Blog clippings

Dec 12 2018

Open workspaces and collaboration | E. S. Bernstein and S. Turban | Royal Society

Data capture device

“[…]In two intervention-based field studies of corporate headquarters transitioning to more open office spaces, we empirically examined—using digital data from advanced wearable devices and from electronic communication servers—the effect of open office architectures on employees’ face-to-face, email and instant messaging (IM) interaction patterns. Contrary to common belief, the volume of face-to-face interaction decreased significantly (approx. 70%) in both cases, with an associated increase in electronic interaction. In short, rather than prompting increasingly vibrant face-to-face collaboration, open architecture appeared to trigger a natural human response to socially withdraw from officemates and interact instead over email and IM.[…]”

Michel Baudin‘s comments: I got curious after reading multiple blanket statements on LinkedIn to the effect that open workspaces decrease office productivity. The authors all refer to the same “Harvard study” without giving any details.  Is the Harvard label sufficient to quell any doubts? As the notorious Reinhart-Rogoff paper on austerity shows, it is nothing of the kind. 

On closer scrutiny, the Bernstein-Turban’s study is serious but limited in scope. The readers of readers of readers of their paper draw increasingly cosmic conclusions that the study does not support. To locate it, you must thread your way through multiple layers of papers. Each one simplifies and amplifies the results of the previous ones. In the process, they forget any of the nuances and restrictions of the original authors. 

Continue reading…

By • Blog clippings • 0 • Tags: , ,

Nov 7 2018

Where Problem-Solving Goes Wrong | Gregg Stocker | Lessons in Lean

“[…] Whenever someone asks for input on a problem-solving A3, I tend to look for the red flags or areas in each section where help is most commonly needed. The key is to help people understand that the process is about investigating, reflecting, and learning, not filling in the form. It is far too common, especially early in a person’s development, to force-fit information into the boxes just to appease someone else and show that the process was followed. […]”

Sourced through Lessons in Lean

Michel Baudin‘s comments:  Companies use forms to make teams answer every question. Filling out forms, however, often degenerates into the formalism Gregg describes. Instead of reviewing content, managers just check that the team has entered something in every box.

Gregg also says nothing about immediate countermeasures to “stop the bleeding.” Assume, for example, that customers start returning defectives. The first step is to prevent more defectives from escaping. Meanwhile, you investigate root causes, implement permanent solutions, and validate them. The point of the process is to go beyond immediate countermeasures and dismantle them once they are no longer useful.

#problemsolving, #A3

By • Blog clippings • 2 • Tags: ,

Nov 5 2018

Vade retro, Pareto ! | Cécile Roche | LinkedIn

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923)

“Vilfredo Pareto was a respected economist and sociologist, which few people know. He invented the theory of Pareto optimality, which describes a maximum efficiency of the competitive economy. Better known to the general public for his empirical law of 80/20 (in general, 20% of the causes generate 80% of the effects), his reputation is in reality often reduced to the use of the diagram of the same name (that he did not even invent!)

And that’s where things go wrong. I’m sure you know this famous diagram, the one where you stack problems in pre-labeled columns. Those who know me know that most of the time, these famous diagrams (actually invented by Joseph Juran) generate in me a reflex of distrust…”

Sourced from LinkedIn Pulse

Michel Baudin‘s comments: Cécile Roche’s article has a clever title that works in English as well as in French. The body of the article, however, is in French, and I recommend Google-translating it into the language of your choice. The result won’t be perfect but you will get the gist.

Her experience with Pareto diagrams confirms the points I have been making about them in this blog. I agree with Cécile’s conclusions that they are good for slides but not as drivers for actual change. On the other hand, I don’t believe it has to be that way and I see many practical uses for the analysis behind the diagrams, if not for the diagrams themselves.

Continue reading…

By • Blog clippings • 5 • Tags: , ,

Sep 3 2018

10 Lean Manufacturing Ideas for Machine Shops | Shahrukh Irani | Modern Machine Shop

Machined Workpiece

“Lean manufacturing as it is traditionally practiced is of benefit to machine shops, but the extent of its benefit is often limited. The Toyota Production System on which lean manufacturing is based was designed for assembly plants that produce automobiles by the thousands. While an assembly plant focuses on low-mix, high-volume production, a typical machine shop focuses on high-mix low-volume production. A machine shop and assembly plant cannot expect to realize the same lean benefits with the same lean tools.”

