2 comments on “Metrics in Lean recorded webinar

  1. Hi Michel,

    Few comments and suggestions from my side:
    – Agree with many parts of your video.
    – I find the QA dept example somewhat out-of-scope compared to the rest which is focused on the primary process.
    – I would always chose metrics where going down is better, not going up. This to be in line with the problem-solving and waste elimination culture you try to develop in a Lean company. This has implications for the type of measures (like a ppm vs a timeliness measure).
    – On productivity: I would inverse top and bottom: not parts/operator time but operator time/part. This changes the focus of performance dialogues from “more is better”/”work harder or faster”/”push” to “where did we waste time”
    – I would never use combined metrics (weights) as it compromises your initial requirement for simplicity of measures. People will not understand your measure anymore. When you change over, also change over your reference values in your SPC chart for productivity (time/part).
    – I’m not sure whether your roulette metaphor can be used in a true process context.
    – Maybe it’s wise to split the (long) video into two parts: metrics and using metrics in evaluating people and teams.
    – I always find it important to track voice-of-the-process independently of its confrontation with the voice-of-the-customer. First objective is getting the process under control.
    – Don’t agree with some of your remarks on the green cross. Your comments also are valid for many other measures, not only the green cross. The green cross often is combined with your proposed time between accidents.
    – Your video sometimes seems to suddenly skip forward and thus misses a part.
    – Maybe record it when you do not have a cold 😉

    Thanks for sharing, it contains many good hints and tips on what to do, and not to do.

    Best regards,
    Rob van Stekelenborg (@dumontis)

  2. Thank you for the detailed feedback.
    I suppose you could use metrics where down is good and up bad, as long as you do it consistently. What is confusing to review is a board with a mix of metrics where up is good for some and down for others. The reason to prefer metrics for which up is good is that we are used to it. In every sport that I can think of except golf, a high score beats a low score.
    In a dedicated line, the main reason for using parts/time rather than time per part is to have a metric where up is good. Also, productivity in general is defined as output/input, and time per part is input/output.
    I understand that weighting products introduces complexity in a productivity metrics but, in a mixed-flow line, I don’t see an alternative.
    Regarding the green cross, I have seen the same approach for Quality, filling a large letter “Q” with magnets, and find it just as inadequate as a means of communicating about performance.
    I may take your advice on splitting the video into two parts, and I will certainly fix the technical problems, while trying not to cough while I record the narration.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *