New developments in automotive - Effect of TS implementation in companies using Lean

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: New developments in automotive - Effect of TS implementation in companies using L

Hello Paul:

That was an interesting tirade by Mr. Brinklow.

I, for one, am a huge advocate of Lean, but not the way in which most folks go about it. Clearly it works, since Toyota continue to 'kick butt' with their relentless focus on waste reduction and improvements. Most of the companies I deal with cannot relate the ISO/TS 16949 requirements to the Lean Tools, and, as a result, their QMS and Lean Initiatives are fundamentally different worlds, with different resources, budgets, timelines etc.

Maybe what's needed is a good book to be written which shows how the two compliment each other........

I think if the TS folks would learn about Lean, and the Lean folks would learn about TS...my, but it would be a magically, beautiful world...

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Re: New developments in automotive - Effect of TS implementation in companies using L

Paul:
I remember a situation where a company had started out on a major implementation of 'standardized work'. This involved just about every level of management and supervision, in addition to the floor personnel, defining their regular, 'must do' work, for each day, week, month and year. Examples included the preparation of budgets (yearly), the reporting of expenses (weekly), the 'OJT' evaluations, (monthly) etc. etc.

By doing this, the organization had quickly identified a lot of non-value added activities and, therefore, waste. It was truely amazing (to me) to see what a simple exercise like this could do to free up peoples' time and focus on elimination of waste, by looking at what we do, regularly, to 'work around' processes which are broken.

This 'standardized work' was never considered as part of the qms. None of the documented procedures and work instructions reflected these value-added activities and the lists (and checklists) of each persons standard work, was never considered during internal audits, even though management were pretty rigorous about following it.

My belief is that the whole concept of having documented procedures, processes and 'criteria and methods' (defined in section 4.0 of ISO 9001:2000) could be very well met by the identification of 'standard work'. Such an approach could move an organization past simply 'complying' with the qms to making it a very effective and efficient system of robust, capable and in-control processes........

Andy

I agree. I have often said that ISO/TS is the toolbox, and the additional drawers are Lean, 5S, Six Sigma, etc., etc. This should all be tied together for maximum effect.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Re: New developments in automotive - Effect of TS implementation in companies using L

Wow, that's a nice twist, teaching auditors what 'lean' is! But I have to take issue Paul. Surely, Lean is well defined and it can be audited. I think what you're saying is that to move many CB auditors to recognize it would be difficult...........

Andy

Thanks for coming back Andy. The problem with auditing Lean IMHO is that there isn't a "standard" way for operating a Lean manufacturing system. So there isn't an ISO 9001 for Lean.

Heaven knows what arguments you could get into with an auditor if there weren't a standard to audit against.

You only have to look at the cove to see the level of disagreement over what is an internationally agreed standard!

Imagine what it would be like if it was the auditor's opinion against the company's. :mg:

Enough emoticons.

 

[AndyJP - 2012]

Re: New developments in automotive - Effect of TS implementation in companies using L

From where I sit as a contractor I see good and bad practices, mainly bad.

TS or any other QMS is seen as a badge on the wall and that's it Lean, 6Sigma etc are often seen as tools to get a job done.

Take where I am at the moment, no names no pack drill. We have a Quality Systems Manager who only looks at the paper system, a Product Assurance Team that only look at the manufactured parts and hide most of what is wrong and whn you come in to introduce quality into design they shout why can't we do that. But I digress.

The vast majority of managment and Quality depts separate the two practices but if you look at them, in my view correctly, they should be interdependant so long as the QMS audit team understand what lean is all about. The problem as I illustrated is compartmentalisum and made even worse by the use of corporate QMS templates and dictates from on high - again no name no pack drill.

I will admit to having put systems in place in my time (hangs head in shame) and now look at ways of working smarter not harder and then let the system guys catch up with what I have set in place. The nornal comments of "you can't do that as it is not in our manual" well so what change the manual.

OK looks like I am off on one again