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

Feb 26 2013

Toyota, Respect for People and Lean | Mark Graban

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

Blog post at Lean Blog : A principle that has been often discussed (and hopefully practiced) in the Lean community over the past few years is usually described as “respect for people.” A certain British rabble rouser recently said at a Lean conference “all this respect for people stuff is horse sh*t,” and that it is a “conventional Western management interpretation.” He mocked the idea of “respect for people programs,” although I’m not sure where such a standalone program has ever been attempted.

Michel Baudin‘s insight:
Great post, Mark. In concrete terms, I have found disrespect easier to explain than respect.For example, giving a person a job that requires doing nothing 50% of the time is saying “your time is worthless,” and therefore “you are worthless.”  Many managers do not realize how disrespectful this attitude is, particularly where labor is cheap.
Ignoring complaints about minor safety issues, like sharp edges on a cart, is also showing disrespect.There are many such issues that must be addressed before asking people to participate in improvement and contribute ideas.The Frank Woollard quote in Bob Emiliani’s comment explains why you should pay respect to your people. It’s not about being nice. In the long run, you cannot compete unless your organization fires on all intellectual cylinders.

See on www.leanblog.org

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 • Blog clippings • 3 • Tags: Lean, Respect for People, Toyota

Feb 25 2013

3 reasons why you need a [your-company] Production System

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

Do you need a company-specific Production System (XPS) to boost your operational improvement? Yes you do. Here are three reasons…

 

Michel Baudin‘s insight:

I agree with  Torbjørn Netland’s post, with one caveat. In any XPS, effectiveness should always trump standardization. Many XPS’s turn into premature standardization efforts that stifle creativity in plants and turn the implementation effort into an exercise in formal compliance.

In a company with many plants worldwide, making different products for different markets by different processes, local teams need to be allowed to find their own solutions. What the XPS must not allow them to do is to keep these solutions to themselves. Instead, it must organize the sharing of knowledge and skills across sites by such means as periodic technical conference hosted in turn by each plant and a private collaboration web site with wikis and forums.

See on better-operations.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 • Blog clippings • 0 • Tags: Lean implementation, Lean manufacturing, Management, TPS, XPS

Feb 22 2013

Why doesn’t Lean work? | A discussion started by Norman Bodek

Norman Bodek asked this provocative question on the TPS Principles and Practice discussion group on LinkedIn, and elaborated as follows:

“Lean is a total system of continuous improvement with everyone involved.

A few years back, I visited Toyota’s plant in Georgetown, Kentucky with the group of executives from various construction corporations. One member of our team asked Gary Convis, then president of Toyota, ” What do you expect from your workers?” Gary answered, “Only two things: come to work and pull the cord.”

Simple, but how many of you attempting to do Lean allow your employees to pull the cord, stop the line, and have everybody, literally everybody in the plant, wait until that one person resolves the problem. I would guess only 1% or less of you that are attempting to implement lean allow your workers to stop the line. Why?

Lean is a very powerful process that has allowed Toyota to grow from a company that made junk in 1952 to one of the largest most successful corporations in the world producing some of the highest quality automobiles available. And the essence of Lean is to empower every employee to become a problem solver, to make every employee self-reliant. But how do you do this? How can you begin to trust your employees that they will make the right decision for the company? I say “simple”, because if Toyota can do it so can you.

Yes, you are running your kaizen blitzes and they are wonderful. Yes, you are doing Six-Sigma and that is wonderful. Yes, you are doing value stream mapping and it is wonderful. Yes, you are doing 5S, setting up cellular manufacturing, doing TPM, Hoshin Kanri, and using many of the wonderful Toyota tools, but you are, for some strange reason, not empowering your employees to be self-reliant.

Toyota probably fearful to build plants in America, suggested to General Motors to set up a joint venture and Toyota would teach them how to use the Toyota production system and be able to transfer it to all General Motors plants. GM, laughingly, selected their worse plant in Fremont, California, NUMMI, and gave it to Toyota to run. One year later, NUMMI became the best plant in the GM system but GM never really learned how to implement properly in their other plants and GM went bankrupt.

I recently came back from Japan, my 81st trip, and was told that Toyota is still the best model to follow. I strongly recommend that you learn how to emulate them and get every single employee involved in continuous improvement. Find a way to let everyone in your company walk on two feet. But, I ask you, ‘How are you going to do it? How are you going to make lean work?'”

There have been 70 comments, as of today, from Sid Joynson, William Botha, Thomas Ligocki, Philip Marris, Anthony Mangione, Peter Winton, Carlos Hernández, and others. My own response was as follows:

Norman’s diagnosis that Lean isn’t working is correct if you are discussing what passes for Lean in the US, and it’s not just an impression. A few years ago, I did my own analysis, the results of which were published as a Viewpoint in Manufacturing Engineering in 2006 . I chose 40 winners of the Shingo Prize and searched Hoovers Online, for comparative performance data with their 400 top competitors. On the average, the data did not show that the Shingo Prize predicted any advantage in profitability, market share or employment growth.

