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 a hack. (thank you Dr Deming for pointing that out years ago!)

This is why I come to the cove to learn from experts. :truce:

Yes our training was done by a state funded contractor who spent two days recreating a factory that built an electronic gadget that turned on a small light bulb. In that time we tried three different system mass production with forecasted schedules to lean one piece draw systems. Obvioulsy the lean system was excellent.

When some of us began to ask questions about how we were not facing realistic properties in the training (design flaws, machine downtime and poor product from suppliers) we were ignored shut down and the instructor moved on. :whip:

The lean guru's next step was to move into the assembly area (a final process) and do Kaizens. Our throughput to the test tank (final inspection regulatory requirement) was improved however test tank failures were not addressed only assembly failures. This group never got to the root cause of the problem and didn't seem to care as long as they showed increased throughput.

Since my departure they have had two major recalls due to poor design. (Using a plasic washer as a critical componet without reliability testing in cold temperatures :lmao: ) the warranty returns have dramtically increased but then again with lean they are capable of putting out more bad products quickly.

There is no Kanban, 5S, SMED or even design for manufacturability so I believe the first step to any lean system is to establish a solid quality system with design controls similar to QS or TS requirements requiring FMEA's, Control Plans, reliability testing and capability studies then integrating lean concepts.

I really like Bev's drunk driving analogy so I'm going to continue with it. So the TPS implementation is failing because your (I don't mean you specifically, please don't take offense) not doing the root cause analysis, poke yoke, and other quality steps, and then you blame it on TPS. That's like blaiming the perfectly good vehicle for getting stuck on a muddy road even though you didn't try putting it in four wheel drive.

TPS/lean/demingism (whatever you want to call it) works. It's a perfectly good vehicle to bettering the capabilities of your factory. It's all about making the vehicle run in your environment.

By the way. The circuit board factory simulation is a great activity if it is done with good teachers. Our company has about 2100 employees and has been continually doing a three day class every month for the last 3 years (the circuit board is basically one day of it). It can really help to have everyone get this type of training and not just management/engineering. Wage roll people can really take things into their own hands and "own" their process if you give them the knowledge to do it.

I work in a very old facility where the majority of people have been around for 15-30 years. When I took the 3-day class, I had to make our circuit boards along side a maintenance guy of 40+ years. He was definately hard to teach and stubborn but by the end he was pretty well on board. When it comes down to it's base form, leaning a facility puts the operators in charge and turns all of supervision into servants there to facilitate production. Most operators love that idea, they just don't believe it.

First thing I noticed about TPS as an engineer was something that should have been obvious to me before. I am non value added material unless I make peoples jobs easier and more efficient.

I really like Bev's drunk driving analogy so I'm going to continue with it. So the TPS implementation is failing because your (I don't mean you specifically, please don't take offense) not doing the root cause analysis, poke yoke, and other quality steps, and then you blame it on TPS. That's like blaiming the perfectly good vehicle for getting stuck on a muddy road even though you didn't try putting it in four wheel drive.

TPS/lean/demingism (whatever you want to call it) works. It's a perfectly good vehicle to bettering the capabilities of your factory. It's all about making the vehicle run in your environment.

Since I am not doing the implementation I don't take it personally. :cool:

The point I'm trying to make is the vehicle was not perfectly good (out of alignment, missing a wheel and headed off a cliff) but the results of a flawed quality system.

Without a solid design process based on compliance to a quality system we attempted lean. Implementing lean over a flawed system only allows for you to make more bad product faster or in lean terms gives you a greater chance to pull the chain and stop the process.

The question should be which comes first the chicken or the egg. I believe without a structured quality system based on prevention, lean will as my previous company did fail.

Lean is reactive and not preventive. Many have stated that you must fail to implement new corrective actions why not plan ahead using FEMA's, Control Plans, etc. Then again if your company was not failing you might not be implementing lean in the first place. :notme:

Yes our training was done by a state funded contractor who spent two days recreating a factory that built an electronic gadget that turned on a small light bulb.

When some of us began to ask questions about how we were not facing realistic properties in the training (design flaws, machine downtime and poor product from suppliers) we were ignored shut down and the instructor moved on. :whip:



Sounds like you had utilized the local MEP (Manufacturing Extension Partnership), please correct me if I'm wrong. If it was a MEP then this is pretty typical from what I've experienced with them in multiple states, with the only advantage to them being that the state picks up some of the tab.

Wayne

Yes thats correct but I wasn't trying to point to the obvious perp.

I think they would have got better buy in by answering our questions even if they reflected poorly on the system he was peddling or he said he did not know. After all we are in the "Show Me" state.

Without a solid design process based on compliance to a quality system we attempted lean. Implementing lean over a flawed system only allows for you to make more bad product faster or in lean terms gives you a greater chance to pull the chain and stop the process.

The question should be which comes first the chicken or the egg. I believe without a structured quality system based on prevention, lean will as my previous company did fail.

Lean is reactive and not preventive. Many have stated that you must fail to implement new corrective actions why not plan ahead using FEMA's, Control Plans, etc. Then again if your company was not failing you might not be implementing lean in the first place. :notme:

I think we are straying. Do we all believe that Lean only means higher production at lower cost?

I believe a rethink is called for. Lean thinking / implementation starts with the concept of VALUE, on to charting the VALUE STREAMS, and then onwards to optimising FLOW, implementing PULL, finally aiming at PERFECTION. The sole aim of the exercise being to maximise the VALUE in the eyes of the customer. The word has not made an appearance so far in this thread.

After WWII, the Japanese started as a war ravaged nation with no resources churning out cheap low quality goods. Nothing different than what the companies that failed (discussed here) are doing. They used Lean and are successful today.

If our examples have failed, thats because they have not understood what the Japanese did in the name of Lean. That would also reflect on the implementers and their gurus.

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.

stable = stable workforce , for which trust can be built upon.

One pre-requisite I observed during the implementation of Lean is that we need to address employees initial fear towards change, and trust that their jobs are secured, their opinion will be judged solely on fact not rank.

Also an ernomous amount of training is required , in my case > 200hrs/6mths for recruit and >80hrs/yr for all staffs, so it helps to have a stable workforce as to avoid unnecessary resource drain. Personally I don't any chance of suceess for company manned by temps. The culture just isn't there.

I believe lean provide the most benefits to manufacturing companies, viv-a-vis innovation-driven companies looking for breakthrough.

Organizations hiring temps are not in the correct mindset for lean nor are companies who purchase from the lowest cost vendor without regard for quality.

If we consider value is design a value added item? The customer will pay for the product they usually do not care about the design. Is that why Lean/TPS avoids design engineering?

If we consider value is design a value added item? The customer will pay for the product they usually do not care about the design. Is that why Lean/TPS avoids design engineering?

Value is directly proportional to utility and inversely proportional to cost. Both need to be worked on to improve value.

Lean thinking process recognises three aspects of operation as means of improving value:

development of new products - to improve utility.

customer service aspect - affects both cost and utility.

physical production - reduce costs using what have come to be known as 'lean techniques'. You will find many techniques here designed to take care of newly designed, even onetime jobs (e.g. SMED).

