Michel Baudin's Blog
Ideas from manufacturing operations
  • Home
  • Home
  • About the author
  • Ask a question
  • Consulting
  • Courses
  • Leanix™ games
  • Sponsors
  • Meetup group

Mar 10 2013

Poka-Yoke at Toyota: the Current State

Mikiharu Aoki's "All About Poka-Yoke in Toyota Factories" (2012)
Mikiharu Aoki’s “All About Poka-Yoke in Toyota Factories” (2012)

Mikiharu Aoki kindly sent me his 2012 book on mistake-proofing (Poka-Yoke) in Toyota factories. I had asked him for it out of curiosity about new developments in this field.

The classics on Poka-Yoke are Shigeo Shingo’s Zero Quality Control (1986) and Productivity Press’s big red book (1987), both of which are useful but leave you hungry for more examples that do not date back to the 1960s and 70s.

In Make No Mistake (2001) Martin Hinckley reused many of the same examples, but added a few using more electronics, discussed the relationship between mistake-proofing and statistical methods, and included a directory of  suppliers for tools and devices. I spot-checked the websites of a few of them and, 12 years after publication of the book, found they were all still around.

While Taiichi Ohno and Shigeo Shingo were men of my grandparents’ generation, Mikiharu Aoki is my contemporary. He is not a founding father of the Toyota Production System, but he has worked in its modern incarnation for 26 years before becoming a consultant. He has written several books — only available in Japanese — and all but one with  “Toyota” in the title.

Part I  is a discussion of the steps needed to implement Poka-Yoke; Part II, 72 actual examples explained through conceptual diagrams and cartoons.

Part I, about 1/3 of the book, first discusses 5S, standard work, process capability, and one-piece flow as prerequisites to mistake-proofing. It then distinguishes the categories of mistake-proofing devices, such as the ones that physically prevent mistakes versus those that prevent defectives from escaping to the next process. It describes the use of Andons to trigger responses to problems detected by mistake-proofing, and expresses a preference for devices that involve direct, mechanical contact with work pieces over sensors and electronics, because their operation is visually obvious.

On the other hand, I did not see recommendations on how you organize the implementation of mistake-proofing, monitor progress, and make sure that the devices do not deteriorate or fall out of use over time. This is not covered either in any of the other books I have seen on the subject.

The examples in Part II are more similar to those in the older books than I expected. The tangs used to prevent mounting the button in the wrong position on a music player control panel are a classic, and the same method is used in my HP inkjet printer to prevent mounting ink cartridges in the dock for a different color.

Mistake-proofing assembly of music player buttons
Mistake-proofing assembly of music player buttons

In the following case is also consistent with the older Poka-Yokes: the outer dimensions of products are used to tell them apart and make different sets of parts available for assembly.

Bin cover Poka-Yoke
Bin cover Poka-Yoke

Clearly, the way it works, and whether it works, is obvious. By a method that relies on differences in the outer dimensions of a product is only applicable where such differences exist. With car engines, they do; with computers, they don’t, and many different configurations of the same product are mounted in the same chassis. In such a context, you have to resort to bar codes, QR codes, or RFID tags and the computer systems that go with them.

I expected to see more use of this kind of technology in current Poka-Yokes, but I understand that Aoki’s book is about car manufacturing and that you want, as much as possible, the devices to be invented on the shop floor by production people.

Among Aoki’s books, the one without Toyota in the title  is called “All about car factories” (自動車工場のすべて, November, 2012), and its purpose is to explain in an integrated manner both the production process and production control sides of car making. Aoki also included it in his package to me, but I have not had a chance to look at it yet. I will keep you posted.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

By Michel Baudin • Book reviews • 1 • Tags: Mistake-Proofing, Poka-Yoke, Pokayoke, Quality, Toyota, Toyota Production System, TPS

Mar 6 2013

Wanna Sabotage Your Lean Implementation Effort? Try This | Lonnie Wilson | IndustryWeek

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

Most facilities that fail in a lean implementation have failed to create stable process flow. And by stable I mean statistically stable — a process that is predictable. (Wanna Sabotage Your #Lean Implementation Effort?

Michel Baudin‘s insight:

The way I read Lonnie’s article, he is saying that neglect of the engineering dimension of Lean manufacturing is the primary cause of implementation failure. I agree. It is a long article, but worth reading.

See on www.industryweek.com

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

By Michel Baudin • Press clippings • 0 • Tags: industrial engineering, Lean, Lean implementation, Lean manufacturing, Manufacturing engineering, Taiichi Ohno, Toyota, Toyota Production System, TPS

Mar 4 2013

Michel Baudin’s review of The Spirit of Kaizen | Amazon.com

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

The key message of this book is that, no matter what your situation is, you should only try to improve it with small changes and that large changes never work because “we are built to resist radical change.” The author explains that the perspective of change sets off an alarm in a part of your brain called the amygdala, which confuses the change with a charging lion, triggers a flight-or-fight response, and prevents you from thinking rationally.