Fundamentally, most Lean programs today are to serious implementations as cheap imitation shoes are to the training of Usain Bolt.

Norman, however, goes one level deeper when he says “Lean is a total system of continuous improvement with everyone involved,” which implies that the key to making Lean successful is to get everyone involved in continuous improvement, and I don’t think that is the case. Don’t get me wrong. It is no doubt a wonderful and useful thing. I just don’t see it as the key.

I find it always enlightening to compare the literature on Lean published in the US with what you find in Japan, which Norman is certainly familiar with, from having organized the translation of several classics in the 1980s. I have in my hands a newer book that I picked up on my last visit to Japan, that has not been translated yet. It is from 2009, by Mikiharu Aoki, a 25-year Toyota alumnus who became a consultant in 2004. The title means “The heart of introducing the Toyota Production System” (トヨタ生産方式導入の奥義), and it is heavily technical.

By contrast, the bulk of the American literature is shockingly light on technical content, which is dismissed as a tactical toolbox you shouldn’t worry about too much. Instead, the literature you should focus strategic issues like change management, motivating people, and calculating metrics.

Crispin Vincenti-Brown identified four dimensions to manufacturing:

  • The engineering of production lines.
  • Logistics and production control.
  • Organization and people.
  • Metrics and accountability.

In the US, the engineering dimension is ignored. Logistics receives some attention, but Lean programs are overwhelmingly focused on the last two: organization and metrics. It is out of balance, and I believe this is the reason these programs fail.

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 • Management • 33 • Tags: Lean, Toyota, TPS

Feb 20 2013

Should an auto parts plant use “smart” part numbers?

Mumin Vatansever, from TKG Otomotiv in Turkey, asked the following question:

I am a newly graduated production control engineer in an auto factory.
We are trying to organize our system according to the SAP.  We really do not know whether we should use smart numbers or not.  We do not know what the advantages and disadvantages of using them ? Also if it is possible could you please give me a smart code example ?

55774 05020 is a part number we have, and its process steps are as follows:

  1. Scissor
  2. Press machine
  3. Weld
  4. Packing
  5. Delivery

Technically, there is no doubt that “smart” part numbers should be replaced with keys and property lists.

I am not expert in SAP, but I don’t believe it restricts you in these matters. Manufacting Part Numbers (MPN) should be unique and short, with all information stored in other fields, either standard in SAP or user-defined. Being unique is a part number’s main job, for obvious reasons. Being short matters if they ever have to read by humans. Sequences of 5 uppercase letters and numbers give you 60 million possible unique IDs, which is probably enough for your needs. Avoid case-sensitive IDs, because people will confuse items 78De5 and 78DE5. 

What worries me is your statement that you are a “newly graduated production control engineer.” I don’t want my advice to get you in trouble. If your bosses are like 99% of the manufacturing professionals I know, they have been trained to believe in “smart” part numbers and are uncomfortable with the thought that they are an obsolete legacy of the pencil-and-paper age. You may have to go along and implement one anyway.

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: nomenclature, part numbering systems, smart part numbers

Feb 19 2013

Oppama Style | Dumontis

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

A look at production behind the scenes at Nissan’s Oppama Plant, where everyday the Nissan Juke, Cube, Sylphy and 100%-electric LEAF roll off the lines

Michel Baudin‘s insight:

I did visit the Oppama plant(追浜工場), in 1980. Then it was making the Nissan Leopard for the Japanese market, the company’s cars were sold in the US under the Datsun brand, and they used Kanbans, which they called “workplates” to avoid borrowing the vocabulary of archrival “Company T from Aichi Prefecture.”

Times have changed. No one then could imagine that Nissan would ever fall under the control of a “second-rate” company like Renault, and even less that this odd couple would actually work while other seemingly better matches — like DaimlerBenz with Chrysler — would fail. And the Oppama plant soldiers on.

In this three-minute video of an 8-hour process, you catch glimpses of stamping, welding, painting, and assembly. The first thing that struck me was to see the superintendent, who was guiding the video tour, wearing a suit and tie. Perhaps it was for the camera but, in other Japanese plants I have been in, it would have been a faux-pas, as executives make a point of not standing out from shop floor operators by what they wear.

The little we see of the operations is as expected, frome the body welding robots  to the “pirate-ship” carts of parts that move along with the line in final assembly and the different types of engines lifted into the car bodies.

The plant has a densely-packed, lived-in look. It has been around for a while, and looks like a place where people make cars. By contrast, some of the newer plants in Germany like Porsche in Leipzig or Volkswagen in Dresden, look like showrooms.

And a hat tip to Dumontis for calling it Oppama Style.