If TPS ignored engineering developments, everybody wouldn't want to drive a TOYOTA today.

The very fact that these systems are also relevant (not so relevant - the half empty half full syndrome) for even a job shop is proof enough that the engineering change aspect has been given due weightage.

Also an ernomous amount of training is required , in my case > 200hrs/6mths for recruit and >80hrs/yr for all staffs, so it helps to have a stable workforce as to avoid unnecessary resource drain. Personally I don't any chance of suceess for company manned by temps. The culture just isn't there.


I agree and disagree with this. I totally agree that a company that is manning their workforce with temps does not have a good "culture" for lean. Using temps is all about short term gains at the cost of long term goals and that is contrary to everything TPS. There is an enormous amount of training that goes into changing the culture from bank to pull so some continuity is necessary.

A company that has established a working visual factory and has standardized it's work practices has a huge advantage in situations of high turnover. You are eliminating a lot of the on the job "training" that is much harder to get sometimes. I think the classroom training is just a LOT easier to see in the bottom line than the much more dangerous (think of how many times you are out there troubleshooting mistakes for the new guys in your workforce) on the job training.

Also, once it's established, there is no training. Toyota doesn't do any training on how to run a pull system. It just is the way it is. I know most people aren't willing to wait the 50+ years it took Toyota to get to the way they are now but don't expect to surpass them anytime soon. Luckily we don't have to reinvent the wheel so it shouldn't take more than 10-15 years :rolleyes: ;)

Toyota rely on its team leader to provide informal training to workers,espeacially in multi-tasking and sharing of experiences, which I think is highly successful.

However I prefer the planned sessions for workers in which I can 'trace' their progress, and decide on the next course of actions. On the other hand, with the use of training material, I kinda obtain some written procedure how thing are done that normally stubborn technician are not willing to put it down to paper.

Well, there is no perfect way, but the most appropriate way to get things done.

If we consider value is design a value added item? The customer will pay for the product they usually do not care about the design. Is that why Lean/TPS avoids design engineering?


No other automotive maker cares more about design than Toyota. Other design cars, Toyota design car AND the system to build cars.

Why 73% existing owner would buy another Toyota, why BIG 3 lag by a hefty 40%? The value of design shall be judged by customers, not you nor I.

Psyched1, read this
Toyota Changeovers - Flexibility vs Efficiency.pdf (http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/get/ie/691/2nembhard/researchpa/flex-v-eff.pdf)

A bit too long for comfort, but worth every minute.

No other automotive maker cares more about design than Toyota. Other design cars, Toyota design car AND the system to build cars.

Why 73% existing owner would buy another Toyota, why BIG 3 lag by a hefty 40%? The value of design shall be judged by customers, not you nor I.

Thats funny you never hear of TDS = Toyota Design Systems.:lol:

A different point of view is being offered, but u have take it too personal.

Well, I'm out of this.

Organizations hiring temps are not in the correct mindset for lean nor are companies who purchase from the lowest cost vendor without regard for quality.

If we consider value is design a value added item? The customer will pay for the product they usually do not care about the design. Is that why Lean/TPS avoids design engineering?

Actually TPS does address the design process. Your experience and training in Lean are not good. You simply don' thave enough good exposure to make judgements on Lean/TPS as you are judging based on a minimal implementation attempt of 'fake' Lean.

If you would likeo understand how Toyota and others utilize Len concepts I can begin providing some explanations and examples. If you are truly interested in learning about TPS/Lean I strongly recommend that you start with "The Toyota Way" by Liker. It's an easy read. I will however, caution you that many paradoxes are notompletely covered in this book and Mr. Like himself is n expert. (for example that will resonate with you based on lprevious bullet points of your issues with Lean. Mr. Liker's exposure to problem solving of complex problems cased by variation and design is very limited. Thus he makes a critical omission when discussing how problems are solved on the line. The approach he describes here is valid for error based problems and for the very simple variation based assignable causes. This is only one example. but in the main what he describes is true and effective.

Actually TPS does address the design process. Your experience and training in Lean are not good. You simply don' thave enough good exposure to make judgements on Lean/TPS as you are judging based on a minimal implementation attempt of 'fake' Lean.

If you would likeo understand how Toyota and others utilize Len concepts I can begin providing some explanations and examples. If you are truly interested in learning about TPS/Lean I strongly recommend that you start with "The Toyota Way" by Liker. It's an easy read. I will however, caution you that many paradoxes are notompletely covered in this book and Mr. Like himself is n expert. (for example that will resonate with you based on lprevious bullet points of your issues with Lean. Mr. Liker's exposure to problem solving of complex problems cased by variation and design is very limited. Thus he makes a critical omission when discussing how problems are solved on the line. The approach he describes here is valid for error based problems and for the very simple variation based assignable causes. This is only one example. but in the main what he describes is true and effective.


Reference this book for more information on Toyota's design process:
The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process, and Technology (http://www.productivitypress.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=359)

Also Bev makes a good point regarding Dr. Liker. I had an opportunity to talk with him and hear his presentation this past October at a Lean Management conference. He does a good job with studying the process and communicating what "he" sees, but I think it stops there. He's very "academic", and that's not meant in a bad way, but academics and reality don't always mix. I don't think he could implement or drive a transformation.

A key factor in Toyota's success is the 3P process. I've seen this described as Product Preparation Process and Pre-Production Planning. This is what differentiates the men from the boys in my opinion. It is also the one aspect of which there is very little written information widely available, as compared to kanban, TPM, SMED, etc.

Wayne

It seems to me this thread is picking up too many personal "zingers."

I do not relish the role of censor - do not force me or other moderators to intervene by deleting posts - it's not fun and we moderators have too much to do in dealing with spammers , so we will probably seem pretty ruthless.

My take on the thread so far:
Everyone pretty much agrees there are "practitioners" who hype Lean. Heck, there are some practitioners who also hype Deming as a panacea. The principles of Lean, like those of Deming, are time-tested and do work when applied without a pre-conceived bias. (Sometimes, just sometimes, the individual worker is in the wrong job and his failure would not be replicated by the vast majority of replacements using the same process.;) )

Why not turn the thread to ways to ferret out and neutralize "pre-conceived bias" so the underlying principles of Lean can be applied broadly and NOT narrowly.

For one example, think about "spaghetti diagrams" which can show wasted movement of people and goods in a process without pointing a finger at an individual, but rather at the PROCESS (Deming Red Beads anyone?) directed by management.

Thanks Wes but I am not taking it personally. This is a learning experience. While I might be precieved as a naysayer I am getting some good answers to some disturbing questions which my previous lean guru could not answer and perhaps others would not ask.

Wmarhel again very insightful I have ordered the book The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People, Process, and Technology It looks like the missing key I have been looking for.

Bev their are many snake charmers/sharltons out their and I watched one company get hooked to the point they will be filling for bankruptcy next month (only 100 people lossing their jobs) so you can understand my displeasurer. Hopefully some of the point we share here will guide others away from false prophets/profits :tg:

Ok after value stream mapping where do you begin? We were taught to jump on bottle necks which ened up being symptomatic of other problems up the line. When I implemnet Quality Systems I have a structured path 1. Management Review, 2. Doc Control, 3. Contract Review, 4 Design Control ,,,,,,. Is there a structured path for Lean?

Ok after value stream mapping where do you begin? We were taught to jump on bottle necks which ened up being symptomatic of other problems up the line. When I implemnet Quality Systems I have a structured path 1. Management Review, 2. Doc Control, 3. Contract Review, 4 Design Control ,,,,,,. Is there a structured path for Lean?



Value Stream Mapping (VSM) shouldn't be the first step. The first step should be the Hoshin Planning process. VSM is usually done first because that is what the consultant/trainer uses to either:

1) Demonstrate the method

2) To try and convince you why your company needs to hire them on a regular basis

3) Etc.

Let's face it, even though huge benefits can be found through the rigorous application (and I do mean rigorous) of the concepts behind the Toyota Production System (TPS), there are many who still don't believe it can work in their environment/company.

Some companies don't want to dive headfirst into the transformation, and rightly so, without more information. They hire a consultant in order to try and see what all the "hype about lean" is really about. Typically, there is some "Lean Overview" training to cover some of the basics. This probably entails some simulation of a conversion from a traditional environment (batch and queue) to a lean environment over the course of multiple rounds. The next visit from the consultant might consist of a :eek: "kaizen" event. There is a good chance this will revolve around 5S or quick-changeover.

After several of these sessions, the company notices some benefits and receives some positive results, and at some point runs into the brick wall as the low hanging fruit dries up. At this point, the hurdles could be beyond the ability of the individual who was originally hired to assist in the transformation, or the person doesn't have sufficient experience to begin the integration of the entire business into the transformation and create synergy between all the departments/processes. If the hurdle/s can't be overcome, the transformation process grinds to halt and starts to regress. Think Sisyphus from Greek mythology as it becomes a never-ending pattern of make an improvement - regress - make an improvement - regress - etc.

This is where a knowledgeable/experienced consultant is really worth their weight in gold, and there are some very good organizations and individuals out there who can really help drive the business to new levels. But, for every good consultant, there are many more who cause more problems than they solve. Each effort to become lean and sustain improvement just helps to create more naysayers.

As for the question regarding value stream mapping as the first step, I would state that Hoshin Kanri or Policy Deployment should be first. This enables the entire organization to become aligned under common objectives (at the executive level) which are then broken down into manageable tasks as they move down the ladder. This is what should be driving the development of which value streams to map, and what key areas/processes should be focused on first.

Some of the methods such as 5S and SMED, are as much about getting people working and talking together (creating teams) as they are about removing waste. Unfortunately, there isn't a single roadmap which will make every company lean if they just follow the instruction sheet. Trying to become a Toyota is really more about the culture than it is any one method. The methods are a way to help break down barriers and begin the development of the necessary culture.

Wayne

Brillant!

Now could you explan Hoshin Planning. Our current Plant manager is new to the position but open to change perhaps this will bring the group together toward a lean culture.

It seems to me this thread is picking up too many personal "zingers."

I do not relish the role of censor - do not force me or other moderators to intervene by deleting posts - it's not fun and we moderators have too much to do in dealing with spammers , so we will probably seem pretty ruthless.

My take on the thread so far:
Everyone pretty much agrees there are "practitioners" who hype Lean. Heck, there are some practitioners who also hype Deming as a panacea. The principles of Lean, like those of Deming, are time-tested and do work when applied without a pre-conceived bias. (Sometimes, just sometimes, the individual worker is in the wrong job and his failure would not be replicated by the vast majority of replacements using the same process.;) )

Why not turn the thread to ways to ferret out and neutralize "pre-conceived bias" so the underlying principles of Lean can be applied broadly and NOT narrowly.

For one example, think about "spaghetti diagrams" which can show wasted movement of people and goods in a process without pointing a finger at an individual, but rather at the PROCESS (Deming Red Beads anyone?) directed by management.

The problem here, as in similar discussions about Six Sigma, is that we fail to distinguish between the container and the thing(s) contained. Although I put more stock in the general principles of Lean than SS, I think we can all agree that the core idea behind lean--identify and eliminate or neutralize waste--is a no-brainer. We get our shorts all in a knot when the vultures consultants put together magic-bullet packages and sell them to unsuspecting neophytes who are yearning for any way they can find to avoid spitting on their hands, rolling up their sleeves, and actually doing some work.

It's possible to implement a "lean" system without the word actually ever being uttered, and without using any of the would-be panacea "tools" that are being sold. But anything worth having--including quality improvement--will never be found at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box.

We get our shorts all in a knot when the vultures consultants put together magic-bullet packages and sell them to unsuspecting neophytes who are yearning for any way they can find to avoid spitting on their hands, rolling up their sleeves, and actually doing some work.

It's possible to implement a "lean" system without the word actually ever being uttered, and without using any of the would-be panacea "tools" that are being sold. But anything worth having--including quality improvement--will never be found at the bottom of a Cracker Jack box.



:applause:

Brillant!

Now could you explan Hoshin Planning. Our current Plant manager is new to the position but open to change perhaps this will bring the group together toward a lean culture.



I've attached a couple of files to give you an idea (it would take more time to explain the concept then it did to google it :) ): a whitepaper regarding Hoshin Kanri, and a second file which depicts the typical chart used in the process.

The chart, as used, would begin at a high level and then cascade down to the appropriate people/departments. They would then use their chart to identify and manage their objectives to ensure alignment with the overall direction.

I will say this though, a critical element in the process is the concept of "Catchball". In essence, it is a two-way dialogue between all parties.

Wayne

Thanks
Ok after value stream mapping where do you begin? We were taught to jump on bottle necks which ened up being symptomatic of other problems up the line...Is there a structured path for Lean?

The path really depends on your organization's Lean maturity.
You might want to start by gettign a couple of really good books on the subject - there is a mountain of information and this forum is probably best used to answer specific questions about specific issues or tool appliacations...

That said:
Ensuring that the organization really has a common set of goals and objectives and consenus on the strategy, metrics, timeframe etc. is essential.

Within this process the organization shodul identify a starting product or large function/service that is cumbersome and costly and really isn't getting the job done well...

You can then map the process*. Your consultant was correct that you start at the bottleneck (or constraint) of the process. However, the necessarry actions may not take place at the constraint as you pointed out. one must get to the root causes of the constraint. there are 8 wastes and they are inter related. One wase typically resutls in the other 7. Defects are the mother of all wastes.

One lean deployment that I worked on was a manufacturing process that had terrible cycle times, huge WIP, high cost, etc. The constraint was clearly teh Yield of the process. We went upstream to work on the casues of the poor yield. (This was a series of six sigma projects - the problems were fairly complex and variation based, not error based.) we didnt' too much traditional leaning since it wouldnt' have much effect at all given the yield problem. Once we had improved the Yields to a managable level, we imlemented Kanbans, single piece flow, cell layout, 5S and stop production. We then saw soem additionl incremental improvements in cycle time on top of the huge improvements in Quality and cycle time resulting from the Yield improvements. But the effect was minor as expected since the Yields were still the constraint. We did however, significantly reduce WIP and we were able to see the emerging problems thru SPC, stop production and our Kanbans with the reduced WIP. When somethign 'new' happened we saw it and were able to jump on it quickly and turn it around in a matter of weeks instead of quarters....

