Since there is an emphasis on Lean tools, techniques and philosophies in this century. Does the group believe that Lean shall be transformed by the needs of western business practices or, shall Lean transform the western concepts of business practices?
Deming, Crosby, Juran, Hendry Ford, Toyoda and many others have certainly contributed to the modern structure of Lean. Does the group believe that Lean is an ideal vehicle for moving forward in this century, the theories and practices of the Quality Gurus mentioned?
Wallace.

This is a challenging question!

IMHO, as Wallace suggests, many elements of Lean originated in western
business practice. Read "Today and Tomorrow" by Henry Ford (recently re-
published - I believe that ASQ carries it).

Along the way, our Asian colleagues picked up Lean and dramatically enhanced
it (Toyoda, Shingo, et al.) Meanwhile much of the US got carried away with
mass marketing and financial engineering and lost our focus.

Competitive pressure has a way of restoring focus, though! Now in the '90's
and 2000's North America is readopting Lean.

Much of what we call "Lean" seems to be somewhat of a hodgepodge of
techniques, some very specific to long term repetitive manufacturing,
(e.g. Toyota Production System techniques); others
just basic philosophy (avoid waste and strive for continual improvement).

I would expect that ten years from now, we will have further built on Lean,
added some more concepts, and have a new name for the resulting
management philosophy. What new content? I'm sure that the
strategy of finding the most effective global source for the work will
be a big part of it; figuring out ways to collaborate on design (even faster
and better than today's) will also figure in somehow.

What do others think?

Brad

I would expect that ten years from now, we will have further built on Lean, added some more concepts, and have a new name for the resulting management philosophy.
Well said, and probably not too far off the mark. I think this is already happening, but wether it will lead to success or not, I dare not guess. Time will tell.

/Claes

Is there an ideal alternative name for lean?
Wallace.

Does the group believe that Lean is an ideal vehicle for moving forward in this century

I am loath to assign any ONE technique or tool to being "an IDEAL" for the future. I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all solution for every business. Certainly Lean thinking is good; just as SPC, Document Control Systems, and FMEAs are good. All of these methodologies we generally put under the "quality" umbrella are useful for helping our businesses become more productive, efficient, and effective. But we have to choose the right tools, uses and combinations. I like what Tim Folkerts said recently in the "Quotations" thread

This is actually about science, but the idea applies if you change "science" to "quality" or "Six Sigma", or SPC".

Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks, but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house.
- Henri Poincare'

There can be a tendency to do lots of calculations and create lots of charts, but until you can put it together to see the "house" rather than the individual "bricks", you aren't getting as much as you should from the information.

As far as an alternate name for LEAN goes, my particular slant on it, is that I am inclined to lean towards "The leanest, best in class, total quality, highest sigma possible, statistically controlled, optimized business and manufacturing and service system ever". But that might be a bit over the top.

This is a challenging question!

Along the way, our Asian colleagues picked up Lean and dramatically enhanced
it (Toyoda, Shingo, et al.) Meanwhile much of the US got carried away with
mass marketing and financial engineering and lost our focus.

Competitive pressure has a way of restoring focus, though! Now in the '90's
and 2000's North America is readopting Lean.

Much of what we call "Lean" seems to be somewhat of a hodgepodge of
techniques, some very specific to long term repetitive manufacturing,
(e.g. Toyota Production System techniques); others
just basic philosophy (avoid waste and strive for continual improvement).

What do others think?

Brad


I'll tell ya Brad. . .

IMHO, we are in a catch up mopde. . .and parsing out pieces of a bigger whole and making it the focus. . . losing the BIG PICTURE

IMHO, one difference in the Asian approach, and the Western MBA approach is;

In Asia, as processes were leaned out and made effective and efficient, the workers who were displaced were actually re-assigned to other areas that were next for improvement. They formed the focus of an experienced team to implement the changes.

As the organization became more profitable, it also expanded it's product focus. . .and had a ready trained force of people to implement newer processes.

In our wonderful Western MBA Numbers World. . . workers are displaced to the unemployment line as production processes are "Leaned Out". . .and that experience is lost. . . or if the operators are lucky enough to find employment, re-distributed.

