More Lean bashing in the French press

Through the two following charts from the Curious Cat blog, we can compare France’s manufacturing output to similar countries like Germany and Japan. In population, France is roughly 75% of  Germany and 50% of Japan, but in manufacturing output, it is only 50% of Germany and  25% of Japan.  Furthermore, France’s manufacturing share of  GDP is sinking faster than in other advanced economies.

With French factories an endangered species, one might expect some humility and a willingness to adopt techniques that are recognized worldwide as the state of the art. That is, however, not happening: while the French manufacturing ship is sinking, the mainstream press still describes Lean as “controversial” and a disease to be avoided.

Following is the translation of an article in Le Parisien, dated 3/4/2012:

“Lean,” a “fat free,” controversial mode of work organization
Louis Vuitton, PSA, BNP Paribas, Danone or Philips or Pôle Emploi… The “Lean”  method of organizing work without “fat” that aims to eliminate the superfluous (downtime, unnecessary gestures, waiting time, motion, excess inventory, defects, etc..) has been spreading in business in recent years, sparking heated debates.
Lean contaminates all sectors
Coming from Japan, the concept attracts some companies by the dramatic productivity gains that are claimed (up to 30%). But it is often perceived by employees and unions as a factor in the deterioration of working conditions.
First used at automotive suppliers like Valeo and Michelin, Lean spreads today in all sectors, including services, where, according to experts, the method goes over particularly badly.

According to Philippe Rouzaud, author of “Employees, Lean spins its web around you …”,  the original concept is accompanied by “promises to improve working conditions.”  The idea, according to him, is to say that since the employee was doing useless things, he will be happy not to do them anymore.

But in reality, these productivity gains raise the question of the welfare of employees, when the “useless” movements eliminated gave them an opportunity to breathe.

Moreover, its implementation fails in about 90% of cases, because companies remember only productivity.

An expensive  method
“Yes, Lean, unfortunately, is a very powerful tool,” he says. But, “you realize, given the economic situation, that behind many programs using the tools of lean, there are job cuts.”

Eric Queyssalier, consultant at Progress Partners, which helps companies implement lean, defends the  method as leading to a ‘real valuation of labor. ” But, he admits that the Europeans may have “understood everything.” When misguided “Lean brings the intensification of work” and is generating psychosocial risks of musculoskeletal disorders, etc.., says Rouzaud.

In 2006, a report by the Centre for the Study of Employment (ECE) and noted a deterioration of working conditions in Europe in “Lean” organizations compared to other organizations, including Taylorist.

The ergonomist Emmanuelle Florence also emphasizes that this is a very expensive process to put in place that requires a “total redesign of ways of thinking, so in general, companies do not return back.”

“We’re playing the sorcerer’s apprentice on health and working conditions in France. We will see the consequences in six months, a year or two years … ” warns Mr. Rouzaud.

Recently, the Nanterre District Court gave a weapon to employee representatives, through a decision that should set a precedent: the implementation of Lean requires consultation of the Health and Safety Committee.

To respond to such an article, where can we begin? Perhaps what is most fundamental to the ideology behind it is the assumption that true improvement is impossible, and that the only way to increase productivity is to make people work harder. The article equates eliminating wasted motion with eliminating rest for operators, but what kind of rest does an operator get while hand-carrying a car battery over 50 feet? If you eliminate that long carry by presenting the batteries right at the assembly station, you save time and improve ergonomics simultaneously. You win on both counts; there is no tradeoff; it is a genuine improvement.

The article also assumes that increasing productivity leads to job cuts. Why not take this reasoning to its logical conclusion and decrease productivity to create jobs? Let us design production lines so that two people are needed for the job one can currently do. Then we’ll hire 1,000 people rather than 500, all at advanced economy levels of wages and benefits.

How will that work out? Competitors will be thrilled, and the economy will have to do without the contributions the extra 500 people would have made elsewhere. To me, the assumption that it is OK to waste human talent in this fashion is the worst form of disrespect for people.