Hi there.

Can we establish some kind of connection with Balanced Score Card and the Hoshin map you presented? Are both the same concept in different languages?

Regards,

Hi there.

Can we establish some kind of connection with Balanced Score Card and the Hoshin map you presented? Are both the same concept in different languages?

Regards,

The Balanced Scorecard Card (BSC) approach is about measuring items important to the business.

Hoshin planning is about determining the direction and goals of the company. It also takes into consideration the communication and deployment of those goals up and down the ladder.

I don't see why you couldn't integrate BSC into the Hoshin process, but I would view it as the duplication of work.

Wayne

Mike,

I think your message says it all - from my own personal experience lean will never work in an organisation where you have to sell the idea to senior management. They are the ones that have to drive it and "create the environment" for it to succeed. If they haven't already cottoned on to the fact that they have to improve their business more rapidly than their competitors and engage the workforce to fix the broken processes and eliminate waste from the value streams you're going to struggle.

What we do is to follow the standard lean six sigma approach by first implementing the 6S (5S + Safety) and then employing Value Stream Mapping to identify wastes and eliminate/reduce them. Nothing fancy.

...have to improve their business more rapidly than their competitors

Said best by Masaki Imai. "Two gentlemen are on a safari, dressed fully from hat to boot, and start to wonder from their vehicle. Suddenly they notice a lion in the long grass peering at them yet they realize they are too far to make it back to the vehicle before the lion will catch them. Right before the lion springs into action one fellow runs for the vehicle while the other kneels down and takes his runners out of his back pack to change. The man running shouts "you're taking too long...you'll never make it back!" The man changing starts running toward the vehicle, faster now then the first man...as he passes him he says, "I dont have to make it back...I just have to be faster than you!"

2 morals: taking time to accurately plan will leave you in a more favorable position.

you dont have to make it to the goal line...as long as you are running faster than the competition.


If you have not...please take the time to see Masaki Imai (Kaizen Institute founder). Although the broken english can be difficult...he makes perfect sense.

No,it really works,if you use it in good way.

it will work only as a part of company strategy

"What's old is new again !!"... For a interesting read on your point, find any article on the Training Within Industry Service (TWI). This has been credited as ground zero of Lean/Kaizen. It was created in 1940 as a response to assist war time industries train workers to the maximum of their abilities, thereby enabling production.

"What's old is new again !!"... For a interesting read on your point, find any article on the Training Within Industry Service (TWI). This has been credited as ground zero of Lean/Kaizen. It was created in 1940 as a response to assist war time industries train workers to the maximum of their abilities, thereby enabling production.

I did a search on "Training Within Industry Service (TWI)" and found this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Training+Within+Industry+Service+%28TWI%29&btnG=Google+Search). Very interesting. History repeats itself...:)

Stijloor.

I was involved in TWI training in the late 60's. The company had on site training for most management and staff. It was once a week for about 10 weeks. The company ended up hiring the instructor as the plant manager to replace one who retired. His demeaner changed after becoming plant manager, especially with the QC department. ;-)

I came across these new websites yesterday...

www.trainingwithinindustry.blogspot.com
www.trainingwithinindustry.net

This isn't a new site, but it has be redesigned and includes new content...
www.twi-institute.org

There's definitely a growing buzz out there about TWI. Probably stirred up by Jeff Liker's new book "Toyota Talent" in which he chronicals TWI's role in the Toyota Production System, from which we get lean.

I was involved in TWI training in the late 60's. The company had on site training for most management and staff. It was once a week for about 10 weeks. The company ended up hiring the instructor as the plant manager to replace one who retired. His demeaner changed after becoming plant manager, especially with the QC department. ;-)


That is very interesting...

Hi Mike,

Please find out where the constraint of the organisation rests? Start at the constraint. You would see immediate benefits.

Regards,

Hi Mike,

Please find out where the constraint of the organisation rests? Start at the constraint. You would see immediate benefits.

Regards,

Removing constraints.....

- Theory of constraints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Constraints).

- AGI Goldratt Institute (http://www.goldratt.com/).

Stijloor.

:2cents:So I've spent the morning reading 4 years of posts on this subject. I've been involved in just about every quality program since the early 70's and find them all to be relatively the same. In 1974 the USAF decided to eliminate the clutter in personal lockers by ordering the removal of all government issued equipment (that's bench stock for those not familiar with military jargon).

Lockers were opened, material was removed and thrown away and life went on. The estimated long term costs at the base I was stationed at totaled near a million dollars in lost productivity waiting for material to be delivered, lost aircraft launch due to material waiting to be delivered and the estimation of thousands of dollars of material (not waiting to be delivered) discarded.

I recently watched with horror as management here implemented 6S and thousands of dollars worth of (hidden) stock was arbitrarily tossed in the trash. If you are implementing 6S or 5S please consult with the "owners" of that material and evaluate why they have it in the first place before you decimate the one thing that keeps it all working.

That guy on the line that could always come up with a spare missing widget or piece of hardware could be the reason why you were as successful as you had been. Much better to leave it in place and catagorize it properly than to discard it carelessly. Even if it takes more time.

Either way thanks for a very interesting morning to all that have contributed here.:applause:

... I recently watched with horror as management here implemented 6S and thousands of dollars worth of (hidden) stock was arbitrarily tossed in the trash. If you are implementing 6S or 5S please consult with the "owners" of that material and evaluate why they have it in the first place before you decimate the one thing that keeps it all working.

That guy on the line that could always come up with a spare missing widget or piece of hardware could be the reason why you were as successful as you had been. Much better to leave it in place and catagorize it properly than to discard it carelessly. Even if it takes more time.




Excellent point. Remember the ISO/TS requiremrnt that the impact of changes in systems must be considered (evaluated) before implementing [significant] changes in systems...duh!

These programs may use the same principles, but that's because the principles work. Just would be nice if people followed those principles.

Thanks for your post!

:2cents:So I've spent the morning reading 4 years of posts on this subject. I've been involved in just about every quality program since the early 70's and find them all to be relatively the same. In 1974 the USAF decided to eliminate the clutter in personal lockers by ordering the removal of all government issued equipment (that's bench stock for those not familiar with military jargon).

Lockers were opened, material was removed and thrown away and life went on. The estimated long term costs at the base I was stationed at totaled near a million dollars in lost productivity waiting for material to be delivered, lost aircraft launch due to material waiting to be delivered and the estimation of thousands of dollars of material (not waiting to be delivered) discarded.

I recently watched with horror as management here implemented 6S and thousands of dollars worth of (hidden) stock was arbitrarily tossed in the trash. If you are implementing 6S or 5S please consult with the "owners" of that material and evaluate why they have it in the first place before you decimate the one thing that keeps it all working.

That guy on the line that could always come up with a spare missing widget or piece of hardware could be the reason why you were as successful as you had been. Much better to leave it in place and catagorize it properly than to discard it carelessly. Even if it takes more time.

Either way thanks for a very interesting morning to all that have contributed here.:applause:
I agree with Helmut this is an excellent point to consider.

From a theoretical viewpoint (versus your extremely practical one) the concept is that many 5S and kaizen programs are undertaken in an arbitrary and capricious manner without consulting all the stakeholders about the plan of action and actually giving weight to the responses and including them in the evaluation.

A laughable example might be a willing worker in a Red Bead experiment keeping a stash of white beads in his pocket to replace any red beads that may pop up. Without knowing about the stash, management blithely continues to believe the "system" is working.

I recently watched with horror as management here implemented 6S and thousands of dollars worth of (hidden) stock was arbitrarily tossed in the trash. If you are implementing 6S or 5S please consult with the "owners" of that material and evaluate why they have it in the first place before you decimate the one thing that keeps it all working.

That person on the line that could always come up with a spare missing widget or piece of hardware could be the reason why you were as successful as you had been. Much better to leave it in place and catagorize it properly than to discard it carelessly. Even if it takes more time.

Either way thanks for a very interesting morning to all that have contributed here.:applause:

I think the problem here is in the application of 5S. There should always be a designated area where items can be logged into the area, and that can then be signed out within a specific timeframe by people who need them. It also allows for the ability to contact other divisions, potential buyers, etc.; and see if the items can't be used in some fashion, thereby precluding a purchase in the future. A common time for items to stay in the red tag area are 2-4 weeks, after that it may be time to throw them away. Of course, items that are clearly garbage are thrown away immediately.

One caveat, and I'm not disagreeing with you about the need to inquire with the people in the area, is that there is a tendency for people to claim they need it and that is why they have it in the first place. This is a perfect time to ask questions such as, "how often", "where is it used", "is it the proper tool", etc. I've seen people claim they needed to keep a broken screwdrive (the tip was broken) because they needed a pry bar. What they really needed was a small pry bar and using the screwdriver as such is what probably caused it to break in the first place.

If a tool is all covered with gobs of grease and dusty....chances are they don't use it except in extremely rare circumstances. The general attitude is often very possessive in that it is there junk and no one should touch it. Again, put it in the red tag area and see if there isn't a need for it somewhere.

Wayne

I have to agree with Wayne here, this is a problem in the "sort" phase of the 5S program.

In regard to the fella that has a widget always at the ready, I would prefer these kinds of issues came up into the open, if it makes for a stall in production then we're going to fix the process so that it can't happen again or make certain we can make a quick repair(parts in stock)...down the road it only means a better more consistent process, if we allow that devious widget replacer to continue we'll still have the same problems once he leaves or runs out of widgets, further the cost of said widgets can be built into the process if we know it's a necessary replacement part and should be kept in stock....so on and so forth.

I think the problem here is in the application of 5S. There should always be a designated area where items can be logged into the area, and that can then be signed out within a specific timeframe by people who need them. It also allows for the ability to contact other divisions, potential buyers, etc.; and see if the items can't be used in some fashion, thereby precluding a purchase in the future. A common time for items to stay in the red tag area are 2-4 weeks, after that it may be time to throw them away. Of course, items that are clearly garbage are thrown away immediately.

One caveat, and I'm not disagreeing with you about the need to inquire with the people in the area, is that there is a tendency for people to claim they need it and that is why they have it in the first place. This is a perfect time to ask questions such as, "how often", "where is it used", "is it the proper tool", etc. I've seen people claim they needed to keep a broken screwdrive (the tip was broken) because they needed a pry bar. What they really needed was a small pry bar and using the screwdriver as such is what probably caused it to break in the first place.

If a tool is all covered with gobs of grease and dusty....chances are they don't use it except in extremely rare circumstances. The general attitude is often very possessive in that it is there junk and no one should touch it. Again, put it in the red tag area and see if there isn't a need for it somewhere.

Wayne

When we had 5S implemented our "senior" production staff was "possessive" as you wrote Wayne. Try to pry something away from them, that they have gotten used too being there for 20 years, but actually only used it for the first 5 years. I also like to call it "hoarding", you know like a mouse that collects food and hoards it. It sure made for an interesting show, when our QM back then went back to this particular person a few days in a row to inquire about certain things in her area, and you could see her face just get that look like she was going to stomp his foot or worse. I believe it took him 4 days, before she gave up and was willing to "unhoard" her things.

Would the age be a factor too, when you decide to implement 5S? And shouldn't be the way you approach that certain age group be different?

On a side note, I had a babysitter in her mid 60's that collected every empty plastic bag, bread bag, piece of foil wrapping or plastic wrapping at my house when she babysat my kids. I told her a many of times not to do that, but it didn't do me any good. And when I tossed the box out one day, oh my...she didn't talk to me for a week. So I decided to just let her collect it , and then send the box home with her ever so often. I did sneak into the box a few times to use one of the saved bags, and she could tell, but never said anything. So I guess it worked out for the both of us.:D

LEAN can be started from 1S activities. Elimination of waste starts from sorting. Integration of LEAN with Six Sigma can yield you good results. However, those work in the firm should follow the GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) attitude.

They should be open minded to welcome LEAN as a science or process of manufacturing.

Variations lead to Waste. Minimize variation, eliminate waste. Integrate Six Sigma with LEAN. Good Luck and Good Efforts!

I was working with a small manufacturing company where the owners were the management. Needless to say they ran the business like dinosaurs and were not willing to look at defects as a loss since they were positive in their cash flow. Needless to say if your management is butting heads with you there really is no hope. Your war stories are true stories that actually happen quite often. There is a long laundry list of causes of these wars. Below are a few of the key factors to consider before obtaining training or becoming a Lean/Six-Sigma practitioner.

a. You should be a highly motivated process oriented resource with good communication and team building skills.

b. You should get involved because you want to help improve your company not because you are seeking credentials that promote your personal agenda. Job growth will come as a result but should not be the focus.

c. As a Manager you should have a minimum of 10 hours per week of disposable time to apply towards a process improvement project. Black Belts should be at least 20 hours per week (Full time is preferred).

d. Your company's leadership should be prepared to help select projects for you that have the highest business impact with the lowest risk of project failure. The leadership should also be available to help support the projects. This includes providing the necessary time for the team members to help drive the project as well as removing obstacles that may inhibit the team from being effective.

e. Another large component is the training / project mentoring aspect of the infrastructure. Do not search for the best training by focusing entirely on price. This is a complex methodology and requires a solid trainer to student transfer of knowledge. Many people settle for e-training because it is less expensive and more convenient. There are other low cost solutions that do not sacrifice training quality. In addition to the training make sure you have an available mentor that can help you manage all your newly acquired Lean/Six-Sigma knowledge. I use a new mentoring management software system with project tracker which provides continual training that is a priceless solution to driving any Lean/ Six Sigma project. An internal system puts the Management, Black belts, and Green belts in the same format making it managable with less complexity. I would be happy to share that with you if permissable with T.O.U. here.