According to the author, a series of small steps works because they manage not to set off your alarms, and you are like the legendary frog who doesn’t react to small increases in water temperature until he is boiled. But wait! The author does not use this metaphor. To him, the fear response is purely irrational. The production manager who has spent 25 years working up from the shop floor should have no fear of losing her job to the young whippersnapper touting the latest change program.

See on www.amazon.com

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

By Michel Baudin • Book reviews • 1 • Tags: Kaizen, Psychobabble, Psychology

Mar 4 2013

Questions from an Industrial Engineer in an Automotive Machine-Shop

I received the following questions from an Industrial Engineer (IE) who has recently moved from vehicle assembly to the machining of car engine parts, blocks, heads, crankshafts, etc., activities that all new to him:

  1. Any reading material you would recommend?
  2. Is takt based off the slowest machine or the machine in the line that makes the least parts?
  3. Knowing cycle times and uptimes of a 30 machine line how do you calculate system uptime?
  4. Should there be more overspeed for machines at the beginning half of the machine line?

Following are my answers:

Any reading material you would recommend?

Industrial Engineering, as taught in universities, is generically about how people work, and gives you no process-specific knowledge. Manufacturing Engineering (ME), on the other hand, is heavily focused on metal working, as if these were the only processes worthy of the name “manufacturing.” To be effective as an IE in a machine shop, you need some familiarity with whatever processes are performed in your shop, such as turning, milling, drilling, reaming, broaching, grinding, or heat treatment. You don’t need to master them, but you need to know them enough to have a meaningful conversation with specialists. And you also need to know about the key operational issues of the machines used to perform these processes, such as lathes, machining centers, drill presses, etc. including how parts are loaded and unloaded, jigs and fixtures, cutting tools, and NC programs.

You will find more than you need to know in books written for MEs, like Degarmo’s Materials and Processes in Manufacturing. I would not attempt to read it cover to cover but instead use it as a reference, to cram on any process you are actually working on. There are other similar books, but this one was co-authored by J.T. Black, who was quite possibly the first American academic to recognize the significance of Lean and make it central to his teachings. My own book Working with Machines is about all types of manufacturing activities that involve the interaction of people and machines which includes automotive machine shops. It includes discussions of takt time, OEE, and availability.

The two main industrial applications of machining are automotive and aerospace, and the two are quite different. In automotive, you remove small amounts of metals from many parts that have been cast or forged near their final shape, in commonly available alloys and in high volume; in aerospace, by contrast, you remove 90%+ of the metal from slabs or forging that look like caskets in exotic alloys and in low volumes. Your needs are in automotive, so don’t waste your time studying approaches that are only used in aerospace. The literature does not always make this distinction obvious, so you have to be on the lookout.

Is takt based off the slowest machine or the machine in the line that makes the least parts?

The takt time is not based on machines but on demand and net available production time. If you have a line that puts out completed parts one unit at a time at fixed intervals, the takt time is the length this interval must have in order to meet the demand within the net available production time, which is the time you can count on the machine actually processing parts. It is not a parameter of your slowest machine but a requirement that even it has to meet.

Knowing cycle times and uptimes of a 30 machine line how do you calculate system uptime?

As you know, uptime ratios are multiplicative, so that, if you have a line of 30 machines, each of which is up 85% of the time, you line is up 85\%^{30}= 0.7\% , which is obviously not workable. But 99% uptime on each machine still only gives you 99\%^{30}= 74\% , which is still too low. So what do you do?

First, you don’t put 30 machines in line. machining cells usually have 5 to 10 machines, including simple, auxiliary machines that rarely break down. And you have buffers between cells that are managed by pull. A cell of 10 machines with 99% uptime will be up 90% of the time. With 5 machines, 98% uptime on each machine is enough to give you 90% on the whole.

Second, you work on improving the machines and customizing them to your needs so that they have fewer breakdowns and can be changed over faster, and you use these improvements to increase the number of machines in line.

Should there be more overspeed for machines at the beginning half of the machine line?

The takt time is set for the entire line. The line meets this requirement if, and only if, the last machine puts out one unit of the product in question like clockwork at the end of every takt interval. For this to happen, you must not only make sure that this last machine is up and running but also that it has a part to work on, and one way to ensure this is to give all the upstream operations a modicum of slack. This strategy, however, works better in manual assembly, where much of the work can be reassigned backwards and forwards among assembly stations in minuscule increments, where you cannot ask a lathe to do milling and vice versa.

