Dec 21 2011
Cellular manufacturing at Loral Space
Via Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Loral uses cells to improve productivity in making satellites.
Via www.industryweek.com
The pursuit of concurrent improvement in all dimensions of manufacturing performance through projects involving both the production floor and support services.
Dec 21 2011
Via Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Loral uses cells to improve productivity in making satellites.
Via www.industryweek.com
By Michel Baudin • Press clippings • 0 • Tags: Cellular manufacturing, Lean manufacturing
Dec 20 2011
Via Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Thoughts about change agents from Lonnie Wilson: Change agents must be different enough to change the status quo but credible enough to connect and engage those in management and in the workforce who need to change.
Via www.industryweek.com
By Michel Baudin • Press clippings • 0 • Tags: Lean, Lean manufacturing, Management
Dec 16 2011
Discussions of Lean often contain statements like the following:
In a lean manufacturing environment, waste is defined as spending resources on any activity that does not add value to the end customer.
While such statements sound deep in casual conversation, they are impractical. First, not having access to end customers, most employees are left to guess what they might value, and second, much of the work of manufacturing is unintelligible to end customers, like revision control on engineering changes. Everyone recognizes the existence of such activities, but the above definition of waste leads to calling them “non-value added but necessary” or, even worse, “necessary waste.”
Having to resort to such convoluted oxymorons is a clear sign that there is something amiss in the definition. The English literature on Lean uses “waste” as translation of the Japanese “muda,” which just means unnecessary. If an activity is muda, you are better off not doing it. Overproduction is muda because you don’t need it, and so are excess inventory, overprocessing, etc.
More formally, if you eliminate muda, your performance does not degrade in any way. It also means that muda is what keeps your operations from being Pareto-efficient, because, if you didn’t have any muda, there would be no way to improve any aspect of your performance without making others worse.
The bottom line is that there are only two kinds of activities in manufacturing: those you need to do and those you don’t. And you can tell them apart without asking an end customer, by using, for example, Ohno’s famous list of 7 categories.
In what you need to do, you pursue effectiveness and efficiency; for what you don’t, elimination. It is a simple idea. It gets complicated enough when we work out its practical consequences. But we don’t need to make it unnecessarily complicated.
By Michel Baudin • Management • 0 • Tags: Lean, Lean manufacturing, Management
Dec 15 2011
The following is lifted from the quarterly report of a public company and is attributed to the CEO:
We experienced a temporary increase in backorders at the close of the first quarter as we rebalanced inventories as part of our lean manufacturing initiatives. […] We also implemented a new ERP system during the quarter that will enhance our real-time information for inventory levels, shipments, sales information and production costs.
It seems that the leaders of their Lean Manufacturing initiatives forgot one key principle: First, do no harm! A professionally planned and executed Lean Manufacturing initiative enhances performance. It does not decrease it, even in the beginning and even for the short term.
It is essential for the long-term success of the initiative that its first pilot projects be unquestionable, rapid, obvious successes, and projects that lengthen order fulfillment lead times do not qualify. Nothing should ever take priority over delivering to customers, even Lean.
Furthermore, implementing a new ERP system before you are far enough along in Lean is a generally ineffective for two reasons:
By Michel Baudin • Management • 14 • Tags: Lean manufacturing, Management
Dec 13 2011
Via Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Motorola Mobility is being taken over by Google, and the article is from October, 2011. It includes links to videos. In the first one, Ashton Kutcher tries to figure out Six Sigma. Based on how youthful he looks, it must at least 15 years old. The others are introductions to “Six Sigma,” that discuss nothing but the obsolete, 80-year-old tools of SPC: histograms, control charts, etc. The impresssion you get from the article is of Six Sigma as warmed up SPC sprinkled with a smidgeon of Lean. This is not the perception I had of the program.
Via www.supplychaindigital.com
By Michel Baudin • Press clippings • 0 • Tags: Lean manufacturing, Quality, Six Sigma
Dec 22 2011
The Lean Body of Knowledge
Efforts at implementing Lean have become pervasive in manufacturing, branching out from the automotive industry to electronics, aerospace, and even food and cosmetics, not to mention efforts to adapt it to construction, health care, or services. As a consequence, the knowledge of Lean, proficiency in its tools, and skills in its implementation are highly marketable in many industries.
There is, however, no consensus on a body of knowledge (BOK) for education in the field, and my review of existing BOKs and university courses confirms it. A consensus is elusive because Lean emerged as the accumulation of point solutions developed at Toyota over time, rather than as the implementation of a coherent strategy.
As Takahiro Fujimoto explains, there was no individual thinker whose theories started the company down this path. Decades later, we are left with the task of reverse-engineering underlying principles from actual plant practices. Those who have attempted it produced inconsistent results because they have gone at it like the six blind men with the elephant: their personal backgrounds, mostly in business school education, management, or even psychology allowed them to see different slivers of the Toyota system but not the whole, giving, in particular, short shrift to its engineering dimension.
In the following paragraphs, first I explain what I think the Lean BOK should be. Then I review five programs offered in the US by universities and professional societies and highlight where they differ.
My view of the Lean BOK
A well-rounded program for manufacturing professionals would provide Lean skills to all the professionals involved in designing and operating manufacturing plants. Organizations that are successful at Lean do not rely on one department to “do Lean” for everybody else. Instead, Lean is part of everybody’s job. There are basics that everybody needs to know, and then there are different subsets of skills that are useful depending on where you work in the plant.
Beyond the common background, the knowledge should be organized around functions performed by people. In this way of thinking, Visual Management, for example, would not be a stand-alone subject, because factories don’t have “visibility managers.” On the other hand, plants have assembly lines, machining or fabrication shops, shipping and receiving departments all in need of visual management. As a consequence, visual management is part of the training of professionals in assembly, machining, fabrication, logistics, quality, maintenance, etc. And each one only needs to know visual management as it is relevant to his or her position.
Over time, Lean should migrate into the mainstream of manufacturing and industrial engineering, and lose its separate identity, both in industrial practice and in engineering and management education. This has been the fate of successful innovations in manufacturing in the past. For example, the “American system of manufacture” to which we owe interchangeable parts is now only a subject for historians. It is not the object of a standard or certification, and nobody explicitly undertakes to implement it. That is because its components — engineering drawings, tolerances, allowances, routings, special-purpose machines, etc. — have all become an integral part of how we make things. Likewise, in Japan, TQC is no longer a topic, as its most useful components have just fused into the manufacturing culture 30 years ago. This is what must happen to Lean in the next 30 years.
Lean proficiency should be built around manufacturing functions, not Lean tools. From foundation to superstructure, we see the following hierarchy — originally defined by Crispin Vincenti-Brown — and structure the body of knowledge accordingly:
A hypothetical participant who would master all of the above would understand both the philosophy and the tools of Lean, their range of applicability, and their implementation methods. He or she would possess the following skills:
This BOK is dauntingly large, and new wrinkles are added daily. Fortunately, you don’t need to master all of it in order to be effective.
Review of existing BOKs
I took a look at a few of the existing training programs offered by various institution, for the purpose of identifying the underlying BOKs. Table 1 shows the list. My comments follow.
The University of Kentucky program
The University of Kentucky’s program includes Core Courses — a train-the-trainer program — and Specialty Courses — for professionals outside of production operations. Some but not all the specialty courses are targeted at functions within the organization but others are about tools. Just the core courses add up to three one-week training sessions, while each specialty course is typically a one- or two-day workshop.
From the University’s web site, however, I cannot tell when, or if, participants ever learn how to design a machining cell, or an assembly line, or how to reduce setup times. In the core courses, it’s great to talk about mindsets, culture, and transformational leadership, but where is the engineering red meat?
The specialty courses address planning, improvement methods, logistics, supplier development, and other unquestionably important topics, but offer nothing about manufacturing or industrial engineering.
The University of Michigan program
The University of Michigan has a program of two one-week sessions with three-week gaps between sessions. This program does cover cell design, materials handling and factory layout, and even rapid plant assessment, that are certainly relevant engineering topics, but I didn’t see anything about the design of lines that are not cells, autonomation, or the Lean approach to quality. There is a module about integrating Six Sigma with Lean, but there is a lot to Lean Quality that has nothing to do with Six Sigma, such as mistake-proofing.
There is also some coverage of logistics, organization, and accountability, but not as much as in the University of Kentucky program.
The SME
The SME has published a document entitled Lean Certification Body of Knowledge, in which the major headers are:
Organization and People issues are treated in 1. and 3. The first two line items under Cultural Enablers are “Respect for the individual” and “Humility.” I am not sure how you can teach this or test for it, particularly humility. It is followed by techniques that have to do with implementation. The topics in 3. have more to do with management once Lean is started, but it doesn’t say it in so many words.
All Engineering and Logistics is lumped under Continuous Improvement, which is clearly a misnomer because many of the Lean techniques in these areas are radical innovations that have nothing to do with continuous improvement. Inside this section, the choice of topics and their structure is surprising. For example, the only method of data collection considered is the check sheet, and it ranks as high in the hierarchy of topics as poka-yoke or one-piece flow.
As the name suggests, Business Results covers metrics and accountability.
The weight of the different areas varies with the level of certification. At the Bronze level, for example, Continuous Improvement counts for 60%; at the Gold level, only for 15%.
The University of Dayton
I have ties with this institution from having taught courses there for many years, and I am still listed among their Experts. But I am not involved with their GetLean Certification program. It is an 8 to 10-day curriculum with a core of 5 days on the following topics:
The choice of topics may seem odd. For example, you might wonder what Fundamentals of Negotiation is doing in a Lean training program, or why Root Cause Analysis only appears under Human Error Reduction. What about root cause analysis of process capability problems?
Auburn University
Of all the Lean programs reviewed here, Auburn University’s probably has the deepest roots, through the influence of JT Black, whose passion for Lean goes back to the late 1970s.
The list of subjects they cover is as follows:
If anything, this program has too much of the red meat that is lacking in some of the others. It could, without harm, emphasize Logistics and Management a bit more.
Conclusion: no consensus
Even when considering the programs solely on the basis of their published syllabi, it is clear that their graduates will have received vastly different instruction, and that the designers of these programs have no common view of what the Lean Body of Knowledge is.
Share this:
Like this:
By Michel Baudin • Management • 12 • Tags: Lean, Lean manufacturing, Management, Strategy, Takahiro Fujimoto