There are other factors, however following the rules above you will be in good shape to get your company the improvements they are looking for. If you have other concerns or questions feel free to contact me via email. Hope this helps.

I was working with a small manufacturing company where the owners were the management. Needless to say they ran the business like dinosaurs and were not willing to look at defects as a loss since they were positive in their cash flow. Needless to say if your management is butting heads with you there really is no hope. Your war stories are true stories that actually happen quite often. There is a long laundry list of causes of these wars. Below are a few of the key factors to consider before obtaining training or becoming a Lean/Six-Sigma practitioner.

a. You should be a highly motivated process oriented resource with good communication and team building skills.

b. You should get involved because you want to help improve your company not because you are seeking credentials that promote your personal agenda. Job growth will come as a result but should not be the focus.

c. As a Manager you should have a minimum of 10 hours per week of disposable time to apply towards a process improvement project. Black Belts should be at least 20 hours per week (Full time is preferred).

d. Your company's leadership should be prepared to help select projects for you that have the highest business impact with the lowest risk of project failure. The leadership should also be available to help support the projects. This includes providing the necessary time for the team members to help drive the project as well as removing obstacles that may inhibit the team from being effective.

e. Another large component is the training / project mentoring aspect of the infrastructure. Do not search for the best training by focusing entirely on price. This is a complex methodology and requires a solid trainer to student transfer of knowledge. Many people settle for e-training because it is less expensive and more convenient. There are other low cost solutions that do not sacrifice training quality. In addition to the training make sure you have an available mentor that can help you manage all your newly acquired Lean/Six-Sigma knowledge. I use a new mentoring management software system with project tracker which provides continual training that is a priceless solution to driving any Lean/ Six Sigma project. An internal system puts the Management, Black belts, and Green belts in the same format making it managable with less complexity. I would be happy to share that with you if permissable with T.O.U. here.

There are other factors, however following the rules above you will be in good shape to get your company the improvements they are looking for. If you have other concerns or questions feel free to contact me via email. Hope this helps.Welcome to the Cove!:bigwave:

We would welcome an arrangement where you might share this software with our Cove members. I have one caveat for you to consider:
Is this software proprietary to your company or to someone else's company to the point you would be giving away either your own company trade secrets or another company's product which they offer for sale? The last thing we want is for a Cove member to endanger his job in an effort to be helpful to the rest of us..

If you have some question about whether what you have to offer falls into either category, please pm (private message) me with details and I will help you. (Left click my name at the top of this post to get a dialog box with the option of sending a private message.)

Although the concepts of lean are not difficult, it is by no means common sense. As an internal consultant for Eastman Kodak and now an independant consultant for Total Lean Soultions, I can tell you for a fact that the concepts of leveling production and single peice flow are not understood or "common" for 99.9% of US businesses. Common business practices are to produce in large lots of type A and then to switch to large batches of type b so change overs can be limited allowing for higher OEE (overall equipment effectiveness). What common sense tells us is that if we can keep the machines running at full speed for as long as we can I am being "efficient". What lean tells you is that if I am making more than the customer needs, I am spending money on materials, warehousing, shipping, workers, etc that I don't need to spend. I understand people's assumtion that lean is common sense however, I would guess that anybody with that view point has not had the fundamentals of lean explained to them, or the fundamentals were expalined by someone who didn't do it right. The botom line is that lean is a structured approach to continuous improvement that uses data to drive all of the improvements. As for the original post about where to start with lean, you really need to get someone in who knows lean and can explain it to your leadership. Although you can implement improvements to capture the "low hanging friut", if leadership does not understand their role in the improvement it will not be sustainable, meaning it will probably revert back to the "old way". the right place to start is to educate your manager and employees, get agreement that it is the right solution and then start building the foundation (building a stable process through 5S, eliminating the visible waste and creating flow where possible). As for if I think lean is valuable, absolutely. As a lean consultant and six sigma black belt, I would choose lean as the first tool to solve my problem everytime.

Although the concepts of lean are not difficult, it is by no means common sense. As an internal consultant for Eastman Kodak and now an independant consultant for Total Lean Soultions, I can tell you for a fact that the concepts of leveling production and single peice flow are not understood or "common" for 99.9% of US businesses. Welcome to the Cove!:bigwave:I appreciate your enthusiasm for being a Lean consultant, but I fear you overstate the case when you state "for a fact" concepts of leveling production and single peice flow are not understood or "common" for 99.9% of US businesses.

One of the mindsets we frequently face in the Quality Profession is the idea that one anecdote, richly larded with hyperbole, trumps "factual documentation." Most folks want to believe the Shaman can come in, wave a bundle of feathers and provide a magical elixir which will cure all ills.

In reality, situations are rarely black & white, but more often a muddy gray, especially blurred around the edges. My experience over forty years actually is the opposite of yours, to the extent I have found many, many producers who do sit down and go through a detailed risk analysis of how much product to manufacture and store, pending sale and delivery to a customer. They take into account such things as

possible obsolescence
shelf life
customer whims
macro economics of a region, country, world
cost of storage versus profit
ability to serve a wider range of customers with shorter product runs
plus many other factors.

Far from operating in a vacuum [waiting for the superhuman consultant to come along and bestow a miracle], owners and managers of producing companies are continually assailed by sales people, advertising, trade and association magazines and conferences, as well as the influx of new hires who (contrary to what some minority gripers may whine) all provide hints, clues, and even some hard data about the efficiency and resultant profit to be had from some of the simple "low hanging fruit" that Lean implementations grab and use. Often, these little gains DO provide the incentive to look for more on a systematic basis.

Even though I AM a consultant and one of the charter members of the Lean Division of ASQ, even I am not so arrogant to believe a determined manager (fired by an inkling of understanding gleaned from magazine articles and machine sales people touting the wonders of short run, quick changeover production machines) can NOT do almost as good a job as I in leading his company to a Lean operation, even though he may go up a few more blind alleys which I might avoid because of my experience.

I don't think we'll find a lot of folks (certainly not 90%) who will plead ignorance of the basic premises of Lean, even though they may not connect the arbitrary term "Lean" with "quick turnover" of inventory or with "meet, not exceed, customer demand."

Above all, we, as consultants, must continually be wary, lest we act like my five-year-old grandson who thinks that just because he has a hammer, everything in sight is a nail to be pounded.

