Hey guys and gals, I need some help here! The company I work for is in need of change. More than half of the work force has been here for greater than 10 years. Although that produces some very good things, it also creates some negatives. One of those is the introduction of new concepts. The last "lean consultant" I had in here to offer ideas on where we should start left looking like :confused: . Can anyone share with me the success stories witnessed at your locations? Also, anything you did to help sell the ideas to upper management, then to the rest of the staff.
Thanks,
Mike

Hello Mike,

Can you tell us a little more on why you think the consultant left looking confused?

It might help in finding a solution to your problem.

Regards,

Kevin

Hi Kevin,
he was confused primarily because he was not certain where to start. When I look at the current state of our company we have many different avenues we could address to improve. This could be shop floor layout, reducing set up time for job turnover, handling of material repeatedly or simply to "start thinking smart" rather than continuing to do things the way we are because we always have.

I am trying to introduce lean concepts for two primary reasons. The first is to help be compliant under ISO 9k2k for continual improvement opportunities. Secondly we are hurting financially. The recent econmic downturn has hit us just like any other business and we need to look at methods of operations, both to decrease costs and increase profit margins.

i hope this helps you in your answer

MIke, there are a couple of ways you could go. First, if $ is tight, find some small project that would yeild quick $. It doesn't have to be much, the important thing is to show immediate impact. This would get managements attention. In the industry, we call this "low hanging fruit". Find as much of it as you can and always do one project at a time. Once management sees this might be a good thing, then introduce them to "lean thinking". This could be as simple as having them read Lean Thinking or possibly The Goal . You might want to enroll them in a "Lean Leadership" class. These are offered throughout the US by a variety of organizations (my company offers one).

One of the biggest problems I see is where someone (called a change agent) attempts to force more change than the organization can absorb. This is just like a baby. You can't start them out on steak immediately.

Hope that helps

OK folks, what are your opinions of 'Lean'?

OK folks, what are your opinions of 'Lean'?I subscribe to the concepts of "lean"
I also belong to the advanced manufacturing interest group of ASQ (a fancy term for lean)
Maybe I'm too simplistic. The concepts of lean all seem like just plain common sense to me, similar to "mistake proofing" before Poka Yoke folks started codifying it.

In my mind, the concept of continual improvement encompasses lean wherein an organization constantly strives for more efficiency translated into bottom line profit. Each organization has to approach lean based on its own internal capability and capacity balanced with the requirements of its customers and the practical reality of dealing with and coordinating a multitude of suppliers to create a smooth supply chain. (It ain't easy, McGee!)

Factors of the efficiency can include, but are not limited to,

scattered site warehousing or consolidated warehousing (which one to use is dependent on individual circumstances - no easy choices here)
cost efficient ground shipment or time efficient air shipment
high-speed, high volume production versus on-demand, one-at-a-time production.
vertical integration versus outsourcing
push versus pull distribution of goods and/or information
discerning the real value of an individual task in relation to the entire scope of a process
Bad applications of lean:
Some of my pique for the balance of today may be attributed to a totally unsatisfying 60 minutes spent with a call center over discrepancies between written instructions (or lack thereof) which appear in company website and literature and "reality" as explained by call center operators. It appears from my first brush with this outfit (forced by my health insurance) that their method of "efficiency" and subsequent profit is to put the burden of completing forms for reimbursement on the shoulders of untrained customers with various levels of skill in English comprehension. Thus a form which might be completed correctly by a trained individual is not discovered to be incorrect when completed by a customer until two weeks later when the "system" kicks it out for omissions or errors. However, the problem is compounded by the fact no mention is made anywhere on the main document of the "attachments" (supporting documentation) which ought to accompany the document. The English language in the form appears to be written by someone badly in need of an English as a Second Language course. "You may to refuse such generic substitution."

This company seems to have missed the real point of lean entirely.
I wonder who they would define as their customers?

the folks who are forced to deal with them?
or
the insurance moguls who grant them the monopoly?

Poll added 2004-08-13 by Marc.

Maybe I'm too simplistic. The concepts of lean all seem like just plain common sense to me, similar to "mistake proofing" before Poka Yoke folks started codifying it.

EXACTLY! You hit a nerve with me. Many of the "new fangled" methods in recent times are simply rehashed "common sense" with new names. Great points Wes.

"Lean" makes great sense simply because being efficient and holding down waste is common sense.

I am going to start marketing a NEW, improved exercise regimen called BTM (Bipedal Transfer Mechanics), not because walking is new, but simply because I have a new name for it.

Dear Mike:

This is my $0.01 worth.

Remember visiting your doctor, or lawyer, or accountant. The doctor's office is immaculate. The hospitals are clean. They even wear white coats there.

The same with a lawyer's office or an accountant's office. Ok, they don't wear white coats.

But, visit an engineer's office, and you will see clutter all over and may be trip when you enter! (Ok, some accountant and lawyer's office are also a mess, but they usually hide from view, not where they meet their clients.)

My point? There is a certain pride and work ethic involved that I often think is lacking in the engineering profession. While we pride ourselves (Ich bin engineer) with being highly "analytical", we miss the big picture. The big picture is the company's profitability that you are now talking about.

It starts from common sense concepts - like no clutter. Once you start here, with your own desk, and clean the clutter, you can start doing the same throughout the organization. That is what 9K2K and other lean, mean etc. are all about. The less the clutter, the less the effort to find something. This automatically lower mistakes, lowers costs, and so on. Enough said. Hope this helps.

Charmed :)

P. S. Please use labels! This is highly recommended. But, like Craig Cochran says in his article (See August 2004 articles), don't overdo it and label your stapler, or say this is the Xerox machine, and here's my telephone! Doesn't hurt, you never know, but not recommended. I am an immigrant and now a naturalized US citizen, and didn't know what Yellow Pages meant, when I first heard that term!

It starts from common sense concepts - like no clutter. Once you start here, with your own desk, and clean the clutter, you can start doing the same throughout the organization. Ah yes, we seem to be on the same track here. Have a look at:

Seeking Tips: Office Improvement - Best Practices (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6428&highlight=lean+office)

/Claes

I abstained, not because I believe Lean is or is not hype, but because I believe it is both - a good approach, another tool, that has been touted as the Next Great Thing (NGT) by some trying to make a buck.

Lean is a relatively new concept with me. But as I converse with some other employees I find them to have been exposed to the concept. I agree with Wes and Rob that it does seem to make sense-common sense!
A recent auditor asked if we (the company I work for) were going after lean. I asked him why do you inquire? He showed me his business card and offerred that he is a certified Six Sigma Black Belt and that lean is part of six sigma.
Well, I am not sure about all that but I do intend to learn for my self.
Is there a Six Sigma BB in the audience that would care to offer a little better explanantion of SS vs Lean in 100 words or less?
Being older my attention span can only take 100 words of Six Sigma! :lmao:

Check out the University of Kentucky. They have an excellent Lean Manufacturing certification program, a series of 6 classes I think.

I abstained from the poll for the same reason as Craig H. It is essentially use of common-sense and tools that have been around for decades, but it is also another opportunity for lots of flashy new publicity.

"Lean" can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. The worst attitude I have seen is where a company started a "lean" initative with a goal of reducing headcount by a certain percentage. :mg: How much do you think the employees were motivated to support the effort?

I abstained, not because I believe Lean is or is not hype, but because I believe it is both - a good approach, another tool, that has been touted as the Next Great Thing (NGT) by some trying to make a buck.
I agree with you Graig. I'm sure some are genuinely pursuing the lean approach, and others are using it as NGT, buzzword to hype to employees or customers inquireys. Remember "Zero Defects".
I also have to abstain (from the poll)

Wes, I know what you mean about trying to get service from people who do not understand English and recently went through a similar experience. What do companies expect to gain in the long term if customers get so fed up with the lack of understanding and lack of ablity to communicate. Where is the customer focus and continous improvement. But you hit the nail on the head because some don't recognize the end user (us) as the customer.

Deming was averse to MBO (management by objective)
When a company enters into Lean with a "goal" of reducing headcount, it has already violated both Deming and Lean principles.

The essence of Lean is a more efficient organization, not a smaller one. It is simply illustrative of folks who ASSume they are doing something worthwhile if they attach the "label du jour" to their own agenda.

I recall anal retentive types bragging "Total Quality Management" when they really were practicing "micromanagement." I also recall folks claiming "Document Management" when they really had a system of bureaucratic nightmares, labeling documents "secret" and "confidential" when there was no legitimate reason except to prevent people from seeing how worthless the documents really were.

I am always leery of folks who are the first on the block to parrot new jargon, but who can't explain what the acronyms stand for. Worst are the ones who will abandon an English term in favor of a foreign one simply because it sounds more "knowledgeable" to use the foreign terms.

My only hope is to be able to hide my indulgent smirk until AFTER I cash the check!

Worst are the ones who will abandon an English term in favor of a foreign one simply because it sounds more "knowledgeable"

...if they attach the "label du jour" to their own agenda.

That would be "label of the day", would it not?


JUST KIDDING!, Wes. :biglaugh:

That would be "label of the day", would it not?


JUST KIDDING!, Wes. :biglaugh::topic: You sound like the guy who complained the chef obviously didn't know French because the Soup du Jour was different every day!:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

I subscribe to the concepts of "lean"
I also belong to the advanced manufacturing interest group of ASQ (a fancy term for lean)
Maybe I'm too simplistic. The concepts of lean all seem like just plain common sense to me, similar to "mistake proofing" before Poka Yoke folks started codifying it.

