News

Oct 24 2013

Toyota Lagging in Part Standardisation and Platform Sharing | Autocar

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
“Kanban-style just-in time parts deliveries, kaizen policies of continuous improvement – Toyota has been a banner-carrier for these and many other methodologies that long ago gave it an edge when it comes to productivity and robust, repeatable quality.

So it’s a bit of a surprise to hear, as we did last week in Toyota’s Nagoya headquarters, that the company has been a bit less effective when it comes to parts standardisation, platform sharing and common parts strategies.”

 

Michel Baudin‘s insight:

I was taken aback by the article’s original title, describing Toyota as a “master of mass production,” but read on nonetheless and found the rest intriguing.

In essence, it asserts that Toyota paid for the autonomy of its product development teams in the form of too many different parts and platforms, and is undertaking to change this for the future.

The article does not say how Toyota proposes to do it.

See on www.autocar.co.uk

By • 0 • Tags: , ,

Oct 21 2013

Bombardier receives award from the AME | ept

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
“Recognizing organizations that are implementing lean manufacturing and management processes is one of the highlights of our conference,” says Paul Kuchuris, AME […]

When evaluating Bombardier’s Toronto site, the AME assessment team was impressed by the use of improvement tools, especially with regards to the organization’s approach to Standardized Problem Solving and an empowerment system called Xcell. Combined, these processes drive continuous improvement and engagement by the workforce down to the shop-floor level. Equally impressive to the team was the level of accountability at Bombardier’s Toronto Site and an understanding that the entire organization must change to meet evolving demands and new visions.”

Michel Baudin‘s insight:

According to this article, the AME recognized Bombardier as having implemented Lean Manufacturing on the basis of having Standardized Problem Solving and an individual suggestion system called Xcell.

Is that it? I have to assume that Bombardier has done a few other things to improve quality, productivity, delivery, safety, and morale, including perhaps designing production lines for flow, reducing setup times, implementing a pull system with heijunka, mistake-proofing manual operations, setting up work teams with job rotations, …

What did they actually do and how well did it work? The article does not say.

See on www.ept.ca

By • 0 • Tags: ,

Oct 18 2013

China’s Angst: When Low-Cost Manufacturing Dies | PTC | Mark McKay

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Global manufacturing is in transition. The advantage of Chinese manufacturers is slipping, and every day brings more news of another American manufacturer gaining (or recovering) a little piece of …
See on blogs.ptc.com

By • 0 • Tags: , ,

Oct 18 2013

When Bad Things Happen to Good Supply Chains | Industry Week

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

“Any single failure anywhere in the supply chain can bring operations and profits to a standstill. From the 2011 tragedies of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan to last year’s devastating Hurricane Sandy closer to home, Mother Nature has a way of reminding us to reexamine catastrophe preparedness.

These events, and the tragic aftermath that follows, also serve to remind the insurance industry of the challenges in quantifying risk and accounting for exposure in an increasingly complex supply chain environment. As a result, risk managers are being asked new questions as insurance underwriters require them to seek information from a broader range of stakeholders within and outside of their organizations.”

 

Michel Baudin‘s insight:

The article is limited to a list of questions an insurer might ask about a supply chain, some of which cannot be pratically answered. The supply chain management literature often states the need to know your suppliers’ suppliers and your customers’ customers, but most companies don’t, and practically can’t.

After all, the point of buying from suppliers is to delegate responsibility for the whole upstream supply chain. If you have to worry about it all the way to mining raw materials out of the ground, you might as well make it all in-house from scratch, like at Ford’s River Rouge plant in the 1930s.

Asking the right questions is fine, but providing answers is better. Supply chain disruptions come in many degrees of severity and a variety of frequencies, from trucks delayed by traffic accidents to earthquakes and tsunamis.

You can, and should have preplanned responses to small, frequent disruptions. That may involve building some slack in milk run schedules, keeping small buffers of stocks, or having contingency plans for alternative transportation…

But you cannot practically have preplanned responses to all possible catastrophes. What you need is to monitor operations with vigilance to get early warnings, and develop relationships with your suppliers and customers that are strong enough that they come together and develop an ad-hoc, rapid response when disaster strikes.

This is the lesson I see in Toyota’s response to emergencies, from the Mississippi flood of 1993 to the Aisin Seiki fire of 1997 and the Fukushima earthquake of 2011.

See on www.industryweek.com

By • 3 • Tags: , , ,

Lean Logistics Seminar Announcement

Oct 16 2013

Lean Logistics Seminars in Spain

Following is a translation of the report posted on Asenta’s website on the joint seminars we conducted in Barcelona, Madrid, and Bilao last week:

Lean Logistics – World Class Practices Series 2013

On October 7, 8 and 10, we held the fourth session of our World Class Series 2013 Lean Cycle in three cities, with more than 100 executives in attendance.

We provided an overview of the meaning and scope of the Lean Logistics as a strategy for competitiveness, together with  case studies, to show the solutions used on specific problems and thus show the benefits of  highly effective management

Among the speakers was Michel Baudin, a recognized expert in operations management and a strategic partner of ASENTA. Since 1987 has been advising companies on Lean implementation across many industries in America, Asia and Europe. He has published four books on various aspects of operational excellence.

Also participating were Luis Mauleon, Managing Partner at ASENTA, who specializes in transformation processes in organizations, and Juan Ortega, Management Consultant and coordinator of Lean Logistics at ASENTA.

These seminars were for CEOs, and Directors of Manufacturing, Operations, and Logistics, and, more  generally, for leaders committed to improving their organizations’ supply chains.

Following are a few shots of the seminars in Barcelona and Bilbao:

 

By • 0 • Tags: , ,

Oct 15 2013

Perfection Through Mistake-Proofing | IndustryWeek

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

“Mistake proofing can make a significant difference in the output of any process [….]  Mistake-proofing devices should meet three criteria:

          1. Simple
          2. Infallible
          3. Effortless”
Michel Baudin‘s insight:

The article makes the point that mistake-proofing must be “effortless.” The way I usually say it is that a mistake-proofing/poka-yoke device must not add labor, a point that is frequently missed in discussions of this topic in the US.

Why is it essential? Because any device that adds labor is guaranteed to be by-passed under pressure. If preventing a mistake requires one more gesture, on any day where “we have to ship all this by 6:00PM,” the organization will find a way around it.

Mistake-proofing makes a difference in any process where human error is a major cause of failure. Many processes qualify, but not all. If the main cause of defects is the machine’s  inability to hold tolerances consistently, mistake-proofing will not do much good.

Yes, a device that is fallible cannot be considered mistake-proofing. Usability engineering, for example, provides user interfaces  that make mistakes unlikely, but not impossible. Sometimes it is sufficient, but it is not mistake-proofing.

The one criterion I have an issue with is simplicity. A mistake-proofing device must be simple to use, I agree, and its design should not be anymore complex than necessary. However, where the stakes in human error are high, as in airliner cockpits or semiconductor process equipment, preventing mistakes may require elaborate technology. If a device for this purpose  works every time and adds no labor, I see no reason to deny it the “mistake-proofing” label.

See on www.industryweek.com

By • , 2 • Tags: , ,

«‹ 43 44 45 46›»