Jul 9 2012
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Update on the show case of Boeing’s Lean program.
Eric Lindblad, vice president of 737 manufacturing operations, is tackling the challenge of making everything fit…
See on kpbj.com
Jul 6 2012
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
From the article:
“For all VW’s success, it is rare to hear people outside the firm praising the “Volkswagen Way” as they once lauded the “Toyota Production System”. VW has ignored Toyota’s obsession with the production line, says Mr Warburton, and concentrated on saving costs through parts-sharing between models. It has managed to preserve a culture of permanent innovation and a willingness to take risks. If there is a Volkswagen Way, it is to be determined, diligent and attentive to detail, with a glint of ruthlessness.”
See on www.economist.com
Jul 5 2012
Franck Vermet‘s group at Schlumberger in Rosharon, TX, assembles and tests measurement instruments that operate deep inside oil wells. They are built for internal use by Schlumberger Oilfield Services, to collect data for customers. They are high-value products, with tight tolerances and the ability to operate in an environment that is not friendly to electronics.
With Mark Warren‘s help, Vermet’s group has been looking to TWI as a way to rely less on knowledge in the heads of experienced operators and more on documented processes for the following purposes:
In World War II, however, TWI was implemented with cardboard pocket cards and handwritten Job Breakdown sheets, but the Schlumberger team was determined to use more modern technology. After investigating the available options, they realized the following:
Implementation is still in its early days, but all indications from users are that it works. It should be noted also that the approach is sound from the point of view of data management. Unlike the proliferation of Excel spreadsheets that is so often seen in factories, with more or less accurate and up-to-date copies of master data floating around, this approach provides the necessary controls, with the current data retrieved from the server as needed.
As could be expected, the Schlumberger team is facing headwinds from two directions:
The Schlumberger team is now training suppliers in these tools with the goal of getting them to inspect outgoing parts in such a way that incoming inspection at Schlumberger can be eliminated.
Jul 5 2012
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Includes good case studies, but oversells Kaizen (*** rating on Amazon)
Masaaki Imai is the grand old man who brought the words Kaizen and Gemba into the English language. I did, at some point, work for his company, and was exposed to his ideas then.
Gemba Kaizen has two parts. The first half is a general theory; the second, a series of case studies. Imai’s perspective is that Kaizen is the umbrella concept encompassing all efforts to improve not just factories but all businesses. In his view, TQC/TQM, the Toyota Production System, TPM, Hoshin planning, suggestion systems and small-group activities are all “Kaizen Systems.” It is understandable on Imai’s part, because he first made his mark with a book called Kaizen in the 1980s and called his consulting firm the “Kaizen Institute.”
It is, however, a stretch to make Lean or the Toyota Production System just a “Kaizen System.” Instead, Kaizen is part of what you need to do to implement Lean, but you could not achieve Lean with just Kaizen. Kaizen is continuous, incremental improvements made by those who do the work, and is as necessary as Imai says it is, but it is by no means sufficient, as Lean requires radical changes as well.
The theoretical part contains some valuable information but also overenthusiastic statements such as that the Gemba is the only source of information. Just because the Gemba is too often ignored doesn’t mean that the company’s information systems are useless. They also contain valuable information about customer orders, product configurations, or production history that cannot be inferred just by observing the shop floor.
As is common,the case studies are the most informative part of the book, but they do not necessarily support the premise that the Kaizen concept is central to all improvement. For example, the Production Preparation Process (3P) that is the subject of one of the cases has nothing to do with Kaizen. Some of the stories are also incomplete. The Wiremold case is described through an interview with former CEO Art Byrne, ending with the acquisition of the company by Legrand in 2000. While the post-acquisition epilogue doesn’t make the case for Kaizen, the reader might be interested to know that the new owners sank the company in the following years by reversing what Art Byrne and his team had done.
In conclusion, while I disagree with many of Imai’s ideas, I like to know what they are, and this book serves this purpose.
See on www.amazon.com
Jul 5 2012
This is from a blog post published today that claims to clarify what a takt time is:
Takt Time: This is the rate of time at which a product or service is being purchased. For example, a Nissan commercial mentioned that every minute, someone in the world buys a new Nissan. Selling a car every minute is an excellent example of takt time!
Writing a definition for a thing or an idea is tricky. Following Aristotle, I would say that you have done a good job if you have described what kind of a thing it is and how it differs from other things of the same kind, using terms your reader already understands.
In this definition, takt time is described as a “rate of time.” If there were such a thing as a rate of time, in what units would it be expressed? In production, a rate is expressed, for example, in pieces per hour; a time, in minutes or seconds. Takt Time, as its name suggests is a time, not a rate, and certainly not a rate of time, whatever that may be.
This definition then relates takt time exclusively to “a product or service [..] being purchased,” and gives the example of a Nissan being bought every minute in the world, suggesting that 1 minute is the takt time of a Nissan. Incidentally, if this figure were true, Nissan would sell about 500,000 cars/year, versus the 4 million it actually sells.
Takt time, as we use it in manufacturing and industrial engineering, is in fact not a parameter associated with just a product but with a production line making this product. Given the demand that is given to it and the amount of time that it actually works, the takt time of this production line for this product is the time that must elapse between two consecutive unit completions.
If a line is expected to produce 400 units of a product in a 400-minute shift, then, if you stand by the last station of the line, you will see one unit come out every minute, meaning that its takt time is 1 minute. If you switch from working 1 shift/day to 2 to meet the same demand, you double the takt time to 2 minutes.
This is why it is calculated as follows:
It has a numerator and a denominator, and both matter. They are obviously calculated for the same time period.
Jul 9 2012
What are standards for?
Avoiding unnecessary standards
Unnecessary or counterproductive standards
Necessary standards
Corporate Lean groups and standards
Instead of trying to develop and enforce a standard, one-size-fits-all methodology for all of a company’s plants — whose processes may range from metal foundry to final assembly — the corporate Lean group should instead focus on providing resources to help the plant teams develop their skills and learn from each other, but that is a different discussion.
Process for improving standards
When a production supervisor notices that an operator is not following the standard, it may mean that the operator needs to be coached, but it may also mean that the operator has found a better method that should be made the standard. But how do you make this kind of local initiative possible without jeopardizing the consistency of your process? The allowed scope for changes must be clear, and there must be a sign-off procedure in place to make them take effect.
Management policies
I remember an auto parts plant in Mexico that had dedicated lines for each customer. Some of the customers demanded to approve any change to their production lines, even if it involved only moving two machines closer, but other customers left the auto parts maker free to rearrange their lines as they saw fit as long as the did not change what the machines did to the parts. Needless to say, these customers’ lines saw more improvement activity than the others.
In this case, the production teams could move the torque wrench closer to its point of use but they could not replace it with an ordinary ratchet and a homemade cheater bar. The boundary between what can be changed autonomously and what cannot is less clear in other contexts. In milling a part, for example, changing the sequence of cuts to reduce the tool’s air cutting time can be viewed a not changing the process but, if we are talking about deep cuts in an aerospace forging, stresses and warpage can be affected by cut sequencing.
If a production supervisor has the authority to make layout or work station design changes in his or her area of responsibility, it still must be done with the operators, and there are several support groups that must be consulted or informed. Safety has to bless it; Maintenance, to make sure that technicians still have the required access to equipment; Materials, to know where to deliver parts if that has changed. Even in the most flexible organizations, there has to be a minimum of formality in the implementation of changes. And it is more complex if the same product is made in more than one plant. In the best cases, when little or no investment is required, the changes are implemented first, by teams that include representations from all the stakeholders, and ratified later. We can move equipment on the basis of chalk marks on the floor, but, soon afterwards, the Facilities department must have up-to-date layouts.
The more authority is given to the local process owners, the easier it is to implement improvements, but also the more responsibility upper managers assume for decisions they didn’t make. The appropriate level of delegation varies as Lean implementation progresses. It starts with a few, closely monitored pilot projects; as the organization matures and develops more skills, the number of improvement projects explodes, and the local managers develop the capability to conduct them autonomously. At any time, for the upper managers, it is a question of which decisions pass the “sleep-at-night” test: what changes can they empower subordinates to make on their own and still sleep at night?
Generating effective standards
If there is a proven method today to document manufacturing processes in such a way that they are actually executed as specified, it is Training Within Industry (TWI). The story of TWI is beginning to be well-known. After being effective in World War II in the US, it was abandoned along with many wartime innovations in Manufacturing, but lived on at Toyota for the following 50 years before Toyota alumni like John Shook revived it in the US.
There are, however, two limitations to TWI, as originally developed:
Revision management
The developers of TWI may simply have viewed revision management as a secondary, low-level clerical issue, and it may have been in their day. The pace of engineering changes and new product introduction, however, has picked up since then. In addition, in a Lean environment, changes in takt time every few months require you to regenerate Yamazumi and Work Combination charts, while Kaizen activity, in full swing, results in improvements made to thousands of operations at least every six months for each.
In many manufacturing organizations, the management of product and process documentation is slow, cumbersome, and error-prone, particularly when done manually. Today, Product Documentation Management (PDM) is a segment of the software industry addressing these issues. It is technically possible to keep all the standards, with their revision history, in a database and retrieve them as needed. The growth of PDM has not been driven by demands from the shop floor but by external mandates like the ISO-900x standards, but, whatever the reasons may be, these capabilities are today available to any manufacturing organization that chooses to use them.
Using software makes the flow of change requests more visible, eliminates the handling delays and losses associated with paper documents, allows multiple reviewers to work concurrently, but it does not solve the problem of the large number of changes that need to be reviewed, decided upon, and implemented.
This is a matter of management policies, to cover the following:
Templates
In principle, revision management can be applied to any document. In practice, it helps if the documents have a common structure. If they cover the same topics, and the data about each topic is always in the same place, then each reviewer can immediately find the items of interest. This means using templates, but also walking the fine line to avoid turning into DeMarco’s template zombies.
If you ask a committee of future reviewers to design an A3 form for project charters, it will be a collection of questions they would like answered. Accountants, for example, would like to quantify the financial benefits of projects before they even start, and Quality Assurance would like to know what reduction in defective rates to expect… Shop floor teams can struggle for days trying to answer questions for which they have no data yet, or that are put in a language with acronyms and abbreviations like IRR or DPMO that they don’t understand. More often than not, they end up filling out the forms with text that is unresponsive to the questions.
The teams and project leaders should only be asked to answer questions that they realistically can, such as:
The same thinking applies to work instructions. It takes a special talent to design them and fill them out so that they are concise but sufficiently detailed where it matters, and understood by the human beings whose activities they are supposed to direct.
Display
It is also possible to display all instructions on the shop floor in electronic form. The key questions are whether it actually does the job better and whether it is cheaper. In the auto parts industry, instructions are usually posted in hardcopy; in computer assembly, they are displayed on screens. One might think that the computer industry is doing it to use what it sells, but there is a more compelling reason: while the auto parts industry will make the same product for four years or more, 90% of what the computer industry assembles is for products introduced within the past 12 months. While the auto parts industry many not justify the cost of placing monitors over each assembly station, what computer assemblers cannot afford is the cost and error rate of having people constantly post new hardcopy instructions.
In the auto industry, to provide quick and consistent initial training and for new product introduction in its worldwide, multilingual plants, Toyota has created a Global Production Center, which uses video and animation to teach. To this day, however, I do not believe that Toyota uses screens to post work instructions on the shop floor. In the assembly of downhole measurement instruments for oilfield services, Schlumberger in Rosharon, TX, is pioneering the use of iPads to display work instructions.
Share this:
Like this:
By Michel Baudin • Management 16 • Tags: Information systems, Information technology, Kaizen, Lean implementation, Quality, Standards, Training Within Industry, TWI