In my mind, the concept of continual improvement encompasses lean wherein an organization constantly strives for more efficiency translated into bottom line profit. Each organization has to approach lean based on its own internal capability and capacity balanced with the requirements of its customers and the practical reality of dealing with and coordinating a multitude of suppliers to create a smooth supply chain. (It ain't easy, McGee!)

Factors of the efficiency can include, but are not limited to,

scattered site warehousing or consolidated warehousing (which one to use is dependent on individual circumstances - no easy choices here)
cost efficient ground shipment or time efficient air shipment
high-speed, high volume production versus on-demand, one-at-a-time production.
vertical integration versus outsourcing
push versus pull distribution of goods and/or information
discerning the real value of an individual task in relation to the entire scope of a process
Bad applications of lean:
Some of my pique for the balance of today may be attributed to a totally unsatisfying 60 minutes spent with a call center over discrepancies between written instructions (or lack thereof) which appear in company website and literature and "reality" as explained by call center operators. It appears from my first brush with this outfit (forced by my health insurance) that their method of "efficiency" and subsequent profit is to put the burden of completing forms for reimbursement on the shoulders of untrained customers with various levels of skill in English comprehension. Thus a form which might be completed correctly by a trained individual is not discovered to be incorrect when completed by a customer until two weeks later when the "system" kicks it out for omissions or errors. However, the problem is compounded by the fact no mention is made anywhere on the main document of the "attachments" (supporting documentation) which ought to accompany the document. The English language in the form appears to be written by someone badly in need of an English as a Second Language course. "You may to refuse such generic substitution."

This company seems to have missed the real point of lean entirely.
I wonder who they would define as their customers?

the folks who are forced to deal with them?
or
the insurance moguls who grant them the monopoly?


So Ok what are we saying? Wes has listed, above, several factors of efficiency. Certainly there are many more and certainly it may well depend on the industry and the culture of the company. But as others have already posted, "It is a common sense approach to eliminate redundancies and waste".
I can recall the 1980's at GAC when we had "tiger teams" and "quality circles". Were they not designed to do the same thing? The team would be formed with full management support and pursued the study of various problem areas (like MRB) with the intent of eliminating the problems and making the processes more efficient.
If thats the case, and IMO I think it is, then the principle has been around for a long, long time! Does that mean that Lean is hype? What's in a name or a word if not $$$!
It seems to me that we failed with tiger teams and quality circles but the concept of "common sense" has prevailed and in order to sell it we give it yet another new name! LEAN :soap:
My apologies for the RANT!

I don't see it as a rant - "expression of frustration" is the euphemism I hear lately.

I suspect that when failures of TQM, Zero Defects, and similar programs often labeled "flavor of the month" are examined, the root cause of failure will be attributed to management insincerity or to complete "cluelessness" on the part of managers that their role has to be real and ongoing.

The moment folks with real authority in an organization think the program will run by itself without regular review by bosses is the moment the program begins to deteriorate. Successful programs require commitment and involvement by the bosses. Without commitment and involvement by bosses, it soon becomes apparent to employees the route to getting noticed and rewarded is [b]NOT in the Quality program.

Thus, the problem lies not with the program, but in lack of knowledgeable implementation and involvement by the bosses.

Anyone out there concur or differ with this view?

I don't see it as a rant - "expression of frustration" is the euphemism I hear lately.

I suspect that when failures of TQM, Zero Defects, and similar programs often labeled "flavor of the month" are examined, the root cause of failure will be attributed to management insincerity or to complete "cluelessness" on the part of managers that their role has to be real and ongoing.

The moment folks with real authority in an organization think the program will run by itself without regular review by bosses is the moment the program begins to deteriorate. Successful programs require commitment and involvement by the bosses. Without commitment and involvement by bosses, it soon becomes apparent to employees the route to getting noticed and rewarded is [b]NOT in the Quality program.

Thus, the problem lies not with the program, but in lack of knowledgeable implementation and involvement by the bosses.

Anyone out there concur or differ with this view?

:agree1: Well said! But after all these years why haven't we been able to make some inroads into this problem? instead we keep bringing out more flavors of the month when we apparently should be using our quality tools and coming with corrective action! But You and I both know that it is about money just look at our own ASQ as a prime example!

I suspect that when failures of TQM, Zero Defects, and similar programs often labeled "flavor of the month" are examined, the root cause of failure will be attributed to management insincerity or to complete "cluelessness" on the part of managers that their role has to be real and ongoing.

The moment folks with real authority in an organization think the program will run by itself without regular review by bosses is the moment the program begins to deteriorate. Thus, the problem lies not with the program, but in lack of knowledgeable implementation and involvement by the bosses.[/size][/font][/font]

Anyone out there concur or differ with this view?

Why blame management? The quality professionals sound like they are guilty of lack of constancy of purpose. Rather choosing another flavor, we could just go back to the basics and tell them that is the only flavor. If management does not like the flavor than you are right, management is not serious about improvement.

Bill Pflanz

Successful programs require commitment and involvement by the bosses. Without commitment and involvement by bosses, it soon becomes apparent to employees the route to getting noticed and rewarded is NOT in the Quality program.
Thus, the problem lies not with the program, but in lack of knowledgeable implementation and involvement by the bosses.[/b][/size][/font][/font]

Anyone out there concur or differ with this view?

I concur with Wes. What I have found is that the "boss" yells that something needs to be fixed, someone becomes the champion and attempts to fix it, and at some point the boss has to pay for the fix. That's the moment of truth. If the champion has not shown the boss the payback, in these tougher economic times, the fix does not get paid for. OR a hybrid of the fix (usually cheaper) is put in place. The off brand band-aid of problem-solving!

Sometimes we luck out, and get a boss that gets what we are trying to do. Then the support is there. This brings me back to the original post and the reply about a success story. Find that low hanging fruit and yank it off the branch! As far as Lean is concerned, most companies that have not implemented Lean have enough low hanging fruit to find a project that will benefit the company's bottom line. First step in any improvement project is to known the value of a process metric. Then implement the "Lean" answer, and recalculate the value. Big dollars means more for LEAN!

I have experienced similar issues on different work locations in the past. The fact is that a business culture must be open to new ideas, otherwise, you will be "swimming" against the current. If there is no visible top management commitment, a proactive leadership, and a sound strategic thinking, planning and execution any major effort like Lean, Six Sigma or ISO will be doomed to fail. This is why as a consultant my recommendation to any client is to pursue ISO 9001:2000 QMS first to create the right business culture from the top to bottom and towards continuous improvement. Then, lean, six sigma and any other strategy will find a positive environment to nurture. Sometimes, when the business culture is so "screw up" there is a need to get started with a "healing" process which might require a different approach like taking the management team and first level of supervisors into an intensive team building training off-site where games and lecture is done to create the teamwork between peers. This is normally conducted by behavior specialists (industrial psychologists).

As for Lean I am all for it. I must admit that it is a common sense approach to the logical way of life. In the military they would tell you to KISS and that would be the end of it. With the companies I have worked for it seems like a light just went out in someone's brain. The idea is simple: If you are working on something keep the items close by so you cannot be interrupted. Label the areas so you will not get confused and know where to get it in the future and just maintain the state of operation. Simple! Now they will request someone get certified in this for what reason, I still am baffled at this. I would say, go for it, as long as you o not go crazy! LOL

As for Lean I am all for it. I must admit that it is a common sense approach to the logical way of life. In the military they would tell you to KISS and that would be the end of it. With the companies I have worked for it seems like a light just went out in someone's brain. The idea is simple: If you are working on something keep the items close by so you cannot be interrupted. Label the areas so you will not get confused and know where to get it in the future and just maintain the state of operation. Simple! Now they will request someone get certified in this for what reason, I still am baffled at this. I would say, go for it, as long as you o not go crazy! LOL

Yeah,
Your right Luisa.
KISS, it seems to have lost its simplistic meaning to many in the quality arena. It's clear that, when well meaning quality pro's get together and perform a CI initiative, they tend to load it up with complexity and beurocracy.
Wait!!!! Isn't that what happened to the ISO 9001 standard? :lmao:
Wallace. :bigwave:

Welcome to the Cove, Luisa :bigwave:

/Claes

I guess its time to stand up and be counted.

To those of you who think lean is a hype..... shame on you.

"If the trainee hasn't learned, the trainer hasn't taught".

Lean concepts must not only be taught, it must be taught in the correct sequency.

If you put together a bicycle for you children, and you left out a few parts, and the bike does not perform the way it should. Is the bike a piece of crap?

(I guess this means I'm pro lean).

To those of you who think lean is a hype..... shame on you.
I'm not sure anyone here thinks Lean, per se, is hype. The concept of Lean is essentially a "motherhood" statement. No one can rationally disagree with it in principle. As others have stated in this thread, the problem is in implementation, and the belief of some managers that the container is equal to the thing contained.
"If the trainee hasn't learned, the trainer hasn't taught".
Lean concepts must not only be taught, it must be taught in the correct sequency.
The world's most accomplished trainer can train until he's blue in the face and it won't make any difference if the boss doesn't support the movement.
If you put together a bicycle for you children, and you left out a few parts, and the bike does not perform the way it should. Is the bike a piece of crap?
Perhaps, if the bike doesn't perform the way it should with the missing parts:D .

(I guess this means I'm pro lean).
And pro-motherhood too, I'll bet.

I guess I should quantify my views more clearly.

(Pro-motherhood? --- You know how much a good maid costs?)
did I type that out loud?

A few months ago, I interviewed with a Plant Manger who was looking for a lean guru to step in and make magic happen? It was pretty clear by this interview that the plant manager ran the plant from behind a desk. So, I turned down the job.

I still stand by the phrase " If the trainee hasn't learned, the trainee hasn't taught ".