IMHO, we are in a catch up mopde. . .and parsing out pieces of a bigger whole and making it the focus. . . losing the BIG PICTURE
Spot on Taz... I think that is exactly where we lose track of things almost every time we try to implement some "new" (very little of it is ever new) gospel. We try to skim the best looking parts from it without ever realizing that a circuit needs all its wires and breakers and things to work. A good example of this is when we tried to launch just in time, and failed to see that it takes a stable and continually improved process to be able to do that in a good way.

What I would like to see is what I call a Giraffes View Management: Feet still firmly on Terra Firma, and yet with a good overview, as opposed to the birds eye view with both head and feet in the clouds.

/Claes

Claes,

What a great analogy - giraffe's view!!

Having been weaned on TPS in the late 80's I've watched the pieces come and go. . .and never address the whole. I think it relates back to our short attention span here, and the "Let me make a buck on the part I understand" mentality.

What I would like to see is what I call a Giraffes View Management: Feet still firmly on Terra Firma, and yet with a good overview, as opposed to the birds eye view with both head and feet in the clouds.

/Claes

Great analogy, Claes!

Even worse than the "bird's eye view" is the "bird-brain's view" too often adopted. I can't pick an "ideal vehicle" for quality improvement in the future, but I don't think it's that important. IMO we have a number of quite good and capable "vehicles" but some are still insisting on using a horse and buggy or crawling along -- in other words, IMO it is not the shortage of knowledge we suffer from as much as it is the shortage of implementation.

IMO we have a number of quite good and capable "vehicles" but some are still insisting on using a horse and buggy or crawling along -- in other words, IMO it is not the shortage of knowledge we suffer from as much as it is the shortage of implementation.
That's not a bad analogy either... :agree1: ...and it brings us right back to management again...

/Claes

...and it brings us right back to management again...

/Claes

Exactly!

Most experts agree that the NY Yankees baseball team has the best collection (or certainly one of the best collections) of talented players (workers) in the game today, and they are expected to be one of the winningest, if not the winningest, team this year. But if they were managed as poorly as many companies are today I have no doubt that they would be near the bottom in wins.

I would love to see the day when the vast majority of companies had properly and passionately implemented whatever "vehicle" they chose as a management system and our biggest challenge was to simply decide if there was truly a "best" vehicle. IMO very few elite companies are ready for this kind of debate. But it would do wonders for the national economy of whatever country achieved it.

Exactly!

Most experts agree that the NY Yankees baseball team has the best collection (or certainly one of the best collections) of talented players (workers) in the game today, and they are expected to be one of the winningest, if not the winningest, team this year. But if they were managed as poorly as many companies are today I have no doubt that they would be near the bottom in wins.

I would love to see the day when the vast majority of companies had properly and passionately implemented whatever "vehicle" they chose as a management system and our biggest challenge was to simply decide if there was truly a "best" vehicle. IMO very few elite companies are ready for this kind of debate. But it would do wonders for the national economy of whatever country achieved it.

I like your analogy. . . I wonder what the effect would be if Joe Torre decided to change the method of play at 2nd base, and didn't look at, or modify the Short Stop or 3rd Baseman's MO??

Sound familiar??

Much of what we call "Lean" seems to be somewhat of a hodgepodge of techniques, some very specific to long term repetitive manufacturing,(e.g. Toyota Production System techniques); others
just basic philosophy (avoid waste and strive for continual improvement).
Brad

While doing research on Six Sigma, I started seeing more of a tie to lean manufacturing techniques. The goals of lean manufacturing were stated as:
· Reduce cycle time
· Improve quality
· Reduce Inventory
· Reduce errors in general
· Reduce costs
· Eliminate wastes- Non value added activities

The concept was that Six Sigma would not be applied if waiting time is to be reduced since lean tools are more appropriate to reduce waiting time. Six sigma tools are more appropriate if variation is to be addressed. Lean manufacturing included tools such as value stream mapping, visual management of the work place (5S) and Kaizen.

Bill Pflanz

While doing research on Six Sigma, I started seeing more of a tie to lean manufacturing techniques. The goals of lean manufacturing were stated as:
· Reduce cycle time
· Improve quality
· Reduce Inventory
· Reduce errors in general
· Reduce costs
· Eliminate wastes- Non value added activities

The concept was that Six Sigma would not be applied if waiting time is to be reduced since lean tools are more appropriate to reduce waiting time. Six sigma tools are more appropriate if variation is to be addressed. Lean manufacturing included tools such as value stream mapping, visual management of the work place (5S) and Kaizen.

