smart, you figured out that if you could bring some air underwater with you, you could breathe and stay under longer. Would that have been common sense or uncommon reasoning power? How much intelligence does it take to make the leap in logic from holding one's breath to remain underwater to inventing a way to get an air supply to your lungs while underwater (hollow reeds? overturned pots and jars to trap air? flexible hoses? pressurized air tanks? entire underwater domes?)

If we make that leap of logic, are we isolated geniuses or just folks reinventing something others have known for years simply because we weren't on the information track. How much is common sense, how much is uncommon?

Ever hit your finger with a hammer? Did it hurt? Did you work out a way to avoid hitting your finger on a regular basis? Were you a genius or just using common sense to keep from repeating an unhappy experience?

Maybe this all belongs under the Lean gone wrong thread . . .

It seems like in all the efforts to add new buzzwords to old techniques we forget the poor quality practitioners out there who have to do this stuff, and worse, must justify their existance on a daily basis to their employers.

The BOK is established?? ASQ 1 or 2 projects with a Champion with evidence of $$ savings for BB or GB. New to this, however I am afraid of a loss of interest after I invest time and ed monies for the training.
Plato1
[COLOR="Red"]The more I know the more I realize I don't know.

FWIW:


Also to be considered is the mental state or competence of business leaders who would let their business become FILTHY and thus have to engage in a massive cleanup."

This is exactly what my current company was doing before I started here. Tough clean up jobs were left to pile up to the point of HAVING to stop to clean it. Or it was given out as work as punishment. This cleaning could take a couple of shifts to complete.

Now that I have started "5S" this chore becomes part of a daily or weekly or monthly cleaning depending on the chore and whether the mechinery needs to be idle to perform the cleaning. This cleaning takes no longer than 30 minutes and in most cases 15 minutes or less.

What you want to call it is not the means. How it is achieved to improve moral and appearance is the means.:2cents:

My view on "Lean" is primarily from an Operations Research perspective. Lean and JIT were an outfall of efforts to optimize the total cost of inventory versus costs of stock-out. You can further extend this to a cost optimization of the whole system, as long as you are indeed capturing TOTAL costs, not just short term costs or easily retrievable direct costs.

There is an interesting paradox. I have seen lately folks complain that we shouldn't rely on "guru" positions (such as don't blindly follow Juran or Deming or Harry or whomever). Yet, there is an advantage when a single person defines a management theory. We have to rely on his/her opinion and take it or leave it.

With "group" developments like "Lean" or "Six Sigma" there is no single owner - and thus we end up with different interpretations of what the "program" entails. Witness the latest fun with Six Sigma on the ASQ Discussion Boards.


Dear Sir,

Cn you pz send some trg. material of deming prize

Dear Sir,

Can you please send some training material of Deming prize

Ashwani,

Deming Prize (http://deming.org/index.cfm?content=51).

Stijloor.