The minimum takt time a machining line can support is determined by the capacity of its bottleneck machine, which is usually not last in line.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

By Michel Baudin • Answers to reader questions • 0 • Tags: Automotive, Cellular manufacturing, Lean, Machine-shop, Machining

Mar 3 2013

From Ybry charts to work-combination charts

Ybry chart used on French railroads in 2013
Ybry chart used on French railroads in 2013

This is a screen shot from yesterday’s evening news on the France 2 channel, part of a story about TGV high-speed trains used on regular tracks to bring vacationers to ski areas. The TGVs, of course run at regular speeds on these single line tracks and must stop at sidings to let regular trains through in the opposite direction. In an earlier post, I discussed the charts invented by Charles Ybry in 1846 for railroad scheduling, and this newscast shows that they are still used in railroads today. Besides railroad scheduling, they are also used in the management of multiple, concurrent projects, and  I believe they were the basis for Toyota’s work combination charts.

The x-axis is time; the y-axis, position along the line. On the chart, the downward lines represent trains going down the line; the upward lines, trains coming up the line. When and where the lines cross, trains cross, and there must be a siding available. The news story had the TGV pilot call in his position on a siding to a control center in Chambéry where the chart was displayed. On the high-speed TGV lines, the signalling is all electronic, and the system automatically knows where the trains are; when you run a TGV train at reduced speed on a regular line, however, it seems that the driver has to report what happens the old-fashioned way.

I learned about these charts in Edward Tufte’s Envisioning Information, where he describes them as a special case of a “narrative of space and time.” Among the examples he gave were a similar railroad scheduling application from Switzerland 80 years ago and the development of Wagner’s operas over almost 50 years in the 19th century:

Trains running up and down between Neuchatel and Chaux de Fonds in Switerland in 1932
Trains running up and down between Neuchatel and Chaux de Fonds in Switerland in 1932
Development timeline of Wagners operas from 1835 to 1892
Development timeline of Wagner’s operas from 1835 to 1892

Work combination charts are a tool to design and communicate about production jobs that require operators to perform a sequence of operations on multiple machines that operate automatically between visits. This is a Japanese example of such a chart:

A Japanese work-combination chart example
A Japanese work-combination chart example

The concept looks similar, doesn’t it? I found this chart particularly useful when you need to plan the activities of more than one operator, as in the following example:

Work combination chart for machining operations
Work combination chart for machining operations

In the Legend, “Manual In” refers to time spent by the operator on the machine with it stopped; “Manual Out,” time spent on the machine while it runs.

To this date, in the US, this powerful technique is far from enjoying the popularity it deserves. It is generally perceived as “too complicated” and I still don’t know of any software tools that fully support it. In designing jobs that involve interactions between human and machines, however, the consequence of not using it is leaving about 50% of the potential productivity improvement on the table. It may take a project team an extra day to do it, but the result is achieving a 40% productivity increase instead of 20%. Details are discussed in Chapter 7 of  Working with Machines.

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

By Michel Baudin • Technology • 3 • Tags: industrial engineering, Manufacturing engineering, Operator job design, Railroad, Scheduling, TGV, Toyota, Work-combination charts

Mar 1 2013

Ford and Toyota Celebrate Historic Milestones |Assembly Magazine

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

Ford and Toyota Celebrate Historic Milestones Assembly Magazine (blog) However, the just-in-time concept was not fully realized at Toyota until 1954, when the supermarket supply method—the idea of having subsequent processes take what they need…

See on www.assemblymag.com

Share this:

  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

By Michel Baudin • Press clippings • 0 • Tags: Assembly line, Ford, Henry Ford, Supermarket, Toyota, Toyota Production System, TPS

«< 101 102 103 104 105 >»

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 585 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • How One-Piece Flow Improves Quality
  • Using Regression to Improve Quality | Part III — Validating Models
  • Rebuilding Manufacturing in France | Radu Demetrescoux
  • Using Regression to Improve Quality | Part II – Fitting Models
  • Using Regression to Improve Quality | Part I – What for?

Categories

  • Announcements
  • Answers to reader questions
  • Asenta selection
  • Automation
  • Blog clippings
  • Blog reviews
  • Book reviews
  • Case studies
  • Data science
  • Deming
  • Events
  • History
  • Information Technology
  • Laws of nature
  • Management
  • Metrics
  • News
  • Organization structure
  • Personal communications
  • Policies
  • Polls
  • Press clippings
  • Quality
  • Technology
  • Tools
  • Training
  • Uncategorized
  • Van of Nerds
  • Web scrapings

Social links

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn

My tags

5S Automation Autonomation Cellular manufacturing Continuous improvement data science Deming ERP Ford Government Health care industrial engineering Industry 4.0 Information technology IT jidoka Kaizen Kanban Lean Lean assembly Lean Health Care Lean implementation Lean Logistics Lean management Lean manufacturing Logistics Management Manufacturing Manufacturing engineering Metrics Mistake-Proofing Poka-Yoke Quality Six Sigma SMED SPC Standard Work Strategy Supply Chain Management Takt time Toyota Toyota Production System TPS Training VSM

↑

© Michel Baudin's Blog 2025
Powered by WordPress • Themify WordPress Themes
%d