It must be made clear, at some point, if buy-off is not going to occur at the management level, the program will not work. More specifically, the trainer will stop.

For those professionals whos reputation and performance is on the line, this clear distinction must be made.

For lean to be effective, there must first be buy-in at the management level. If this commitment is not made up front ... Its time to pack your bags and move on.

Jim brought up a point that QC circles (work teams), were fully supported by management but they seem to have fallen apart, now only to be called "Lean". I believe that some of this is not fully truthfull. I was around when "Q.C. circles were started, and they were not bought off by hardly anyone.... nor did I see true management support. What I saw was a group of business men that said " Hey, look... the reason why the Japaneese are so successful is because they are using teams, so we need to form teams and be sussessful too". Poof .... your a team, make us money, and by the way, we can't fund your projects.

We as managers, and professionals have an obligation to our customers to provide the best quality product at the lowest price possible. Lean is one of the tools to get there.

I agree with what Rubrich and Watson stated in their book, that the Japanese did not become better than the US because they wanted to do what we did, their whole success was built on the prospect that they would become better than us. So, what has happened, a small Japanese transplant began to compete with the Big 3... Ford, G.M., Chrysler, and behold, in 20 years they have become the number 2 Auto maker in the US.

American business need to wake up ... We can only do so by clearly understanding what our customers want, and provide it to them. Japan is not the enemy, China is not the enemy, COMPETITION is the enemy. In order to be better than the competition, we need to be quicker, and smarter than them, not just do what they are doing. This can not be reached by copying the Toyota Production System, this can be done by understanding and implementing this system and strengthen it along the way.

Holy Cow, did I just jump on a pedestal?

Sorry, sometimes I get carried away by my passion.

Holy Cow, did I just jump on a pedestal?

Sorry, sometimes I get carried away by my passion.
There's nothing wrong with passion, my friend, so long as it's not directed at the maid :lmao: .

Mike, my appologies, I seem to have gotten a little off track.

Most companies I run into based on your description are usually ready to implement lean because they are ready to go under. I hope this is not the case with you.

Where to start..... 1st.. start of a brief presentation on why it is necessary to change.
2nd start a 5 S program... start with one area " Island of excellence".

One of the best books I have seen on this is called "Putting 5S to work, A Practical Step-by-Step Approach" by Hiroyuki Hirano... Published by PHP Institute, Inc.
There is a lot of generic stuff out there... this one isn't one of them.

(No I am not a sponser of supporter of this publishing house).

You should find significant savings in applying the applications of this program to support additional training in other Lean activities.

Among the many reasons that 5S implementation might stumble is that it has its roots not in Japanese manufacturing, but in Japanese culture. The S's stand for Japanese words which, when transliterated, begin with "S," and a reasonable attempt has been made to match them with equivalent English words which also start with "S." But the problem is that simple translation or transliteration does nothing to convey the cultural meaning of the words.

For example, one of the S's is seiso, which in direct translation means "clean," (although a closer idiomatic translation would be "pure" or "purity"). The English S-word is "shine." The problem is that physical cleanliness in the Shinto culture is closely tied to spiritual purity, so having "pure" surroundings and person are religiously and culturally much more significant than they are in Western culture. It's easy to see why seiso has a significance in Japanese culture that gets lost in translation--we don't make the connection between workplace cleanliness and spiritual purity.
The equivalent would be taking a group of people who have had no exposure to Judaism and asking them suddenly to observe Jewish dietary laws in hopes that they will produce fewer rejects as a result.

Culture, that's the key there. Both corporate or national, it sets the course.
One thing to remember here, make sure you review the entire process before kicking it off. Let me explain: All processes require inputs to work. If you can not control the quantity or quality of the input your process can not function to its fullest. Notice I didn't say fail, the process can still function properly just not up to the intended scope. That is where I have seen a bunch of programs fall on their face - especially when people are looking for it to fail. All they have to do then is point at that one issue and all trust is lost. No more changes.
For the longest time our culture stated that if 1 is good then 2 is better and 10 would be great. 1 may be good and 2 may be better, but 10 is probably an excess and costing money to store and maintain.

For the longest time our culture stated that if 1 is good then 2 is better and 10 would be great. 1 may be good and 2 may be better, but 10 is probably an excess and costing money to store and maintain.

"If it works well with four wheels, just think how well it would work with 20!"

"Among the many reasons that 5S implementation might stumble is that it has its roots not in Japanese manufacturing, but in Japanese culture."

Hummmm,
I am not able to agree with this.

How is it that we know, when driving down the road, what side of the road to be on?
When I am driving, how is it I know how fast I am to go?
How is it, that junk yards can not be placed in the middle of the road?
How is it that I know, when and when not to pass another car?

I dont agree that visual control, orderleness, and good housekeeping is a cultural product.

"Among the many reasons that 5S implementation might stumble is that it has its roots not in Japanese manufacturing, but in Japanese culture."

Hummmm,
I am not able to agree with this.

How is it that we know, when driving down the road, what side of the road to be on?
When I am driving, how is it I know how fast I am to go?
How is it, that junk yards can not be placed in the middle of the road?
How is it that I know, when and when not to pass another car?

I dont agree that visual control, orderleness, and good housekeeping is a cultural product.

In responding with what is essentially a string of non sequiturs, you help to make my point. Our expectation of certain behaviors on the road is largely a cultural phenomenon. In some other countries, American drivers are like lambs being led to the slaughter because the native cultures (and law enforcement systems, which are cultural phenomena) don't recognize our more orderly ways of highway navigation. In Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam (the former Saigon) foreigners aren't even allowed to drive because the traffic is so out of control and crazy.

Note that I didn't say that 5S is a bad idea, or that it's not possible to implement a 5S program and get good results. What I said was that the failure to understand the cultural roots of the idea can be a barrier to implementation. If you think that American workers are motivated by the same stimuli and incentives as Japanese workers, then you simply don't understand the significance of ethnic culture.

hummmm,
I appear to be miss-communicating. I simply ment to imply that I do not agree that successful 5S implementation has anything to do with the fact that the interpretation of 5S from a Japanese culture to an American culture will cause stumbling.

I do not find any cultural significance to a stop sign, regardless to what country it is in. (as long as the spelling or symbolism is in that countries language).

Whether I am Japanese and I think seiso means to be "pure", or if I am American and I think shine means "nothing is dirty". The main point is not in semantics but in action.

I don't want to make the "Mr. Clean" guy a demigod, I just dont want him to leave streaks.

I do not find any cultural significance to a stop sign, regardless to what country it is in. (as long as the spelling or symbolism is in that countries language).
There is nothing inherently cultural about a stop sign. It's how we react to stop signs that's important.

Whether I am Japanese and I think seiso means to be "pure", or if I am American and I think shine means "nothing is dirty". The main point is not in semantics but in action.
Semantics is significant, especially when the rules of different languages are applied. The 5S concept was designed with Japanese culture in mind. "Seiso" doesn't mean the same thing to a Japanese person that "shine" does to an American. Americans, by and large, do not relate workplace cleanliness with spiritual purity. Thus it's at least theoretically easier in Japanese culture to tie all of the S's together in a more meaningful way to the individual.

My point, and I did have one, was that there is no reason to believe that what is successful in employee motivation in one culture will be successful in another, and if there is a particular strategy that is successful because of cultural factors, care must be taken in the translation or transfer of the strategy to another culture.

There is nothing inherently cultural about a stop sign. It's how we react to stop signs that's important.

I would hope that all reasonable human beings would treat to a stop sign in the same way. Apply breaks until coming to a full stop (if cops are around, otherwise do the rolling stop).

I would hope that all reasonable human beings would treat to a stop sign in the same way. Apply breaks until coming to a full stop (if cops are around, otherwise do the rolling stop).
You think that it's reasonable only because society expects it. In a different culture, where stop signs are widely disregarded, it might be unsafe to follow American rules. "Reasonable" is relative.

I voted in favor of lean,

In my opinion lean is not hype, but I have no doubt in my mind that soon all the consultants will team together and make it a hype and then scream at the whole idea in 3 years! :lol:

Recently I finished a two year program in lean operation management (Wayne State, MI), which started with reading ‘the machine that changed the world’. I thought that some very solid concepts are embedded in the ‘lean culture’.

I think ISO, lean, six sigma,(whatever you call improvement efforts in an organization) stem from the same principles, and to an extent have similar implementations(Current state mapping, gap analysis, and so on). Being very new to the implementing ‘change’ I am surprised to see how cynical most people in general are about all of these techniques. Arrhhhgg! I should have stuck to manufacturing. :bonk: :lmao:

You think that it's reasonable only because society expects it. In a different culture, where stop signs are widely disregarded, it might be unsafe to follow American rules. "Reasonable" is relative.
NO I think it is reasonable because I don't what someone to crash and kill me or my kids. (reasonable to me in this case means not retarded)

There is a good theme in this thread. I hope we don't let it get lost. JSW is correct - of course there is a cultural component to 5S.

Companies make a big mistake if they try to "mimic" Japanese methods, blindly and without thought. However, there is value in the concepts, whether they are Lean, 5S, mistake-proofing, etc. The best way to adopt any method is to learn and understand it first. Synthesize it. Make it yours. Then implement the concepts, in English, and make them yours. Then they have depth, and aren't just a 2 dimensional flavor of the month.

Perhaps that is why it sometimes there is cynicism on this board. There are a lot of sincere quality professionals who don't get the support from their management to actually accomplish some of these things. That tends to wear you out after a while.