Source Modern Machine Shop

Michel Baudin‘s comments: Shahrukh and I have long disagreed on these issues and I still take exception to many of his general statements. On the other hand, I agree with most of his recommendations.

Machining is not all about High-Mix/Low Volume

While there may be many small machine shops doing high-mix/low-volume production, the bulk of machining is done in larger Automotive and Aerospace & Defense shops that don’t fit this description. Automotive machine shops remove small amounts from hundreds of thousands of aluminum castings/year with product lives on the order of 4 years; aerospace machine shops, large amounts from forgings in exotic alloys in the hundreds/year with product lives in decades.

Continue reading…

By • Blog clippings • 2 • Tags: ,

Aug 5 2018

Why I was wrong about 2- second Lean | Dan Markovitz

 

“It’s time to admit that one of my consulting approaches has failed. I’m a huge fan of Paul Akers’ 2 Second Lean philosophy. It’s simple, easy to understand, and has an intrinsic appeal: “fix what bugs you.” “Figure out how to do your job two seconds faster each day.” Who wouldn’t sign on to a lean program that promotes that mindset?

So off I went to my clients, with Paul’s videos embedded in my PowerPoint presentation, ready to show them how 2 Second Lean is the answer to their productivity problems, their low employee engagement and morale scores, their mediocre customer service, and their too-high defect rates. And I failed.

When I look back at the clients I introduced to Paul’s method, I have to be honest and admit that a more traditional, kaizen event-driven approach would have served them better. 2 Second Lean didn’t hurt them, but they didn’t reap the rewards that they wanted, and that I promised. 

I missed the most obvious fact: 2 Second Lean is simple. But it’s not easy. The commitment required of the president is enormous.”

Sourced from Marcovitz Consulting

Michel Baudin‘s comments:

Is the approach simple or simplistic? Perhaps, the mistake is assuming that a single method is all you need, whether it is the “2-second” approach or the oxymoronic “Kaizen event.” It’s the panacea fallacy. To improve a factory, you need a range of different approaches, from tiny improvements an individual can make within his or her area of responsibility without asking anyone’s permission to projects like line redesigns that may occupy dozens of people for months.

Continue reading…

By • Blog clippings • 9 • Tags:

Jul 27 2018

Lean Thinking: ingredients, incubation and diffusion | John Shook | Planet Lean

Ford and Toyota

“What does it really mean to say that lean thinking is not uniquely Japanese? First, it indicates that not all Japanese companies are ‘lean.’ […] Secondly, we have successful examples of lean applications all around the world – not just in Japan […]. We know these things to be true.

To say, however, that lean is not uniquely Japanese doesn’t mean that there is nothing Japanese about it. So, let’s explore this second, little explored, idea. […] by asking more questions. One critical question we can ask ourselves is: “Could have TPS emerged anywhere other than Japan?” And finally, “What, if anything, is Japanese about lean thinking?”

My attempt to address these questions – an ever-changing effort as I reflect more and the world around us keeps evolving – has taken the shape of the graph you see below, which illustrates what I call the “Toyota double funnels”. There are three main sections to the graphic:

  • The left funnel represents a selection of key ingredients that, combined, have led to the creation of Toyota’s way of working.
  • The spiral in the middle of the graphic represents the actual genesis of the Toyota Way, TPS, TPD, TMS and lean thinking, which can be traced back to a 30-year period of incubation, between 1950 and 1980.
  • The right funnel represents the diffusion of this body of knowledge around the world, which started around the time of the NUMMI experiment, in 1984.
[…]I believe the spread of lean has been both a matter of diffusion and of dilution.[…] Along with the dilution, there’s been more than a little delusion, aided by consultants selling things under the name of “lean” that are far from the original intent of the thinking, system, and application.”

John Shook’s double funnel is reproduced here. Click on it to enlarge or view it on Planet Lean to click on each item and see more details.

John Shook’s double funnel

Sourced through Planet Lean

Michel Baudin‘s comments: As usual, John Shook’s post is both grounded in deep knowledge and well written. The infographic is also clear and the popup boxes of information attached to each item on Planet Lean are a valuable enhancement.  But I still don’t buy everything in it.

Continue reading…

By • Blog clippings • 2 • Tags: , , ,

< 1 2 3 4 5 >»
%d bloggers like this: