Mar 22 2012
Improvement in a silo
In a discussion he recently started in the PEX Network discussion group on LinkedIn, Adi Gaskell asked whether process improvement worked in a silo. Most participants said no, but Steven Borris said yes, and I agree with him. Following is what I added:
I agree with Steven, and will even go further: your first pilot projects when you start Lean implementation have the best chance of success if they are contained within a department. The more departments, silos, or fiefdoms you involve, the more difficult you make it, and the less likely to succeed.
The scope does not have to include a complete process from raw materials to finished goods. It does not even have to be at the end or the beginning of the process. All his has to be is a process segment with a technical potential for improvement that is achievable with available skills, and enthusiastic local management.
There is a simple criterion to establish whether such a local project improves the plant as a whole: does it move its target operations in the direction of takt-driven production. If it does, and only if it does, the order-of-magnitude improvements you get locally translate to nibbling percentages globally. For example, the local WIP drops by 90% and that makes the global WIP drop by 4%.
Only once you have a few successful within-silo projects under your belt do you have the support in the organization and the skills base to take on cross-silo or silo-eliminating projects.
March 23, 2012 @ 5:21 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 5:25 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 5:27 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 5:28 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 5:30 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 5:32 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 5:34 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 5:36 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 6:44 am
Comment in the PEX Network & IQPC – Lean Six Sigma & Process Excellence for… on LinkedIn:
March 23, 2012 @ 7:02 am
Many of the comments express the concern that a local project may actually make things worse for the plant as a whole. Obviously, no matter what it consists of, such a change does not deserve to be called “improvement.”
The concept of takt-driven production, however, gives you criteria to make sure that what you do in one silo is not hurtful elsewhere. Assuming you have to deliver your finished goods at a given takt time to meet demand within your work time. Then takt-driven production is the ideal situation in which each unit of product transfers instantly to the next operation at every beat. It is as if you had a metronome set to the takt time, and every time it ticks, each product unit pops forward.
Takt-driven production is an ideal that would be realized globally by realizing it locally everywhere. Of course you never realize it, but you approach it by eliminating waste. When you examine a proposal for a local project in a plant, it is not too difficult to tell whether it is moving this section of the plant in this direction or not. If it does, you can rest assured that this project will not make conditions worse elsewhere in the plant. Conversely, if it moves in the wrong direction, you can be sure it will and you should not support it.
March 23, 2012 @ 7:56 am
I think you need to start this conversation with a definition of the type of silo you are referring to. If you are referring to a process silo like Paintshop or Metal Stamping, then I agree with you. Of course you can make improvement in a small area as long as you have a clear ideal state that the improvements can be tied to. There is always a threat of sub-optimization but everyone is a silo to some degree or another. If you were to say that you can’t improve in a silo, you would essentially be saying that you can’t improve unless you own every step of every process from mining from the ground to selling to the final customer.
When I think about silo’s however, I am usually thinking more about the functional and organizational silo’s. The big three in most traditionally managed companies are Operations, Engineering, and Maintenance. Those are the silo’s that kill improvement. If I think of these silo’s, I don’t really agree. It will at lease be very difficult to make SUSTAINABLE improvement without representation from key stakeholders across functional silo’s.
It sounded to me like half the people in these comments were talking about one type of silo and the other half were talking about another.
March 26, 2012 @ 11:05 am
Things you can do in a paintshop or a stamping plant include reducing setup times to cut batch sizes and reduce your “every part every” interval. This you can do internally, without involving anybody else, except possibly some support from maintenance.
Then you can organize your output buffer as a supermarket to allow downstream processes to pick from it in heijunka sequence, but that requires the involving the downstream process. Likewise, in stamping, you need to work with the downstream process to use the signal/material kanban combination to trigger the retrieval and preparation of the next dies before kicking off each setup.
March 26, 2012 @ 6:59 am
Agree with Steven and one thing more to add. Attraction works well in any kind of change – especially the dramatic changes that lean can bring to an organization. Promotion does not work well – people feel like they are having something “sold” to them or forced on them.
The implementation within one department or area gives the opportunity for the others in the surrounding areas to observe. They watch and learn from observing the transition in the other area. This is the next best thing to experiencing it for themselves.
But this last point brings to mind a critical part of the transformation in the one area. It must be heavily documented with good visual communication. Before and After data, graphs, photos. Displayed in the area – not in some Powerpoint show that is shown once or twice to management. A3’s are the best for this.
ROBs (Report Out Boards) or Visual Walls in the area also make this much easier. When I do a transformation – I almost always make sure this is one of the first things to go up in the area. Usually a 4′ x 8′ white board. with To display the status and ongoing issues and results. And to start the group into reporting out daily to management on a Gemba walk to the area.
January 18, 2013 @ 6:36 pm
It’s hard to find experienced people in this particular topic, but you seem like you know what you’re
talking about! Thanks
June 21, 2013 @ 10:15 pm
Would you mind if I quote a few of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your website: http:
//michelbaudin.com/2012/03/22/improvement-in-a-silo/. I’m going to aslo make sure to give you the appropriate anchortext link using your webpage title: Improvement in a silo | Michel Baudin’s
Blog. Please be sure to let me know if this is acceptable with you.
Thank you
June 21, 2013 @ 11:41 pm
Please go ahead, and give me the link when you are done.
Best regards.