Bill Pflanz

Lean without the process optimization = JIT. . . Junk In Time


Really need both to be totally effective. This is another re-packaging of earlier efforts. . .

Since there is an emphasis on Lean tools, techniques and philosophies in this century. Does the group believe that Lean shall be transformed by the needs of western business practices or, shall Lean transform the western concepts of business practices?
Deming, Crosby, Juran, Hendry Ford, Toyoda and many others have certainly contributed to the modern structure of Lean. Does the group believe that Lean is an ideal vehicle for moving forward in this century, the theories and practices of the Quality Gurus mentioned?
Wallace.

Lean is but one of the tools in the inventory available to a quality manager. It is a very good tool, but used alone as the only tool, it would be like attempting to remove a bolt with a screwdriver. The aspect of the Toyota Production System that is so often overlooked by western culture is the fact that personnel at ALL levels are trained on ALL of the quality tools and how and when to use them. There is NO majic bullet, there is only an understanding of the tools available and when and how to use them.

Quality programs/initiatives based on Lean, Six Sigma, JIT, whatever the Fad of the Day; can be successful for a time, but any of these used/relied upon by themselves will be limited in success just as a screwdriver is a useful tool but l wouldn't attempt to rebuild my car with it alone.

Right on the money Dave. . .

So tell me, why can't the QM's get the support for the long haul? Does it come down tto that oxymoron Management committment again?

My point regarding Lean is; does or can Lean tools and techniques benefit Business practices?
Your right Dave, Lean is only part of the equation yet, the tools and techniques of Lean are IMO FWIW, system oriented. The system orientation of Lean encourages and infuses systems thinking into a system that is ready for it.
I use as an example the FPS (Ford Production System) measurables of SQDCME (Safety, Quality, Delivery, Cost, Morale, Environment). I know, I know, I must sound like an old record by now when, I speak of this yet, the Toyota production System is a Lean system and, Lean has its origins at the Ford Rouge river plant. FPS and TPS have Lean tools, techniques, business processes and other tools available that compliment Lean. Lean is basically the corner stone of success for Toyota and more so these days Ford. One size certainly doesn't fit all yet, I firmly believe that Lean may the benchmark for this century regarding system efficacy.
Wallace.

The aspect of the Toyota Production System that is so often overlooked by western culture is the fact that personnel at ALL levels are trained on ALL of the quality tools and how and when to use them. There is NO majic bullet, there is only an understanding of the tools available and when and how to use them.
Right... Not to mention a lot of hard work, and above all: Persistence. We often give up at the first hint of resistance. Instead of PDCA we PDQ (plan, do, quit).

/Claes

Going back to a thread in the comments in particular from Claes and the Taz,
it seems to me that a big piece of the problem is the tendency as noted to

... skim the best looking parts from it without ever realizing that a circuit needs all its wires and breakers and things to work.

I have a colleague who does this, and uses the Pareto principle to justify it.
(Why not just take the 20% of the system that gives 80% of the results.)
When I suggest that the Pareto principle does not apply to a complex system
he thinks I'm being too technical.

As has been pointed out, the folk at Toyota appear to be extremely patient
and persistent in staying on top of all of the elements of the system, including management innovation, quality tools, training, retention of employees,
effective industrial engineering, and more. Unfortunately many of our
companies do not yet grasp this profound knowledge.

Brad

I have a colleague who does this, and uses the Pareto principle to justify it.
(Why not just take the 20% of the system that gives 80% of the results.)
When I suggest that the Pareto principle does not apply to a complex system he thinks I'm being too technical. Ow!:nope: No, no, no... Actually, when it comes to systems thinking I feel that it is the last 20% that really counts (gives 80% of the results). You need the last 20 to tie all the loose bits and pieces together. That's what makes it a system. Skimming for the juicy looking parts is likley to lead to sub optimization.

Anyway:Take 80% out of any system and the system is no more... :rolleyes:

/Claes

I like this topic, finally one that I do not need to just browse.

Many of the posts so far seem to make a distinction between Lean from the Toyota Production System (TPS), and what we do in the West in the name of Lean. Well, we have tried to implement Lean in the UK for some years now in our manufacturing industry, in an atempt to reduce the decline in manufacturing. Alas, our productivity remains low, and manufacturing continues to decline.

I see the problems to do with implementing Lean are these:

1. We see Lean as a collection of tools, train people on these tools, and implement using project management principles.

2. As has been mentioned just before, the West interprets what we want to understand. Real Lean is one thing - a new way of approaching the management of an organisation. We have just missed the point in our arrogance in thinking we already are good at what we do.

3. We interpret Lean from the outcomes that the TPS found they achieved. Things like waste reduction, supplier reduction, flow, teamwork, use of IT. These all are outcomes and are a result of the principles and application of Lean thinking. We in the west do Lean by cutting waste, reducing supplier base - the wrong way around, and we missed the important bit.

What I understand Lean to be is firstly an alternative way of thinking that views the organisation as a system. This means that focus is placed on the organisation rather than the people who make up the organisation. If this is done from a management view then a managers role becomes to act on the system, not manage people or money. People are truly given the ability to act on the system by modifying and changing what they work with if it contributes to Lean principles. Managers do not manage by issuing targets, by budgets, or by costs, they simply fix parts of the system that the workers cannot fix.

In a Lean organisation a manager does not work like a manager in a traditional organisation. The environment, working culture, management style, and focus is totally diferent. Some would say opposite. If this is true then to adopt Lean thinking is truly a fundamental change to the way our organisations work. That, I believe, is why we find it so difficult to implement, and so difficult to sell in the West, as we instantly revert to our 'fad' mentality of selling a new product.

Any comentss on these views would be most welcome,

Ilias

Just another spin on the topic.
All to often I hear someone state "Toyota does it that way, what do we need to get there?" It is the wrong approach, JIT comes to mind as a quick example.
JIT was brought about due to limited stock space in their factories, they were driven by necessity, developed a philosopy, assisted their suppliers in adopting the philosopy and worked with the suppliers to fix the bugs. It was not driven down from the top.
I believe our spin on "lean" is 1st - chop heads, 2nd - figure out how to keep pace, 3rd - pay overtime to keep up, 4th - get hit with fines for shutting down assembly plants.
I look at proficiency or how to get more out of what we currently have. Then look at leaning out the mudda.

Well stated Ilias and Randy. . . :applause:

I think that Ilias hit one of the coffin nail on the head. . . arrogance. IMHO, until a top manager realizes that they don't know everything, and that there are new tools and ways of thinking out there, decide to learn what it is really about, and DECIDE to make a change, we will be shoveling the Muda forever. Floundering in mediocrity.

Well stated Ilias and Randy. . . :applause: I agree. Those two posts were great additions to a thread that is getting better all the time.

Ok, soap box time:

Why on earth should we build a copy of Toyotas system (even though it is great), when they work under conditions different from ours? None of us will be the leader as long as we try to follow somebody else's footsteps. Sure, let's learn from the good ideas, but we must build something that is adapted to our conditions and needs.
In order to be Sensei we need create something of our own... :soap:

/Claes

I agree. Those two posts were great additions to a thread that is getting better all the time.

Ok, soap box time:

Why on earth should we build a copy of the West's system (even though it is great), when they work under conditions different from ours? None of us will be the leader as long as we try to follow somebody else's footsteps. Sure, let's learn from the good ideas, but we must build something that is adapted to our conditions and needs.
In order to be Sensei we need create something of our own... :soap:

/Claes

Claes,

I bet those were the exact words the Japanese said when Deming went over there. . . :lmao:

Systems thinking is creeping in again and, I wonder why? Is it becoming clearer thus far that, Systems thinking is essential for the paradim shift that is neccessary for optimization of what is termed LEAN?
Call your system what you want, the naming doesn't matter to most who use systems thinking tools and techniques. Whether you call it TPS, FPS, LEAN or just continuous improvement management thingy, make it work by commiting to the ideals and needs of your organizations and most importantly, what youe customers needs and wants.
Wallace.

Systems thinking is creeping in again and, I wonder why? Is it becoming clearer thus far that, Systems thinking is essential for the paradim shift that is neccessary for optimization of what is termed LEAN?
Call your system what you want, the naming doesn't matter to most who use systems thinking tools and techniques. Whether you call it TPS, FPS, LEAN or just continuous improvement management thingy, make it work by commiting to the ideals and needs of your organizations and most importantly, what youe customers needs and wants.
Wallace.

Agreed. . .

But let's not forget the workers who are displaced by LEAN thinkers. . . as long as LEAN is looked on, and proven, to cost people their livelihoods. . . there's no paragigm shift in the world that will allow success in this environment or economy.