See on www.youtube.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 • Blog clippings • 0 • Tags: Lean, Nissan, Nissan Production Way, Plant tours, Plant video

Feb 18 2013

Supermarket sizing

Bosch’s Taojie Hua (涛杰 华) asked the following question:

How do you define a maximum limit for a supermarket?
Especially when the customer withdraws less than planned, and the lot can not be formed as a production signal, how can I react to that “deviation” by setting a proper max limit?

The response covers the following topics:

  • Supermarkets in Lean
  • Supermarket capacity
  • Further reading

Supermarkets in Lean

First we have to clarify what we mean by a supermarket in a Lean manufacturing context. As the term has become popular, some plants have started using it for their warehouses, which is clearly excessive. Often, it is used for any kind of buffer on the shop floor, provided it is used to implement pull. I prefer to reserve the term for buffers from which users withdraw items in smaller quantities than are brought in. If pallets come in and go out, I don’t call it a supermarket, but, if 27-bin pallets come in and withdrawals take place 1 bin at a time, I do.

On a shop floor, supermarkets are found on the edges of manufacturing islands containing a group of cells or a production line and contain either incoming or outgoing materials.  A supermarket for incoming materials has more in common with the refrigerator in your kitchen than with the supermarket you buy groceries in. You need one when your plant Materials or Logistics organization is unable to deliver materials in a form that is suitable for direct use at a production work station.

Water spider at Solectron in  Mexico (2005)
Water spider at Solectron in Mexico (2005)

The supermarket is owned by Production, and more specifically by the first-line manager in charge of the cells or lines it serves. It is replenished  by  Materials or Logistics through periodic milk runs, but parts are withdrawn by experienced members of the production team — cell leaders or water spiders — and move from the supermarket to production on hand carts, gravity flow racks, or by hand. The parts arrive in the supermarkets in bins that are too large for the line side, and leave in kit trays, small bins, or single units.

You need a supermarket for outgoing materials when your production runs are multiples of the quantities needed downstream. This happens, for example, if you only know how to paint parts in batches of 50 with the same color, while assembly alternates colors one unit at a time. In outgoing supermarkets, materials are replenished by Production and withdrawn by Materials/Logistics.

Supermarket capacity

For incoming supermarkets, replenishment by milk runs is essential because it makes lead times predictable. I am assuming here that the upstream supply chain does not cause shortages. Making it work is no small feat, but this question is specifically on supermarkets. On the withdrawal side, you want to have the smoothest possible consumption rate for all items, so that you don’t have large ups and downs to contend with, which you achieve with  heijunka (平準化)  sequencing of production. Little’s Law then tell you that you have, for means:

\overline{Quantity\, on\, hand}\left ( Item \right )= \overline{Consumption\, rate}\left ( Item \right )\times \overline{Replenishment\, lead\, time}\left ( Item \right )

If you take the minimum quantity that Materials can deliver to the supermarket, on the average the Quantity on hand will be half of it. You know the Consumption Rate.  The Replenishment lead time is a multiple of the milk run pitch, plus the time needed for Materials to act on the pull signal, which depends on when the need is identified and how the signal is passed to Materials.

Assume you consume 1 unit every 25 seconds, the milk run pitch is 30 minutes, and Materials delivers in bins of 100 units. You consume 72 parts/pitch = 0.72 bins/pitch. If the milk runs are used to convey pull signals, as happens with the two-bin system or with hardcopy kanbans, replenishment may take up to 2 pitches. In this example, the 2-bin system would cause shortages, but a Kanban loop with two cards wouldn’t, because you pull the card when you withdraw the first unit from the bin and it is still 99% full. If, instead of using cards, you issue an electronic signal when you withdraw the first unit, Materials can act on it in the next milk run, meaning at most 1 pitch later. You still need room for two bins, because the current bin will still hold at least 28 parts when the replacement bin arrives.

In this example, the mismatch between the size of the delivered bins and the consumption rate forces you to hold enough excess material that you don’t need to worry about safety stocks. If it were instead perfectly matched, you could receive a bin of 72 parts like clockwork every 30 minutes, except that fluctuations in consumption occasionally would cause shortages, and you would need some safety stock to protect yourself against it.  Coming up with a sensible plan for any one item in your supermarket is not a major task, but you need such a plan for every item.

The speed with which signals circulate adjusts itself with fluctuations in consumption. The real question is whether your “customer withdrawing less than planned” should be treated as a fluctuation or a permanent drop. In the first case, there is no action required; in the second, you need to recalculate.  In any case, you need to periodically validate the parameters of your pull system to make sure they still reflect reality. In auto parts, it should be done at least quarterly.

Further reading

For details on pull systems, see Lean Logistics, Part IV, pp. 197-330. See also the two posts on Safety Stocks: Beware of Formulas and Safety Stocks: More about the formula.

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: Heijunka, Kanban, Lean, Milk run, Safety Stock, Supermarket

«< 103 104 105 106 107 >»

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