I think ANY improvement effort has to come from top management, and not just be a project for the sake of projects. Lean, 6S, TQM, etc are and have been pet projects to "demonstrate" committment to quality. Without the appropriate analytics, and without the focus of the top management, the program will flounder. Just my :2cents

I think ANY improvement effort has to come from top management, and not just be a project for the sake of projects. Lean, 6S, TQM, etc are and have been pet projects to "demonstrate" committment to quality. Without the appropriate analytics, and without the focus of the top management, the program will flounder. Just my :2cents:

Quite a often we used to hear this cry that in the absence of Top Management Support, There could not be done on the front and thus battle is lost.

I agree that Top management Support is MOST Vital for success of Lean (WCM) but is this not our duty to convience Top Management to go for WCM.

In any case any top management is not so fool who can not understand useful and Bottom Line Benifits to be obtained through implementation of Lean or WCM or such a program. But yes initially We have to Sell this concept to them. We have to try for a niche. We should translate concepts into Sucess Stories although in a small areas but the beams of great light shall lure any top management to adopt those program in any environment.
I say only one point to those who say "Lean (WCM) shall fail here because Top Management does not listen us" I say we have to sell first and that is the reason we are being paid for as change agent otherwise Top Management is wise enough and capabable for implementation of WCM (World Class Manufacturing).

Manoj Mathur

I think ANY improvement effort has to come from top management, and not just be a project for the sake of projects. Lean, 6S, TQM, etc are and have been pet projects to "demonstrate" committment to quality. Without the appropriate analytics, and without the focus of the top management, the program will flounder. Just my :2cents


It is certainly better, and more widely implemented if supported by top mgt. However, I have seen many cases where a dept. can improve just with the support of the dept. mgr.

It is certainly better, and more widely implemented if supported by top mgt. However, I have seen many cases where a dept. can improve just with the support of the dept. mgr.

Good people and agressive proactive management can make a difference.

I do believe that Lean is the word of the day and though Im just a young pup in comparison to some of you there was a great Video I watched once called "Right the First Time". It was made in England in the early 60's and many of the comparisons of lean thinking are mentioned in that video. Keeping inventories down, organizing the shop floor, keeping machinery working, and increasing throughput by doing the job right the first time.

In actuality if we could go back to Fords original assembly lines you would see many of the leans core concepts that consultants are peddling these days.

In my new company I use a NASCAR approach showing operators videos of pit crews. They get a boost out of that then I ask them how they could perform set ups like that. I also ask them if they notice what the number one thing that makes a quick turn around possibile at the pit. It takes a while but eventually organization hits them. Thats my spring board for the 5S's. The presentation was less popular in an office Kiazen so Im gonna have to work on it some.

[QUOTE]
Good people and agressive proactive management can make a difference.

...

In actuality if we could go back to Fords original assembly lines you would see many of the leans core concepts that consultants are peddling these days.


We consultants peddle it, because too many companies are still not doing it. If we can effectively teach a company how to do these concepts, that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

In my new company I use a NASCAR approach showing operators videos of pit crews. They get a boost out of that then I ask them how they could perform set ups like that. I also ask them if they notice what the number one thing that makes a quick turn around possibile at the pit. It takes a while but eventually organization hits them. Thats my spring board for the 5S's. The presentation was less popular in an office Kiazen so Im gonna have to work on it some.


Interesting, I use NASCAR pit crew anaolgies as well....great minds and all that...

"It is a common sense approach to eliminate redundancies and waste".I can recall the 1980's at GAC when we had "tiger teams" and "quality circles". Were they not designed to do the same thing? The team would be formed with full management support and pursued the study of various problem areas (like MRB) with the intent of eliminating the problems and making the processes more efficient.
If that's the case, and IMO I think it is, then the principle has been around for a long, long time! Does that mean that Lean is hype? What's in a name or a word if not $$$!
It seems to me that we failed with tiger teams and quality circles but the concept of "common sense" has prevailed and in order to sell it we give it yet another new name! LEAN :soap:
My apologies for the RANT!

One of my favorite subjects! How much is really new or when we strip off the acronym and veneer is it really good old common sense quality 101?
One of my tried and true methods for getting a group or company off the dime is suggesting that they look at the lowest of low hanging fruit: "queue time".
Just look at all the places in all of your processes or just the troublesome ones where something ( either product or paper (including electronic data entries) just sits there for more than 10 minutes up to days.
In a company just approaching lean this is typically an eye opener that gives really fast returns. They can cut hours from a process and days from hand offs between departments or organization processes. The team feels good, management is pleased and then they can move to that higher branch for the next layer. Many companies get scared or nervous might be a more acceptable description when starting something new and they just need a push with a high promise of success.
Mary

When explaining ideas and philosophies, people tend to blur over with information. We approach these with the thought that a picture is worth a thousand words. Take a look at our product and you will see what I mean, we only highlight the necessary and thus only bring forth focus to the most important bits of information.

Gunther


Do you have anything else to add other than just posting the exact same text across different topics? Three different threads and the exact same post.

Wayne

looks like an ad for your business to me, not a reply to any posting.

LEAN[/b] :soap:
My apologies for the RANT!

One of my favorite subjects! How much is really new or when we strip off the acronym and veneer is it really good old common sense quality 101?
One of my tried and true methods for getting a group or company off the dime is suggesting that they look at the lowest of low hanging fruit: "queue time".
...
Mary

There is an actual difference between batch and queue manufacturing and Toyota Production System - or as Womack named it - Lean. and it's not "common sense". And lean is not "tiger teams" or "Quality circles"...LEan is a methodology to manufacturing not merely a goal.

I suppose that is really the rub here - what is the operational definition of "Lean":

1. Is it the Toyota Production System?

2. Is it inventory control (optimization of costs)/ supply chain management / JIT?

3. Is it a buzzword / excuse for cutting costs / cutting people / way for consultants to make money?

1. Lean isn' tTPS: Lean was coined by James Womack et al in the book "The Machine That CHanged The World". Their definition of Lean was a subset of teh Toyota Production System. Most notably they left out the concept of standardized work and later placed a heavy emphasis on flow mappign which Toyota does little of. But both manufacturing approaches are more similar than different.

2. Lean is more than the inventory control/supply chain management/JIT. Certainly those are aspects of Lean but they are not the starting point - the starting point is internal to the factory not external. teh whole JIY movement came about becase teh US was trying to copy the success of the Japanese (SPC and Deming also resurfaced at this time). But those who tried to promote JIT then didnt' have the full story - only the stuff that could be seen easily from the 'outside'. Hence Womack's pilgrimage...

3. Of course any hack can claim to teach or use Lean and what they do bears little resemblance to Lean or TPS...and any greedy/lazy manager can claim lean as an excuse for random cost cutting and RIFs. But that stuff isn't Lean; it's a pig in a dress.

FWIW:
There is an interesting history of Lean here (http://www.strategosinc.com/just_in_time.htm (http://www.strategosinc.com/just_in_time.htm))

Also, in the "Let's take two seconds to say, WHO CARES?" category, the Lean Forum of ASQ has been elevated to Division status.

Talk about "mission creep!" We started as the "Advanced Manufacturing Interest Group."

Now I'm going to have to pay another ten bucks (or more!) to remain a member.

My brethren are frantically working to create a Lean Body of Knowledge on the road to creating yet another certification category!

Hi All!:cool:

Has anyone tried Change Management methods when 'going lean' ?? I believe this is a good method to achieve sustainablity in a company embarking on lean anything!
If you are doing it, share how it has helped you.

Regards,
Colleen

1. Lean isn' tTPS: Lean was coined by James Womack et al in the book "The Machine That CHanged The World". Their definition of Lean was a subset of teh Toyota Production System. Most notably they left out the concept of standardized work and later placed a heavy emphasis on flow mappign which Toyota does little of. But both manufacturing approaches are more similar than different.



I believe that what Toyota does is referred to as "Material & Information Flow Diagrams". I guess it doesn't sound as sexy as "Value Stream Mapping".

See attached Case Study. One of the members of the ATMI (http://www.ydatum.com) group, Olivier Larue, also happened to be employed by the Toyota Supplier Support Center (TSSC). This isn't an endorsement of them as I've never had any dealings with ATMI, but supplied for reference purposes.

One of my favorite subjects! How much is really new or when we strip off the acronym and veneer is it really good old common sense quality 101?
One of my tried and true methods for getting a group or company off the dime is suggesting that they look at the lowest of low hanging fruit: "queue time".
Just look at all the places in all of your processes or just the troublesome ones where something ( either product or paper (including electronic data entries) just sits there for more than 10 minutes up to days.
In a company just approaching lean this is typically an eye opener that gives really fast returns. They can cut hours from a process and days from hand offs between departments or organization processes. The team feels good, management is pleased and then they can move to that higher branch for the next layer. Many companies get scared or nervous might be a more acceptable description when starting something new and they just need a push with a high promise of success.
Mary


Quick victories is always a great way to roll out a "scary new program." Everyone on this board should adopt the approach. It improves the buy in tremendously. :applause:

There is an actual difference between batch and queue manufacturing and Toyota Production System - or as Womack named it - Lean. and it's not "common sense". And lean is not "tiger teams" or "Quality circles"...LEan is a methodology to manufacturing not merely a goal.


...Lean. and it's not "common sense".

I am not so sure. We give it new titles, and new versions, and that is good. But the principles are not new, they are different flavors of applied common sense. Though, I might agree, it not not so "common."

However, I applaud any efforts that strive to improve quality and efficiancy. But, I intuitively did a lot of this stuff in the 70's, before I knew it had a name, let alone was a program. I was just glad people began to embrace it.

There is no problem with consultants packaging this stuff and serving it to companies who wnat toi improve. It may be common sense, but it is not easy to get companies to do this stuff. Consultants and trainers help to achieve that.

We have no problem hiring specialists in accounting and law, why are we so hung up on hiring specialists to help us in quality.

It is said only a fool represents himself in court, maybe we should adopt the same thinking to improving quality and proficiency in companies.

Why do we continue to struggle to do this ourselves, when we can hire specialists to help us who won't cost anything (if their work is good)?

Amen to hiring ANY expertise not currently available in-house, but necessary for improvement.

It is true there is little any consultant can provide which a reasonably intelligent person can't learn and do himself, but why waste the time reinventing the wheel?

I certainly know enough about things like electrical wiring, circuitry, etc. to have rewired my house - heck, I even have most of the tools! Yet, I hired it out to a licensed contractor last month and got it done in about ten per cent of the time it would have taken me to do myself. The best part was when the building inspector came by and "blessed" the project and commended me for being savvy enough to hire a contractor as he related the tale of a do-it-yourselfer who was in the second month of a similar project with no end in sight.

As much as we try to help newbies here, the truth is a newbie would be much more efficient if he had an experienced consultant walk him through an entire project rather than picking it up in dribs and drabs and numerous threads which can sometimes go off topic and further confuse the situation.

I frequently hired outside expertise in my businesses when I couldn't justify a full-time employee and I have NEVER understood the mentality of a manager who would rather foul up a project than hire an expert on a short term basis to get it done.

Any ideas of the thought process operating which leads to such stubbornness?

Any ideas of the thought process operating which leads to such stubbornness?

Having been a consultant and having used consultants, I think it comes from the valid concern that some consultants never solve the problem or launch the project, they simply churn out piles of paper. :notme:

...Lean. and it's not "common sense".

I am not so sure. We give it new titles, and new versions, and that is good. But the principles are not new, they are different flavors of applied common sense. Though, I might agree, it not not so "common."



I guess it depends on your definition of "common sense" there are many books and theses and articles extolling the virtues of batch processes and economic order points etc. that are the opposite of the TPS/Lean methods. They are fundamentally different - and tehy weren't developed by common sense any more than the theory of gravity or relativity was developed by common sense.

typically what I find is that those who think Lean is "just common sense" don't really knwo what lean is and they certainly don't do it...they batch and queue.

Certainly the principles are not new - although they continue to evolve and grow as we learn more - but their age doesn't equate to common sense or acceptance or use...

Lean isnt' hype, but some consulting hacks only sell hype about Lean!

Having been a consultant and having used consultants, I think it comes from the valid concern that some consultants never solve the problem or launch the project, they simply churn out piles of paper. :notme:I never had this problem arise. Of course, I spent a lot of time in Contract Review before finalizing a consultant contract. I sure didn't just blindly pick my electrical contractor out of the phone book!

I guess it depends on your definition of "common sense" there are many books and theses and articles extolling the virtues of batch processes and economic order points etc. that are the opposite of the TPS/Lean methods. They are fundamentally different - and tehy weren't developed by common sense any more than the theory of gravity or relativity was developed by common sense.

It is my opinion (as an Operations Researcher, and a teacher of economic order points) that Lean is a direct outfall of the economic order point calculations. Also, the calculations for expected cost of a stockout versus cost of holding inventory. If you can drive down the administrative order costs, and reduce the probability of stockout, you will naturally end up with the Lean result - minimal inventory and low total costs.

It is interesting that Wes and others have pointed out that perhaps there are situations where you can't control the supply chain, and trying to force towards "Lean" inventories will increase costs due to stockouts.

In re: control of supply chain
Think of how many packages containing parts which were delayed and/or embargoed as result of 9-11-2001. Similarly when Hurricane Katrina shut down wide swaths of industries, all supply chain calculations got thrown for a loop.

For years (certainly longer than 30 years), I have counseled against "unprotected" supply chains. In my opinion, there is rarely a product where every step from raw material to finished product in the end user's hands can be JIT. Certainly a lot of lead time (and sometimes political ramifications) go into supplying tungsten for incandescent lamps. Somewhere along the line, a supplier has to hold finished inventory.

The most irritating factor is when some members of the supply chain refuse to pay a fair carrying charge for previous links to hold inventory for JIT delivery. It was a game I refused to play as customer OR supplier.

It is my opinion (as an Operations Researcher, and a teacher of economic order points) that Lean is a direct outfall of the economic order point calculations. Also, the calculations for expected cost of a stockout versus cost of holding inventory. If you can drive down the administrative order costs, and reduce the probability of stockout, you will naturally end up with the Lean result - minimal inventory and low total costs.


sure but that's like saying that Deming is control charts. "Economic order points" is 1% of what TPS and Lean methods are about. If you want a good book on TPS I always suggest The Toyota Way" by Jeffrey Liker...it will demonstrate that Lean is not merely JIT or economic orderpoints or hype or just plain common sense. it also deals with the dillemas of when TPS/Lean methods should NOT be employed and hwo to deal with those situations...

Amen to hiring ANY expertise not currently available in-house, but necessary for improvement.

It is true there is little any consultant can provide which a reasonably intelligent person can't learn and do himself, but why waste the time reinventing the wheel?

I certainly know enough about things like electrical wiring, circuitry, etc. to have rewired my house - heck, I even have most of the tools! Yet, I hired it out to a licensed contractor last month and got it done in about ten per cent of the time it would have taken me to do myself. The best part was when the building inspector came by and "blessed" the project and commended me for being savvy enough to hire a contractor as he related the tale of a do-it-yourselfer who was in the second month of a similar project with no end in sight.

As much as we try to help newbies here, the truth is a newbie would be much more efficient if he had an experienced consultant walk him through an entire project rather than picking it up in dribs and drabs and numerous threads which can sometimes go off topic and further confuse the situation.

I frequently hired outside expertise in my businesses when I couldn't justify a full-time employee and I have NEVER understood the mentality of a manager who would rather foul up a project than hire an expert on a short term basis to get it done.

Any ideas of the thought process operating which leads to such stubbornness?


maybe a misguided attempt to save money?

I recall my former house, we built two porches. I hired a friend, who was a semi-pro, to build them. The first one, I helped, and it took us 4 weeks. The second one he did alone in 3 days...

Boy, I saved a lot on that first one...:notme:

I am 50 - 50 on this issue. I feel consultant(s) may know the concepts very well may be better then you. But your knowledge about your process or your equipments or problems or troubles is far far better then a Lean consultant.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

I am 50 - 50 on this issue. I feel consultant(s) may know the concepts very well may be better then you. But your knowledge about your process or your equipments or problems or troubles is far far better then a Lean consultant.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

The two aren't mutually exclusive; there's no reason to believe that hiring a consultant means that you can't also use your own knowledge and experience. It's good to assimilate information from different sources when planning for changes, and a consultant should be considered a source of information and not a final authority.

I am 50 - 50 on this issue. I feel consultant(s) may know the concepts very well may be better then you. But your knowledge about your process or your equipments or problems or troubles is far far better then a Lean consultant.
Please correct me if I am wrong.


No, you are not wrong. But, I think that is why you work together with the consultant. Put your minds and knowledge together and achieve the best results.

well, a good consultant can actually move you forward much faster and much more effectively as they won't bow to inside politics adn tehy can see thru and move thru those who arent' yet ready for the major changes that Lean woudl require. I've seen a lot of "fake lean" that implemented by internal personnel who had very little education or exposure to true lean concepts.

We see it even when all internal folks are involved. My Lean Belt is much better as an outsider at detecting and quashing the hedging and "it's alwys been that way" malaise than if the lean event is run only by those from teh target area...

Of course - I am believer in designating one or more interanl experts to come up to speed quickly so that you are not forever dependent on consultants...

adn of course the hack consultants will do more harm than good, so as Wes says - research them well and have tough contracts specifiying expectations...

I've seen companies making money implementing Lean...I can't say that about the other stuff we discuss here!

The Madfox

I've seen companies making money implementing Lean...I can't say that about the other stuff we discuss here!

The Madfox


I think sometimes our rhetoric and positions seem to get kind of silly in these threads...

All the major quality programs are built on the same principles. Reduce defects, reduce variation, standardize, satisfy the customer, improve quality, improve the interface between processes...

These principles support each other, and build on each other. They are logical, and I would argue, common sense principles that have existed in one form or another for decades. The programs are not exclusive of each other. They support each other.

The terms and principles get refined and evolve over time, but Lean, Six Sigma, ISO 9001, TPS, TPM, TQM... don't they all provide value if applied correctly?

Why do we pitch one against the other?

well, exactly. much better said than my long winded explanations! (not my wind will get any shorter!)

It's not the thing - it's how you do the thing that matters!

Why do we pitch one against the other?

Well, if you want to know who threw the first punch, go back to the "Cowboy Quality" article in ASQ's Quality Progress with the cover picture of Cowboy Harry, and some of his quotes about other methodologies, and QP's comparing Harry to the next Deming.

But we don't have to respond in kind. It hasn't taken most of the world very long to realize that Harry is and was a clown. Even GE turned away from him and his work pretty fast once they got past the first few waves.

But more to the point is that no single 'guru' is the one and the only. they are just men. As professionals we need to stick with the stuff that means something and not get into "my guru can beat up your guru" fights. frankly I don't care if something came from Deming/Schewhart/Juran/Crosby/Wheeler et al . I don't care if the man was right or wrong; I want to know if the tool or method has utility and how can I use it. Certainly we should give credit and reference previous work; but merely pointing that so and so said something does not move the understanding level or skill level of the profession forward. The fact that XYZ said it, is not proof of it's correctness or best-ness.

Bev D, I generally agree with you. I'm happy with the methods I use, they've gotten me good pay raises and good fame (of sorts). I'm willing to share and to help those who are interested in following the same path. If you are happy with a different path, then fine.

The difficulty is the Mikel Harry's of the world, and he is only the latest example. Listen to some of Statistical Steven's stories about how the six sigma drive has hurt his career. For me, all I need is some yahoo pushing on the US Government for "You oughta do this" and that comes down through government law (like "no child left behind") and contracts and guess what - I'm out of a job because they must hire in pink belts or whatever. It is unfortunate that those who are following tried and true non-sexy ways get over ridden by the latest snake oil medicine salesman.

I know, do we blame managment and law makers for being so susceptible, or do we blame the snake oil salesman.

Life isn't fair. But, hopefully that helps to document why you get very skeptical reactions to the latest fads from folks like me. If you are having success with your methods, then congratulations to you. I do want to learn what theories allowed you to reach your success. We should all learn from each other.

The name of this thread is "Is Lean Hype?". To me, it largely appears to have been hyped.

Continuous Improvement by any one of a million names is just that.

Lean is only a means of increasing your cash flow by higher turnover of limited inventory, improving set up times and increasing through put. The lean system is askew when production equipment fails or JIT inventory is interrupted by weather conditions or acts of God as we witnessed with Katrina.

Basically we have processes linked to four aspects; man, method, machine and materials. Improvements to any of these objects be it through a 5S system, improving work flow/instructions (TQM), improving preventive maintenance to reduce breakdowns (TPM) or having solid vendors (Six Sigma suppliers) that deliver quality products should reduce cost.

It shouldn't take a guru to tell you an organized work space is more effecient, that planned maintenance will reduce breakdowns, That well documented processes and trained individuals can improve a process. That suppliers should be monitored and rewarded jobs based on their ability to provide product to specifications on time over cost.

These guru's have only broken down common sence manufacturing into bitesize spoonfuls that are easy to understand for senior management. There is an English movie from the 50's (long before my time) called "Right the First Time" that dramtically details lean concepts but back then then it wasn't a buzz word it was common sense.

There is an English movie from the 50's (long before my time) called "Right the First Time" that dramtically details lean concepts but back then then it wasn't a buzz word it was common sense.

ah - but common sense is anything but common. just talk to anyone who was trained in batch processing about one piece flow. they will think you have no 'common sense'

and yes there will always be cute names that are used to 'hype' any technique. it isn't called 'marketing for nothing!

but to the original post: Lean methods, no matter what you call them, are not hype. some consultants and authors can hype lean. but lean is real; it still needs to be taught, learned and practiced as no one is actually born knowing what a Kanban is, or why single piece flow is better than batching or...

Just my:2cents:

Lean definitely isn't hype. It works. Many people have benefitted by it, and many will.

The problem is with the people who have made it an industry. (Consultants - good and bad - like us). They have hyped it for their own sakes. They will continue to do it till a very good way of tackling problems dies its natural (accelarated?) death like so many others before it.

By then, something else would manage to take centre stage. Till it also gets hyped to death.

Any guesses on what will be the next candidate? TOC?

Just my:2cents:

Lean definitely isn't hype. It works. Many people have benefitted by it, and many will.

The problem is with the people who have made it an industry. (Consultants - good and bad - like us). They have hyped it for their own sakes. They will continue to do it till a very good way of tackling problems dies its natural (accelarated?) death like so many others before it.

By then, something else would manage to take centre stage. Till it also gets hyped to death.

Any guesses on what will be the next candidate? TOC?


Hyped or not, why do you think Lean Mfg. would die a natural death? It works and is applied in hundreds of thousands of companies.

Hyped or not, why do you think Lean Mfg. would die a natural death? It works and is applied in hundreds of thousands of companies.

My theory is that "Lean" as a specific entity unto itself will fade away, and become just a part of doing business, like it originally was.

I am still professionally dismayed by these cycles. "gobbledygook" becomes a new buzzword. Donald Trump swears by it. Consultants run in and offer $30,000 courses for gobbledygook. Never mind that degreed professionals already know how to do gobbledygook, unless you have the Richard Simmons certification in gobbbledygook, you aren't going to be hired. The Donald requires his apprentices to do a gobbledygook project, and it saves Trump 10 gagoolian dollars. Then, seven to ten years later the backlash starts.

My theory is that "Lean" as a specific entity unto itself will fade away, and become just a part of doing business, like it originally was.



For Toyota it is just the way they do business. It is the same with Danaher, HON, and others. The "hype" in my opinion is largely from consultants who market it because others don't truly understand what it is, or what it means.

Wayne

I'm a supporter of Lean because I've actually seen companies make money doing it. (Can one say that about ISO?)

It''s not the program, it's the attitude. As mentioned in "The Toyota Way," the concept is to think of sales as fixed, and costs as a variable; that you can't control sales, but you can control costs. How many companies do you know that budget based upon next year's sales projections? I only wish government entities shared this attitude.

One company I interact with gave their union notice in Jan '06 that is was "change or perish" time. They implemented a lean program and by Sep '06 they were producing more with 60% of the employees.

The Madfox

I'm a supporter of Lean because I've actually seen companies make money doing it. (Can one say that about ISO?)

It''s not the program, it's the attitude. As mentioned in "The Toyota Way," the concept is to think of sales as fixed, and costs as a variable; that you can't control sales, but you can control costs. How many companies do you know that budget based upon next year's sales projections? I only wish government entities shared this attitude.

One company I interact with gave their union notice in Jan '06 that is was "change or perish" time. They implemented a lean program and by Sep '06 they were producing more with 60% of the employees.

The MadfoxYep. This is the problem I have with most LEAN programs. (Remember, I am a charter member of the Lean Division of American Society for Quality.)

For too many companies, the opening salvo is: "We will reduce employee count!"

In fact, the ideal is to expand sales and production to gainfully employ all employees, not shrink the workforce.

Announcing a new quality program:
In a spirit of helpfulness and contribution to my fellow quality professionals, I am proud to announce a new quality program you will ALL want to learn and use in your own operations:
NEAT®

It's short, catchy, easy to remember, and trademarked so you can increase your [and my] personal revenues whenever anyone uses it.

There may be some persnickety types who will want to know what the acronym stands for, so I disclose it, but caution you to keep it as secret as Shainin (http://www.qsconsult.be/ESTShainin.htm) folk keep theirs, since mystery increases the amount you can charge the gullible.

NEAT = New Egregious Advertising Term

Like all other quality programs, there will be absolutely nothing new for you to learn, since it ,
NEAT®,
will be completely derivative of the same Body of Knowledge we've been using since Shewart and Deming and Juran and always available for free from the U.S.A. Department of Defense and N.I.S.T.

Enjoy!;)

Hyped or not, why do you think Lean Mfg. would die a natural death? It works and is applied in hundreds of thousands of companies.

I think I need not add much after Steve and then Wes have put it so NEAT® ly.

The organization referred to never threatened layoffs, what they threatened was closure.

Their Lean program basically consisted of changing from an unorganized grouping of processes to the implementation of three conveyor lines. Involving forming, welding, and assembly, the cycle time was not any faster than expected output/shift from before.
But, what become manifest with this new procedure was to highlight those operators that were of less competency (addressed by training). More importantly, it highlighted the slackers and bad attitude-types. It was their peers who requested from management that these slackers be removed from "our" line. Ala Collins in "Good to Great," "people are not your best asset, good people are your best asset."

The organization's product changes daily, so every afternoon the re-design the line(s) (people, machines, material, and cycle-time) for the next day's production.

The Madfox

I'm a supporter of Lean because I've actually seen companies make money doing it. (Can one say that about ISO?)

It''s not the program, it's the attitude. As mentioned in "The Toyota Way," the concept is to think of sales as fixed, and costs as a variable; that you can't control sales, but you can control costs. How many companies do you know that budget based upon next year's sales projections? I only wish government entities shared this attitude.

One company I interact with gave their union notice in Jan '06 that is was "change or perish" time. They implemented a lean program and by Sep '06 they were producing more with 60% of the employees.

The Madfox

A couple of Quick points on Lean.

1) By switching to just in time inventory you do temporarily increase cash flow by reducing inventory however if you are a small company with ineffcient equipment that increase in cash flow goes into improving capital equipment and improving maintenance costs.

2) Should you have unscheduled production down time for equipment failure or even the weather (St Louis loses power everytime it freezes) you have no recovery for customer scheduling.

3) One of the tenants of lean is that people should not lose their jobs do to increased effciency but this is not the case in corporate America. How many people were let go when you realized a 60% improvement. I know I was a vicitm of lean done wrong along with ten others.

4) Reduction of non-value added items such as inspection. While I agree it would be nice if all operators were skilled technicians that had pride in their work but in most shops that's Fantasy Land. In actuality people make mistakes and management hires temps. Without some form of double check system the time saved without inspection is made up on problem solving after the customer recieves defective product.

5) Here is one of my favorites in a lean system when a defect is found you are to stop production and resolve the problem. Since you are in a pull system you can only pull to the defective process creating a gap in deliveries. If this is a major problem such as a design flaw then your screwed. Without a quality system (ISO, QS, TQM or {insert abbreviation here}) forcing design control you are going to spend a lot of time explaining poor on-time delivery.

6) Like Quality Initiatives, Lean does not inrease your sales it only reduces your waste so you are saving money not making it.

Now I do like many of the key concepts of lean such as 5S, Quick change overs, Kiazen, Cellular Manufacturing, Kanaban boards and visual controls. Most of these concepts have been around for 50 years and giving them some fashionable name such as "Lean" does not make them perfect. In 5-10 years we will be investing our implementation and presentation skills on the next fad.

I hate those consultant-turned-promoter-of-lean but i'm a supporter of the concept, and benefit from it.

Here's some quick feedback to your points:-

1] Improving capital equipment is a good thing.
2] Unschedule down-time. Let's face it, u only take away the buffer little by little , through Kaizen, noone is suggesting u do it overnight, and St. Loius is a relatively safe place to manufacturer compare with Japan.
3] The directors do it with/without lean, why blame lean?
4] Non-value added inspection, I know u've been hurt badly on this issue, but hey, the transition from full inspection to sampling to elimination of inspection is not a bad thing, it was simply implement incorrectly (as in your case).
5] Exactly. The little red button that stop production does just that - make sure every bit of dust is exposed from under the carpet, isn't that great? Again, implementation is the key.
6] Lean does not increase sales, it merely make sure customer is satisfied, with fewer defects, with better engineering ,which in turn ensure 73% of Toyota owner would buy another Toyota.

Yep. This is the problem I have with most LEAN programs. (Remember, I am a charter member of the Lean Division of American Society for Quality.)

For too many companies, the opening salvo is: "We will reduce employee count!"

In fact, the ideal is to expand sales and production to gainfully employ all employees, not shrink the workforce.


I am going to ignore the NEAT thing...
however, what we do find is that almost all companies that "implement lean methods" with the intention of reducing headcount as a primary benenfit fail at the implementation. Lean isn't about reducing heads; it really is intended to grow productive headcount as the business grows. BUt we see this kind of failure with any overhyped underimplemented program - be it Deming philosophies, ISO, Six Sigma whatever. it's the fault of the implementation and the motivation - not the methodology that fails.

A couple of Quick points on Lean.

1) By switching to just in time inventory you do temporarily increase cash flow by reducing inventory however if you are a small company with ineffcient equipment that increase in cash flow goes into improving capital equipment and improving maintenance costs.

2) Should you have unscheduled production down time for equipment failure or even the weather (St Louis loses power everytime it freezes) you have no recovery for customer scheduling.

3) One of the tenants of lean is that people should not lose their jobs do to increased effciency but this is not the case in corporate America. How many people were let go when you realized a 60% improvement. I know I was a vicitm of lean done wrong along with ten others.

4) Reduction of non-value added items such as inspection. While I agree it would be nice if all operators were skilled technicians that had pride in their work but in most shops that's Fantasy Land. In actuality people make mistakes and management hires temps. Without some form of double check system the time saved without inspection is made up on problem solving after the customer recieves defective product.

5) Here is one of my favorites in a lean system when a defect is found you are to stop production and resolve the problem. Since you are in a pull system you can only pull to the defective process creating a gap in deliveries. If this is a major problem such as a design flaw then your screwed. Without a quality system (ISO, QS, TQM or {insert abbreviation here}) forcing design control you are going to spend a lot of time explaining poor on-time delivery.

6) Like Quality Initiatives, Lean does not inrease your sales it only reduces your waste so you are saving money not making it.

Now I do like many of the key concepts of lean such as 5S, Quick change overs, Kiazen, Cellular Manufacturing, Kanaban boards and visual controls. Most of these concepts have been around for 50 years and giving them some fashionable name such as "Lean" does not make them perfect. In 5-10 years we will be investing our implementation and presentation skills on the next fad.

Ernst addressed most points very well, so I will touch on only a couple.

You actually have a common misconception about stopping production for every defect until it is resolved. You don't actually do that - in fact as you point out that would be suicide.
*The point with this is that you should repair every defect as soon as found (unless there is a physics reason to delay)
*The line is to be stopped when there is an "assignable cause" - there is a new defect or there is a statistically significant increase in the defect rate. Feedback and feed up is to be immediate. sometimes it's simple and a quick feedback will correct the cause (if it's an error in a setting or a wrong bolt picked) and turn it off. In these cses it is also desirable to discuss mistake proofing adn other permanent corrective actions - but this can wait until the daily meeting or sent to off line support.
*Tough recurring problems do not stop production but offline support is supposed to be working on these in a prority manner and there shoudl be some containment in place - even if it is only a solid rework/repair method.
The idea is to surface allproblems - keep them visible - and keep the focus on solving them; don't ignore them and don't hide them...what is wrong with that?

Reduction of non value add: you may have been burned on this but that's because of a wrong implementation not a fault of the concept. In fact, Lean (or I really prefer toyota production system - TPS) is again logical in this. OF COURSE you willalways need some type of inspection for some things at various times. in fact the point of 100% 'failsafe' or poke yoke inspection methods are for this very purpose...TPS also drives you to root casue corrective action that prevents recurrence (ISO anyone?); true hard fixes and SPC that allow you to forgo the final release QA type inspection as much as possible. Remember Lean is a goal not a destinition - it is called the ideal state by Toyota becase they know you never actually get there.

No Lean doesn't directly increase sales. but you do get more cash by reducing costs. and who can argue with more cash? in fact it's awfully tough to eke out a few more dollars at 1-20% by increasing revenue, but reduce costs by 1 to 20% - now that's real money.

as for your first point about power outages and stuff - that's why Lean has buffers. they aren't as big as 'batch and queue' adn they are more deliberate adn calculated. They do protect you from the 'unexpected' not a Katrina or a september 11 or a magnitude 8 earthquake, but you need other kinds of protection for those types of events. batch and queue won't protect you then either.

On the issue of does Lean reduce costs or increase sales, I will weigh in that good inventory management and balancing of production line flows (such as Theory of Constraints) can certainly increase production rates. So, yes, I can reduce costs due to idle time and rework, but I can take those resources previously consumed as idle or rework, and apply them to increasing production. Now, yes, someone needs to be willing to buy the increased number of products.

A couple of Quick points on Lean.

I'll respond point by point:

1) Just-in-Time (JIT) is a by-product or goal, and not a strategy unto itself. It bothers me to no end that even some of the APICS (Association for Operations Management) material still refers to JIT as if it is an entity unto itself. As far as maintenance costs, it is much more expensive over the long haul to run equipment until failure as opposed to working towards preventative maintenance.

2) Bev summed it pretty well. For catastrophic events, there isn't much anyone can do. For shutdowns of a day or so, I would argue that the facility which employs smaller batches and has less waste will recover much faster. Refer back to the story of NUMMI. Here's the summary:

"Within two years of the restart of this plant under Toyota’s management, production system, and labor relations, the same union leaders, largely the same workforce, and with the same relatively old technology had become the most productive and highest quality auto producer in the U.S."

3) Typically, a few things occur: people that "refuse" to buy-in are let go (and these people exist) or the downsizing happens through attrition. I hate to say it, but companies that have excessive headcount, will need to downsize. It is simple economics, and rarely will the sales growth happen fast enough to counter this unfortunate necessity. If it was me, I would reduce headcount before embarking on the transition and then adjust as needed. Future downsizing shouldn't be necessary because the real strategy should be long-term growth.

4) I would argue that not all inspection is non-value added. Unfortunately, there is a tendency whenever a problem pops up for people to want to put in another inspection point/station instead of getting to the root cause.

5) If you aren't going to stop the process for producing defects then why bother with it worrying about it all? One of the problems Toyota faces with new people is that they have a tendency to "NOT" pull the cord and stop the line often enough. The trick is to put solutions into place that will make it less likely that the problem will happen again. It it keeps being a occurring over and over, then it was never fixed in the first place.

6) Lean creates excess capacity which in turn opens up oppportunities to go after new business. It also frees up cash, through the elimination of waste, so that further investments can be made into the business.


Now I do like many of the key concepts of lean such as 5S, Quick change overs, Kiazen, Cellular Manufacturing, Kanaban boards and visual controls. Most of these concepts have been around for 50 years and giving them some fashionable name such as "Lean" does not make them perfect. In 5-10 years we will be investing our implementation and presentation skills on the next fad


My argument is that these aren't concepts that can be applied willy-nilly or thought of as tools in a toolbox. These methods are designed to work together and more often than not, contain elements of one another. Lean which is really some catchy term used to describe the Toyota Production System, and which has taken on a life of it's own, doesn't truly represent the process.

I would argue that both "Lean Manufacturing" and the "Toyota Production System" would be viewed as inaccurate descriptions by Taiichi Ohno. He himself states that it is a way to manage the business and not just out on the shopfloor.

Wayne

I just decided that I was going to read all 10 pages of this thread and it was definately interesting. I think I only noticed one actual disention from the principles of lean.

A lot of people seem quite perturbed by the fact that many people don't understand the origins of "lean." I'm new to all of this and unlike a the majority of the people who have responded to this post, I'm not one of the experts. I came to this forum to specifically learn more about these concepts.

I think that it's interesting to note that I have never been told that my company is currently implementing lean concepts. My company is in fact implementing what it has termed PES. The production enterprise system is a company term (much like gobbleygook) that describes our own forays into the TPS world. It is very much based on Toyota but we were immediately introduced to the fact that Toyota got most of it's ideas from American concepts of quality.

When i wanted to do more background research on the PES principles I'd been introduced to, I immediately started studying the Toyota Production System because there was information on that (not a whole lot of people out there discussing our buzz word of PES). After absorbing all I could on Toyota I realized that more information could be found on the subject in the form of "Lean." It was all related but with the subtle differences that always come up with different sources. My lean investigations led me here, to Elsmar. Here I found out that lean, six sigma, Toyota, and gobleygook all probably originated from the thinking of Demming, Shewert, and some other guys i've never met.

Even if Lean is nothing more than a new package for an old product, the fact is, the new package sells better. People besides degreed professionals comprehend the Toyota concepts and run with them. There just aren't many companies out there doing "Demming Principle Initiatives."

The arguments against "lean" remind me of the arguments I'd have with my high school chemistry teacher when i couldn't ace a test because I didn't know the guy who discovered some reaction. I didn't care where the concept came from I just new that it worked because it worked.

