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 • 10 • Tags:

Aug 1 2018

The BOM Rap

Why bother with a yawn-inducing topic like bills of materials (BOMs)? Bring it up with manufacturing professionals and their eyes glaze over instantly. And the Lean literature is mute on the subject. I even asked Michael Ballé for his input on the subject and he responded that he had none to offer.

Yet everyone involved with assembly agrees that BOMs are at the core of their activity, that BOMs have chronic accuracy issues, that the workarounds to these inaccuracies impair the companies’ ability to update and customize products, and that BOM maintenance hogs resources. Perhaps it’s worth giving the subject some thought and having a conversation about it.

Continue reading…

By • Information Technology • 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: , , ,

Jul 23 2018

What is the science in Lean? | Jeffrey Liker | The Leadership Network

“Scientific thinking can be defined as the intentional coordination of theory and evidence, whereby we encounter new information, interpret it and, if warranted, revise our understanding accordingly. In fact, we learn the most when we explicitly state what we expect and compare it to what actually happens. […] This is where practicing PDCA comes in, and Toyota’s view on being scientific.[…] Just explaining the concept of PDCA is not enough to change behavior and mindset, and there are not many master teachers like Ohno to go around — who have an intuitive feel for what to ask next to push the right buttons to help the student learn through practice. This is the reason for the Improvement Kata and Coaching Kata — to have a structured approach to learning and teaching scientific thinking so it can be deliberately practiced by anyone..”

Source: The Leadership Network

Michel Baudin‘s comments: Is there science to Lean, TPS, or, more generally, manufacturing? There is definitely technology and there is management. Technology is about getting inanimate objects to do what we want them to; management, about working with people. Science is not about getting anything done but about understanding how nature works.

Continue reading…

By • Blog clippings • 2 • Tags: , ,

Jul 6 2018

A Rose By Any Other Name,… Don’t Even Try!

Whether you name a company, a product, a machine, a person, a role,… or serialize units in production, you create a key to which information about an entity can be attached and through which it can be retrieved. When you do it, you should think through the different ways the name will be used and, once you have made your choice, stick with it.

These are obvious principles, but not always respected in manufacturing organizations.  It hadn’t occurred to me to post about this until I saw, in yesterday’s New York Times, an unintelligible tennis women champions’ board from Wimbledon, from photographer Duncan Grove,  with annotations  to decrypt it:

The simple, straightforward choice would have been to designate these winners by the full names under which they were referenced in the media and list multiple winners under the same name for all wins. The board maintainers at Wimbledon could also have asked the honorees what they wanted to be called. Their marital status is irrelevant and, if married, so are their obscure husbands’ last names and initials, particularly for the women who won both before and after marriage, or had several spouses. The key takeaway: when naming, forget obsolete traditions.

#Nomenclature

By • Press clippings • 0 • Tags:

Jul 5 2018

Managers Should Rethink Rational Decision-Making | Michael Ballé | McGrawHill BusinessBlog

“Managing is making decisions, right? Managing well is making rational decisions – or so we’re told. We’re so steeped in a culture of “rationality” that we’re no more aware of it than a goldfish is aware of the water in the bowl. Yet rationality is a made-up thing, a construct, invented in Germany in the XIXth (as opposed to “reason” or being reasonable, which has been around for a much longer time and is much harder to define). Rationality implies that our actions are in line with the outcomes we seek – the reasons for these actions – premised on the idea that our beliefs are in line with our reasons to believe….”

Source:  McGraw-Hill Education Business Blog

Max Weber

Michel Baudin‘s comments: The title of the article appears to promote irrational decision making, which should be a hard sell. Michael Ballé seems to know what a goldfish is aware of, and I wonder how. According to Etymology OnLine, “rationality” actually is a 17th-century French word and, to this day, means the quality of being based on reason, not of being “aligned with a goal.” The German connection, perhaps, is Max Weber who described goal alignment as one of two subcategories of rationality in social behaviors (“Zweckrationalität”) in Economy and Society, a book published in 1922, after his death — that is, in the 20th century, not the 19th.

Kaoru Ishikawa

If you are a Lean expert, no one expects you to discuss German philosophy. If, however, you choose to go there, it helps if you start with a paragraph that withstands a 5-min fact check on Google. For an analysis of management decision making, I prefer to start with what Kaoru Ishikawa said in his book on TQC.

Continue reading…

By • Blog clippings • 3 • Tags: ,

«< 19 20 21 22 23 >»