Wes,

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. The example I used about level production and single peice flow is just an example however, I will reiterate my statment of "fact" because this is the experience I have seen while consulting. What I was trying to get across is that the lean process is counter intuative to the way traditional companies do business. For instance, almost all of the companies I have worked with were in the rut of only trying to improve their value added processes. In addition most only focus on the waste from defects and have not even opened their eyes to transportation, inventory, motion, waiting, over processing, overproduction muri or mura.
What I have seen as a consultatn is that most companies do not understand the concept of the tortoise and the hare, or stoping to go faster. They are very good at containing a quality or production problem when it pops up but they rarely follow through to understand the root cause and implement an actual contermeasure to the problem.
Perhaps I struck a nerve since it seems as if you may have been tossing out comparison of me to a 5 year old with a hammer. If this is the case I applogize. I was not trying to step on any toes however, I will refute the statement that things are rarely black and white because in my opinion they are. You are either applying the principles or you are not. You either understand the big picture or you don't. You either apply the tools or you find a reason to say they won't work for your particular problem. I say this with 100% confidence because this is the way it was taught to me by Mr. Hara and Mr. Ohba, both of whom are direct descendants from Taiichi Ohno and Toyota. There is absolutely no cookie cutter technique that will work for every problem, but the principels, tools and their applications are black and white.
As for your comment about a manager being able to apply lean effectivley without a consultant I agree. However, I think that unless that manager has had extensive hands on training from someone who has taught them the black and white, rather than the shades of gray approach, they will most likely get stuck in a rut and be left asking why did we fail or where should I start. Lean is not someting that you can apply because you have read a book or taken a 2 day class. the only way to truley understand lean is to get your hands dirty and do it. The more hands on doing, the more you learn. The more you learn you soon understand how much you do not know. The people who can make that connection are the people that understand lean.
I truley beleive in the application of lean. Not because it is my job, but because I have seen first hand how it can takes companies from average to world class. I have seen how it can turn employees that hate coming to work into champions that are there to support and build the business. I spend countless hours teaching the concpets and applications to local small businesses at no cost because I unerstand how important that competative advatage can be to a company that does not have the capital to compete with the growing global economy. So as a 5 year old with a hammer, I will leave it at that, hopefully I have not knocked in any nails that belong to the other 5 year olds in the class. I would hate for them to be upset.

Wes,

Perhaps you misunderstand my point. The example I used about level production and single peice flow is just an example however, I will reiterate my statment of "fact" because this is the experience I have seen while consulting. What I was trying to get across is that the lean process is counter intuative to the way traditional companies do business. For instance, almost all of the companies I have worked with were in the rut of only trying to improve their value added processes. In addition most only focus on the waste from defects and have not even opened their eyes to transportation, inventory, motion, waiting, over processing, overproduction muri or mura.
What I have seen as a consultatn is that most companies do not understand the concept of the tortoise and the hare, or stoping to go faster. They are very good at containing a quality or production problem when it pops up but they rarely follow through to understand the root cause and implement an actual contermeasure to the problem.
Perhaps I struck a nerve since it seems as if you may have been tossing out comparison of me to a 5 year old with a hammer. If this is the case I applogize. I was not trying to step on any toes however, I will refute the statement that things are rarely black and white because in my opinion they are. You are either applying the principles or you are not. You either understand the big picture or you don't. You either apply the tools or you find a reason to say they won't work for your particular problem. I say this with 100% confidence because this is the way it was taught to me by Mr. Hara and Mr. Ohba, both of whom are direct descendants from Taiichi Ohno and Toyota. There is absolutely no cookie cutter technique that will work for every problem, but the principels, tools and their applications are black and white.
As for your comment about a manager being able to apply lean effectivley without a consultant I agree. However, I think that unless that manager has had extensive hands on training from someone who has taught them the black and white, rather than the shades of gray approach, they will most likely get stuck in a rut and be left asking why did we fail or where should I start. Lean is not someting that you can apply because you have read a book or taken a 2 day class. the only way to truley understand lean is to get your hands dirty and do it. The more hands on doing, the more you learn. The more you learn you soon understand how much you do not know. The people who can make that connection are the people that understand lean.
I truley beleive in the application of lean. Not because it is my job, but because I have seen first hand how it can takes companies from average to world class. I have seen how it can turn employees that hate coming to work into champions that are there to support and build the business. I spend countless hours teaching the concpets and applications to local small businesses at no cost because I unerstand how important that competative advatage can be to a company that does not have the capital to compete with the growing global economy. So as a 5 year old with a hammer, I will leave it at that, hopefully I have not knocked in any nails that belong to the other 5 year olds in the class. I would hate for them to be upset.When you make a statement like this:
I will reiterate my statment of "fact" because this is the experience I have seen while consulting.
please consider the FACT the companies you see in a consulting business like yours ARE dysfunctional and realize it or they would never have called in a consultant in the first place.

I, on the other hand, have seen both functional and dysfunctional businesses because I am not only considering enumerating ONLY the troubled ones which seek consultant help, but the functional ones which are customers and suppliers and prospective customers and suppliers of those dysfunctional companies. My position remains: You are in error about the number or percentage of dysfunctional companies.

On a side note: do you tell the 10% functional ones they don't need your consulting service even if they ask for it?

When you make a statement like this:
I will reiterate my statment of "fact" because this is the experience I have seen while consulting.
please consider the FACT the companies you see in a consulting business like yours ARE dysfunctional and realize it or they would never have called in a consultant in the first place.

Although I see the earlier 99.9% figure as hyperbole, I think WesCharley is closer to being right than he's being given credit for. While it may be true that our personal empirical knowledge may color or bias our perception of the Big Picture, we can still use it as a working hypothesis and feel reasonably safe in assuming that the majority of companies are not familiar with, and do not practice the core concepts of Lean comprehensively. When I lived in Chicago I had some friends who were police officers, and they all told me that when dealing with the public--during a traffic stop or questioning a suspect in a criminal situation--they always assumed they were being lied to. This doesn't mean that they believed that 99.9% of the people were actually lying, but enough of the people were lying that it would be foolhardy--and dangerous--to assume otherwise.

I, on the other hand, have seen both functional and dysfunctional businesses because I am not only considering enumerating ONLY the troubled ones which seek consultant help, but the functional ones which are customers and suppliers and prospective customers and suppliers of those dysfunctional companies. My position remains: You are in error about the number or percentage of dysfunctional companies.
He was referring to companies that don't understand certain Lean concepts, and not dysfunctional companies in general, I think. He said,
As an internal consultant for Eastman Kodak and now an independant consultant for Total Lean Soultions, I can tell you for a fact that the concepts of leveling production and single peice flow are not understood or "common" for 99.9% of US businesses.
Again, if we accept 99.9% as hyperbole meaning "the vast majority," I have to agree.

Nonetheless, as to WesCharley's actual point--that Lean isn't just common sense or intuitive--most of it certainly should be. There's really nothing magic in it, and aside from giving old concepts new names and making an attempt to logically structure them, there's really nothing new about it. Unlike Six Sigma, however, the structuring and discipline involved in implementing Lean can be very useful and enlightening, and getting managers to understand and accept the package is the real challenge. The widespread dysfunction in American manufacturing--and business in general--isn't necessarily failure to understand the concepts, it's failure to invoke leadership in implementing them.

On a side note: do you tell the 10% functional ones they don't need your consulting service even if they ask for it?
It's .1%, not 10%, and there's nothing in evidence to suggest that any of those companies asked for help. As you yourself suggested, companies that aren't dysfunctional "...would never have called in a consultant in the first place."

Here's an article on the "State of Lean 2007". I've attached the PDF, but you can also access it at the Lean.org (http://www.lean.org/Community/Registered/ArticleDocuments/Lean%20Yearbook%202007.pdf) website.