People want to work. . .unfortunately the lack of new startups is only increasing the unemployment lines. . . :mad:

Agreed. . .

But let's not forget the workers who are displaced by LEAN thinkers. . . as long as LEAN is looked on, and proven, to cost people their livelihoods. . . there's no paragigm shift in the world that will allow success in this environment or economy.

People want to work. . .unfortunately the lack of new startups is only increasing the unemployment lines. . . :mad:I guess we're in the right Forum (Philosophy & Gurus)!

When assembly lines (e.g. sewing machines, small arms, and Ford automobiles) came into flower, there was a strong outcry about the "dehumanization" of workers. This was largely a factual observation.

The other side of the coin is there was an explosive growth in all kinds of businesses and jobs as organizations became more and more efficient at producing more goods per manhour worked.

It seems to me that as we enter each new generation of business cycles, we encounter the same obstacles EVERY organization faces as it tries to deploy "Change" throughout the organization:
When we seek to disrupt the "status quo" through change, almost invariably, we face resistance from individuals and political blocs. This resistance is engendered by FEAR, anxiety, vulnerability, and anger.

It is always wrong to ignore this resistance and always better to acknowledge these emotions and work to show how the change will result in something better than the status quo. If the agents of change are unable to demonstrate "something better," it simply means they (the agents of change) don't have their ducks in a row or that, in fact, the change will NOT result in something better. A simple flim flam won't pass muster when dealing with unions and educated work forces.

Sadly, in almost every change, someone or some group is sacrificed for "the better good." The mark of a GREAT change agent is the one who can ameliorate the damage to that sacrificial entity.

I guess we're in the right Forum (Philosophy & Gurus)!

When assembly lines (e.g. sewing machines, small arms, and Ford automobiles) came into flower, there was a strong outcry about the "dehumanization" of workers. This was largely a factual observation.


Sadly, in almost every change, someone or some group is sacrificed for "the better good." The mark of a GREAT change agent is the one who can ameliorate the damage to that sacrificial entity.

Wes,

I hear ya. . .look at my tag line. . . I am a proponent of change . . for the better. . . I agree that the ducks DO have to be in a row. . .
I also feel, that if this country were short of workers, we, as a country, might just utilize that resource in a better way.

I think you have touched on what many believe is "lean thinking" in the US - Cut Heads! That's just not true.
There's a picture I saw once that had a boat on the water and under it were some big rocks. The boat was labeled "Your Processes", the rocks were labeled "Bottle Necks", "Supplier Issues", "Poor Quality", etc. and the water was labeled "Resources". What it was showing was that in order to get over the rocks, we tend to pump in the resources. What we should be doing is trying to make the rocks as small as possible so we can assign our resources to other, more profitable, areas. It's not getting rid of people, it's getting rid of the "non-value added" steps/processes.
System Thinking, Value Stream Mapping, 5S, etc. are all tools to getting lean.

I think you have touched on what many believe is "lean thinking" in the US - Cut Heads! That's just not true.

No. . . I was saying that IMHO, "Lean implementation practices" in the US chop heads.



There's a picture I saw once that had a boat on the water and under it were some big rocks. The boat was labeled "Your Processes", the rocks were labeled "Bottle Necks", "Supplier Issues", "Poor Quality", etc. and the water was labeled "Resources". .

In the JIT days, the water was hiding the rocks and was labeled INVENTORY

What it was showing was that in order to get over the rocks, we tend to pump in the resources. What we should be doing is trying to make the rocks as small as possible so we can assign our resources to other, more profitable, areas. It's not getting rid of people, it's getting rid of the "non-value added" steps/processes.
System Thinking, Value Stream Mapping, 5S, etc. are all tools to getting lean.

I agree with this 100%. . . well. . .99.73%. IMHO, you do improve productivity. . . but you do not change overhead unless you decrease it. As processes become more efficient, what becomes excess?. . . labor

I agree with this 100%. . . well. . .99.73%. IMHO, you do improve productivity. . . but you do not change overhead unless you decrease it. As processes become more efficient, what becomes excess?. . . labor

Taz,

You are so correct, but the truth is when we have a workforce that demands wages and compensations far above the competitions, and added to this is a productivity level that is continually lower; how do we become competitive without either demanding wage reductions, or increasing productivity (which will reduce the labor force as well), or both?

