Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Interesting Read Lean Manufacturing Concepts - Is 'Lean' hype?

Is 'Lean' hype?


  • Total voters
    56
R

REVANS

"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.
 

Stijloor

Staff member
Super Moderator
"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. Very interesting. History repeats itself...:)

Stijloor.
 
R

ralphsulser

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. ;-)
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
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...
 
N

Narendran

Hi Mike,

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

Regards,
 
R

ricevans

: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:
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
... 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.
 


Top Bottom