Lean works so it's not hype.

Lean works so it's not hype.

Yes and No.

It is not hype IF you are in a stable manufacturing environment AND willing to spend 10 good years on it.

It is hype IF the board of directors want it done in 6 months AND rename the company Toyota2....

I kind of disagree that lean is only for stable manufacturing companies. I work with (not for) a company that makes solid rocket motors for NASA and the defense department. They have been going "lean/TPS" for about 8 years. The differences it has made there are amazing and they are not necessarily a "stable" manufacturing environment. Many of the motors they make for NASA are one of a kind or come in orders of 5-10. I wouldn't call that stable.

Unless by stable you mean that the company will still have to be in business, I disagree. The TPS concepts make changes in schedule much easier to handle.

You are right that lean will not gain true benefits unless it is utilized for multiple years. I think that a tenet of the TPS system is that continuous improvement will continue. So any company expecting to "finish up" their leaning in six months is not actually using the system. That doesn't make lean hype, it makes that companies attempt at lean hype.

The company in question is operating in a deficit for the third and possibly final year of existance all of which were under the term lean manufacturing.

What I believe has happened is a slow gun fast bullet approach in which the concepts were not applied in the most effective fasion. Things that were not addressed up front were over complication of design, not designing for manufacturability, suppliers chosen on price over quality, lack of SPC in controlling for critical machine dim. and I could go on.

Lean does not address design issues from a preventive stand point thats where the QS fits in.

Yes when you become the critic asking why we are not addressing design/supplier issues prior to implementing lean your job does become risky. Our President waved his ISO flag and thought these issues were covered while the QM hid from them by playing gold with our auditor.

1. Investing in capital equipment is a good thing but more typical we ended up investing in maintance parts rather than purchasing new equipment. (example a six spindel drill station that was used during World War 2 as a critical piece of manufacturing equipment.)

2. While I sighted catostrophic events I did not consider unplanned absentism of key operators (critical when the majority of your operators are temps), Last minute scheduled increases by sales or a variety of other problems. I can see Lean working better in job shops not mass manufacturing.

3. We (me a QE, two design engineers, facilities engineer and the companies Finacial Officer) lost our jobs not due to a lack of work but because of negative cash flow. Funny all of those let go felt we did not have our ducks in a row when we attempted lean.

4. When you use suppliers that manufacture machine parts literally from their barn you need to have incoming inspection in place. When this was forcibly removed by our Lean guru we instantly increased warranty returns and test tank failures but we did have two warm bodies moved to production.

5. Many of the problems were represented in a lack of a robust design process with design for manufacturability paths. If you are to pull the chain on this problem you are back to the drawing board.

6. I still disagree and believe you are not increasing cash flow but redistributing it to maintenance.

While I have never had the oppurtunity to witness lean done right but there must be a logical order to implement lean concepts that was not used by my previous employer.

I am currently working with a build board (Kanban our management freaks when I use Japanese terms maybe i should coin the term "Stealth Lean") in our Quality dept and hope that with some success we can promote this to manufacturing and design. The board is in one of the most public places giving everyone immediate status updates on projects.

We have already applied 5S but that did not catch on since our lab is somewhat remote from the manufacturing floor.

The company in question is operating in a deficit for the third and possibly final year of existance all of which were under the term lean manufacturing.

What I believe has happened is a slow gun fast bullet approach in which the concepts were not applied in the most effective fasion. Things that were not addressed up front were over complication of design, not designing for manufacturability, suppliers chosen on price over quality, lack of SPC in controlling for critical machine dim. and I could go on.

Lean does not address design issues from a preventive stand point thats where the QS fits in.

Yes when you become the critic asking why we are not addressing design/supplier issues prior to implementing lean your job does become risky. Our President waved his ISO flag and thought these issues were covered while the QM hid from them by playing golf with our auditor.

1. Investing in capital equipment is a good thing but more typical we ended up investing in maintance parts rather than purchasing new equipment. (example a six spindel drill station that was used during World War 2 as a critical piece of manufacturing equipment.)

2. While I sighted catostrophic events I did not consider unplanned absentism of key operators (critical when the majority of your operators are temps), Last minute scheduled increases by sales or a variety of other problems. I can see Lean working better in job shops not mass manufacturing.

3. We (me a QE, two design engineers, facilities engineer and the companies Finacial Officer) lost our jobs not due to a lack of work but because of negative cash flow. Funny all of those let go felt we did not have our ducks in a row when we attempted lean.

4. When you use suppliers that manufacture machine parts literally from their barn you need to have incoming inspection in place. When this was forcibly removed by our Lean guru we instantly increased warranty returns and test tank failures but we did have two warm bodies moved to production.

5. Many of the problems were represented in a lack of a robust design process with design for manufacturability paths. If you are to pull the chain on this problem you are back to the drawing board.

6. I still disagree and believe you are not increasing cash flow but redistributing it to maintenance.

While I have never had the oppurtunity to witness lean done right I believe in many of its core prinicpals but there must be a logical order to implement lean concepts that was not used by my previous employer.

I am currently working with a build board (Kanban our management freaks when I use Japanese terms maybe i should coin the term "Stealth Lean") in our Quality dept and hope that with some success we can promote this to manufacturing and design. The board is in one of the most public places giving everyone immediate status updates on projects.

We have already applied 5S but that did not catch on since our lab is somewhat remote from the manufacturing floor.

While I have never had the oppurtunity to witness lean done right but there must be a logical order to implement lean concepts that was not used by my previous employer.


Everything I've read and in my experience the place to start is with flow paths. Map out the flow of material and parts for your process (your process might be the entire plant or an "island" to start with). How often do the flow paths cross? Is your flowpath clearly defined?

This can be pretty simple but effective stuff. This is how you start building a visual factory. In my case we split up our major assemblies by color coding (we have four major product categories and simply put four different colors out there). We purchased new containers for parts so that the parts could be easily identified as what they were. Multi colored duct tape is awesome for labeling areas (after your sure you can do some more permanent painting).

After you get your flowpaths clearly defined, your probably going to realize that there are bottlenecks and areas where flowpaths cross. Try to diverge all of your flowpaths. In our case it would have been totally impossible to keep our flowpaths seperate without a simple at the work station scheduling tool. **poof** we need kanbans...kanbans need other things to keep going like preventative maintenance...so on and so forth...gonna realize you don't want to shut down your line for the same reason again so root cause analysis...

In our case. We went out to our floor and said that we were going to keep everything seperate and not cross contaminate product made on different machines, different days, so on. All of the other parts of TPS came out of necessity to follow that one constraint.

See attached PDF file for some additional commentary.

Wayne

We are talking stealth lean here with a company that hates any type of Japanese terminology. The majority of management rose from the ranks and have been here 28+ years so new ideas do not come easy.

I have successfully integrated flowcharts into the Quality System however optimization of these flow charts has come very slowly. I usually will point to the flowchart and ask where the process failed during corrective action meetings.

I believe with our new Build (Kanban) Board which will go up next week we may be able to swing the culture. I already have my people attempting to pull from design and production which is really annoying those groups. They were accustom to Quality sitting back and hanging out rather than pulling work. Should we have some success I will push for 5S and set up Kaizens in the future.

After reading wmarhel's attachement I can see that we misinterpted the meaning of just-in-time inventory.

I'm a supporter of Lean because I've actually seen companies make money doing it. (Can one say that about ISO?)

It''s not the program, it's the attitude....


Absolutely. I have seen many examples where ISO helped. ISO principles are the framework for Lean to be effective. They provide standardization.

I think you answered your own question - "It''s not the program, it's the attitude.... "

[QUOTE]We are talking stealth lean here with a company that hates any type of Japanese terminology. The majority of management rose from the ranks and have been here 28+ years so new ideas do not come easy.

I appreciate the sensitive and careful approach you are taking to make it work in your company.

However, it is interesting that you say - "new ideas do not come easy," yet it is usually these same type of people who always blame outside factors for company difficulties.

They claim to want continual improvement, but don't want to change...

Keep up the good work, and wishing you success.




I believe with our new Build (Kanban) Board which will go up next week we may be able to swing the culture. I already have my people attempting to pull from design and production which is really annoying those groups. They were accustom to Quality sitting back and hanging out rather than pulling work. Should we have some success I will push for 5S and set up Kaizens in the future.



Sounds like a great step for you.

Yes and No.

It is not hype IF you are in a stable manufacturing environment AND willing to spend 10 good years on it.

It is hype IF the board of directors want it done in 6 months AND rename the company Toyota2....

again this is accusing a perfectly good of car of drunk driving... Lean (or TPS) is a THING. it either is or isn't real. what you describe as hype is a 'fake' attempt at implementing LEAN. the IMPLEMENTATION is hype. Lean is not.

I can claim to be genius. but the fact that I am not a genius doesn't mean that geniuses dont' exist.

While I have never had the oppurtunity to witness lean done right but there must be a logical order to implement lean concepts that was not used by my previous employer.


...and there in lies the exact source of your issue with Lean - you do not yet truly understand it. (for example - it's actually easier to implement in mass manufacturing than a job shop - in my experience.) you are judging it from your bad experience and what I would term (not meaning to insult) ineefefctive training/education in the methods. there are subleties and nuances to the seemingly simple methods are have not been well communicated from the Japanese and are often glossed over by so-called Lean consultants. I have been 'doing' Lean for 16 years startign at Honda of America Manufacturing, studying with and from some of the best in the world and I still don't consider myself an expert. One thing I have learned over teh years is that TPS has many paradoxes that make the seeming simplicity actually complex - which is why it needs to be taught and by a good teacher not