I am one of those victims of head-count reduction efforts, but I also recognize that the company I worked for had to make an immediate decision to either reduce its workforce or close the doors; and I am willing to except that my loss allows others to continue to be compenstated.

Change is good, but nobody said that it wasn't painful.

:bigwave:

Taz,

I am one of those victims of head-count reduction efforts, but I also recognize that the company I worked for had to make an immediate decision to either reduce its workforce or close the doors; and I am willing to except that my loss allows others to continue to be compenstated.

Change is good, but nobody said that it wasn't painful.

:bigwave:

David. . .

We've all been there at some point I'm sure. Was your release due to productivity gains yielding excess labor?? Or was the reduction due to external economic factors? or both?

As processes become more efficient, what becomes excess?. . . labor

Not always -- if this were always (or most often) the case there would be almost no jobs left in this country. Our (USA) productivity has risen almost constantly over the years but today there are more Americans working than ever before. Instead, generally (but not always on a small-scale basis, of course) as processes become more efficient the savings are used for more investment which generates more jobs. How many jobs has Toyota (the "lean" and efficiency experts according to many here) lost over the years as a result of increased efficiency? Even over the last year, while many folks appartently mistakenly believe that the economy is worsening and unemployment is going up (based on recent polling), the opposite is true.

David. . .

We've all been there at some point I'm sure. Was your release due to productivity gains yielding excess labor?? Or was the reduction due to external economic factors? or both?

Mine was due to external economic factors (loss of sales, due to economy). We produced hard robotics for automotive assembly lines. When the econmomy took a dump, the manufacturer's decided to continue using and band-aiding what they had instead of buying new.

Which in effect results in productivity yields beyond what the customer base can handle, so in a way you could view it as both.

Not always -- if this were always (or most often) the case there would be almost no jobs left in this country. Our (USA) productivity has risen almost constantly over the years but today there are more Americans working than ever before. Instead, generally (but not always on a small-scale basis, of course) as processes become more efficient the savings are used for more investment which generates more jobs. How many jobs has Toyota (the "lean" and efficiency experts according to many here) lost over the years as a result of increased efficiency? Even over the last year, while many folks appartently mistakenly believe that the economy is worsening and unemployment is going up (based on recent polling), the opposite is true.

Mike. . .inmy haste to post that reply, I omitted the question mark after the "labor?

didn't mean to be so difinitive about that. :o

Why on earth should we build a copy of Toyotas system (even though it is great), when they work under conditions different from ours? None of us will be the leader as long as we try to follow somebody else's footsteps. Sure, let's learn from the good ideas, but we must build something that is adapted to our conditions and needs.
In order to be Sensei we need create something of our own

Claes, I agree :agree1:
Deming made a great analogy regarding just copying a system.
A plan was given to a craftsman. The plan detailed a grand piano with all of the materials required.
The craftsman eventually made the grand piano and, it looked great.
The new owner sat down at the piano and started to recite some music.
What happened? The music sounded awfull.
Why?
Well, the craftsman was an excellent journeyman yet, he had absolutely no knowledge of music.
We should learn much from this story regarding copying the tools and techniques of other successful strategies, without knowledge of the system.
Wallace.

I have started one Topic named "World Class Manufacturing" sometimes in Oct 2003. I was prompted to give more insight on the same topic. I again say WCM is nothing but an Impoved Lean Technique Applications. I am enclosing a brief introduction of WCM. If any one wants to have more Information , please don't have any hesitation to contact meWorld Class Manufacturing (WCM) is an eight Dimensional Program enshrining the basic philosophies of TPM, TQM, BPR, ISO - 9000 and other change initiatives. WCM enables the organization to aim at Zero Accidents, Zero Defects, Zero Pollution, Zero Losses, Zero Breakdowns and Zero Customer Complaints through Zero Abnormality Movement.
World Class Manufacturing is a structured seventeen step program that covers all Employees, Equipment and Areas. Under the label of World Class Manufacturing, the employees are empowered to undertake the improvement initiatives and achieve a sustainable superior performance.
With a focus on Quality, Cost, Delivery, Innovations, Productivity & Service - (QCDIPS), the organization acquires competencies that are necessary for meeting the competitive challenges of tomorrow. WCM program gears the individuals to operate in team based structures that innovate and improve continuously.
The organizations adopting WCM Program are unrelentingly developing and continuously updating a deep understanding of their customer's present and future needs. Their competitive advantage also lies in having the best technology and superior processes for designing and manufacturing, selling and sourcing their products at the most economical cost. In these endeavors, WCM is the major Driving Force.