Wayne

It's .1%, not 10%, and there's nothing in evidence to suggest that any of those companies asked for help. As you yourself suggested, companies that aren't dysfunctional "...would never have called in a consultant in the first place."Those typos (like missed decimal points) will do us in every time. Thanks for pointing it out, but I'll leave it without editing so your comment won't be an orphan!

I still wonder, though, how his firm handles that small percentage they perceive as being "Lean knowledgeable," since he has limited the discussion to those he sees in his practice.

We can agree to disagree. This is not however about functional or disfunctional. There are many companies that function fine without the benefit of lean, they are just not seeing their full potential.

I just have to say that your assumption that I only work with companies that are disfunctional is comical. Bsaed on my opening statement and you being a lean expert you are obviously aware of the 4 Ps.

Philosophy for the long term
Processes that porduce the right result every time
People that are empowered and engaged
and Partners that strive to do the same

I actually spend a good portion of my time working with my clients suppliers and I would say that the percentage remains the same. As a matter of fact I have worked with direct suppliers to Toyota that run the Toyota portion of their business very well, because it is a requirment from Toyota that they do so, yet their division that supplied my client was very much a mass production batch processing monster with sub par quality. Did they have the uderstanding of lean, absolutely. Then why did they not apply it across all functions of their business? It's because of the shades of gray mentatlity of application or the belief that if you apply some of the lean tools then you are doing lean which is absolutely false.
To your side note, I actaully turn down much more that 30% of prospective clients. Not because they don't need help, very few fall into this catagory, but because they are looking at lean for the wrong reasons like head count reductions or because they do not have consensus amongst their leadership team that lean is the right process for them to use. We all know there are consultatns who only do the job for the money as well as we all know there are consultants that do not have hands on experience in what they teach. To assume that someone who has a different view point than your own falls into that category is presumptuous and egotistical. Many people try to sell themselves as experts either by title or by expereince and maybe they are, I however have learned that there are many great lean experts who know more than I or the self proclaimed experts do, yet they do not have title and they don't talk about their experience but rather their knowledge and how they have attained it. These are also the same people that would say they are not experts because they are always learning and the more they learn they realize that there is much more to understand. Please be carefull of your asumptions about what type of consultatn I may be. I came to this forum as well as several others because I enjoy the discussion on philosophy and application of lean and to hopefully learn from others, not to try and pronounce my self the resident expert of lean or the saviour of all companies in need of help. I would hope that others are here to do the same and their replies to my ramblings would be, "I understand what you are saying, but I do not see it that way." rather than "you are wrong.". When you see the latter you really have to question they motive.

I'll wade in on this one as well.

While as Jim says Lean should be common sense, in my experience, it's not.
(DOE and SPC should be common sense by now too, but they aren't. I see far too many people who insist that one factor at a time experiments with all of the other factors held constant is the only way to go; I also see far more managers than not who 'think' that any data point that is higher - or lower - than the immediately proceeding one represents a "change"...:()

While the lean 'tools' are simple they are not easy and Lean's many paradoxes can make it confusing to those who have been brought up with the traditional methods of large batch sizes, lots of inventory and use of rework to get around quality problems.

Lean takes time and practice to learn; let alone implement.

Deming made a very applicable point when he discussed the theory of profound knowledge and how experience is no substitute for theory.
experience drives us to do the same thing over and over again even when it doesn't work. Theory enables us to question why something doesn't work; we learn and modify our theory. It is the same with Lean. Individuals steeped in traditional manufacturing need someone to help them learn.

Deming made a very applicable point when he discussed the theory of profound knowledge and how experience is no substitute for theory. experience drives us to do the same thing over and over again even when it doesn't work. Theory enables us to question why something doesn't work; we learn and modify our theory. It is the same with Lean. Individuals steeped in traditional manufacturing need someone to help them learn.

Bev,

Excellent points!

Here is a nice excerpt: "The Deming System of Profound Knowledge (http://deming.org/index.cfm?content=66)."

For further study, see: "Out of the Crisis" and "The New Economics...."

Stijloor.

experience drives us to do the same thing over and over again even when it doesn't work. Theory enables us to question why something doesn't work; we learn and modify our theory.
No, not experience; complaisance and mindless acquiesence are the problems. "Willing workers," as Deming put described them, will almost always follow the path of least resistance. It's the job of management to provide a path that works, and experience is the cure, not the ailment.

It is the same with Lean. Individuals steeped in traditional manufacturing need someone to help them learn.
There's no denying that training in "the new philosophy" is good and necessary. :agree:

No, not experience; complaisance and mindless acquiesence are the problems. "Willing workers," as Deming put described them, will almost always follow the path of least resistance. It's the job of management to provide a path that works, and experience is the cure, not the ailment.


There's no denying that training in "the new philosophy" is good and necessary. :agree:

Local management, in the (global) corporate hierarchy, often falls in the "willing workers" category. They too are following the path of least resistance, motivated by multiple factors, one of which is fear.

Stijloor.

Local management, in the (global) corporate hierarchy, often falls in the "willing workers" category. They too are following the path of least resistance, motivated by multiple factors, one of which is fear.

Stijloor.

A "willing worker" is anyone who isn't allowed to change something that needs to be changed.

A "willing worker" is anyone who isn't allowed to change something that needs to be changed.

Which fits exactly the description in my previous post.

I thought I answered the question about how I handle potential clients that are not in need of my help. I would not sell my services to a client who did not need them. It goes back to that little thing called business ethics which would be an entirely different discussion. I just haven't run into that issue as of yet.

Has anyone read the article Learning To Lead At Toyota by Steven Spear?
It is a very interesting read. Toyota has been building and improving it's productions system since the late 1800's yet it still spends weeks, months and sometime years training it's new managers in their production system on the shop floor. How good of a job do you guys feel US companies that practice lean do at getting their managers that type of hands on training? Has anyone here had that extent of training or at least an effort to get them on the floor learning lean before they assumed their new role?

<snip> Has anyone read the article Learning To Lead At Toyota by Steven Spear?
It is a very interesting read. Toyota has been building and improving its productions system since the late 1800's yet it still spends weeks, months and sometime years training its new managers in their production system on the shop floor. How good of a job do you guys feel US companies that practice lean do at getting their managers that type of hands on training? Has anyone here had that extent of training or at least an effort to get them on the floor learning lean before they assumed their new role?

Learning to Lead at Toyota (http://progressivedge.com/files/Learning_to_Lead_at_Toyota.pdf).

Stijloor.

I performed a Lean Activity when it came to part transportation waste recently at my new company. I reduced the distance a part traveled by over 23%. When it comes to 400 units a year, that 23% per unit can add up and save a lot of time which equals $$$. It was a spaghetti diagram or factory layout where we tracked the multiple stations parts would go for no reason. The part would sit, cycle time would increase, etc. By rearranging the work floor layout a continuous product flow was kept and these "muda" or wastes were reduced.

Hope this gives you an example of how lean principles can be put to good work.

Thread with Poll started 17th January 2003, 12:21 PM by mike101338.

Poll Closed on 11 May 2008 by Marc.

Lean isn't hype, it is one of several ways to describe an ideal or to follow a set of objectives where you stay organized and efficient.:nopity: Do the right things, at the right times, the right way.