What is WCM ?
World Class Manufacturing (WCM) is a unique strategy for Enterprise Excellence through focus on Manufacturing. This strategy encompasses the essentials of most of the labeled change initiatives in the world for managing the manufacturing. It is a long term structured approach which is cyclic (PDCA - Plan, DO, Check & Act), comprehensive and systematic business tool.
The process involves a cultural transformation for an Abnormality Free Culture. It focuses on People, Process, Productivity and Results on a continuous basis. WCM is in itself, a competitive strategy that aims at stakeholders, including customers and shareholders' delight through focus on sustainable and superior QCDIPS performance. It is diagnostics in nature as it enables the abnormalities i.e. deviations from standards, to show themselves.

I have started one Topic named "World Class Manufacturing" sometimes in Oct 2003. So you did: here it is: World Class Manufacturing (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6888&highlight=World+Class+Manufacturing) .

I also found this one: What are the characteristics of a world class company? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5228) Those threads should have some milage left in them yet... Let's keep discussing.

/Claes

WCM enables the organization to aim at Zero Accidents, Zero Defects, Zero Pollution, Zero Losses, Zero Breakdowns and Zero Customer Complaints through Zero Abnormality Movement.

World Class Manufacturing (WCM) is a unique strategy for Enterprise Excellence through focus on Manufacturing.

The process involves a cultural transformation for an Abnormality Free Culture.
With all due respect, when I see something hyped as wildly as the first and third quotes above, my bullcrap detector starts to beep. IMO you have "zero" chance of any organization ever obtaining that.

That said, "WCM" may indeed have value inhelping organizations improve. Please explain why it is "unique" and give us some examples where it is used with great results.

I am a little disappointed that this thread has ended so soon.

Perhaps this tid-bit of perspective is worthy of continuance, or I simply missed the boat and we broke off into other threads.

I believe we missed an important characteristic of lean, WCM, "The leanest, best in class, total quality, highest sigma possible, statistically controlled, optimized business and manufacturing and service system ever"...etc.

One of the main purposes of lean is to increase market share ... with this being one of the ultimate goals, there is no need to reduce head count. In fact, the opposite should occur. Which is one of the reasons for keeping the key ppl who contributed to reduction in labor in the first place. ( to help continue to reduce manpower ).

We are not here just to eliminate waste, and provide a better product at the lowest cost possible, we are here to crush competition.

(also, exceptional insite from Ilias, and Randy).

Yea!!



I would love to talk / share / add / clarification on WCM. Why not it is my job as well as hobby to implement WCM. Regarding Mike S.
“why it is "unique" and give us some examples where it is used with great results."

I would say certainly it is unique because WCM starts with people, manage with manufacturing and ends with financial results. Its uniqueness is exhibits in WCM Model itself.


My limitation is that I can not attach the files to Cove but I am ready to share the case studies wherein companies of A.V. Birla group has adopted WCM Conepts and gained substantially.

One of the main purposes of lean is to increase market share ... with this being one of the ultimate goals, there is no need to reduce head count. So if part of the problem is that there are too many people, we shouldn't address that problem, or are you saying that we should just rearrange the chairs?

In fact, the opposite should occur.
If part of the problem is too many people, we should solve the problem by hiring more people?

Which is one of the reasons for keeping the key ppl who contributed to reduction in labor in the first place. ( to help continue to reduce manpower ).
But you just got through saying that "...there is no need to reduce head count."http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/confused.gif

What I am saying is, do not reduce head count, reduce man hours

Attrition will will take care of the head count automatically.

Since there is an emphasis on Lean tools, techniques and philosophies in this century. Does the group believe that Lean shall be transformed by the needs of western business practices or, shall Lean transform the western concepts of business practices?
Deming, Crosby, Juran, Hendry Ford, Toyoda and many others have certainly contributed to the modern structure of Lean. Does the group believe that Lean is an ideal vehicle for moving forward in this century, the theories and practices of the Quality Gurus mentioned?
Wallace.

lean thinking is amazing , working and living in lean culture help us to make our life lean , clean and green.
tomorow those will not follow lean will be out of the business,

regards

How does the Lean methodology help innovate new products ?