Lean

Jan 15 2014

The “Making Things in Japan Tour” — April 20-26, 2014

You may have noticed a new widget on our sidebar, which links to a site about this tour and registration through Eventbrite. Brad Schmidt and I are organizing this together, and I am thrilled to be working with him again.

Why go to Japan to visit plants in 2014? Until the 1970s, Japanese manufacturing got no respect. When I headed there as an engineering graduate in 1977, a classmate of mine called this move “career suicide.” Whatever competitive success Japanese companies had achieved by then was chalked up to long hours and low wages, much the way China is perceived today.

Then came the 1980s and the discovery that there was more to it — that should be looked into and studied — coupled with fear that “Japan, Inc.” was going to take over the world. The two-decade recession that hit Japan in the early 1990s put a quick end to the paranoia and, more slowly, dampened the enthusiasm for so-called “Japanese methods” in manufacturing and management.

The renewed neglect of Japan today, however, is no more rational than was the exuberance of the 1980s. Japan today has a highly trained but aging and expensive work force, and is facing the same challenges as other advanced economies. And it still has the most advanced, most productive, manufacturing plants in the world, with the best quality. It is still the go-to place for manufacturing excellence, where the art of making things (Monozukuri, 物作り) is valued and honored both in companies and in society at large. 

For those who don’t know him, Brad Schmidt is a South African raised in Japan, a graduate of Japanese schools,  and perfectly bilingual. With 128 tours in 15 years under his belt and counting, he is a pro. Few people have seen the inside of more Japanese factories than him, and he has the logistics of tours worked out, from airport pickups to  interpreters, transportation and lodging. That leaves me with the easy part: promoting this tour in tour in the US and then going on it to help answer participants’ questions  and facilitate site reviews.

By • 0 • Tags: ,

Dec 28 2013

Manufacturing is Making Things — Service isn’t

With services being the dominant source of employment in advanced economies, more and more consultants are turning to this area as the next frontier for Lean, and engaging in debates as to which of Manufacturing or Service has the greatest variability. The level of variability, however, does not strike me as the fundamental difference between the two.

It is more obvious: Manufacturing is about making things, while Service is not. In manufacturing, a physical object is the output. In service, if there is a physical output, it is only an information support, a licence, a boarding pass, a stamped form, a prescription, or a report.

High volume/Low mix and Low volume/High mix activities exist on both sides. In manufacturing, you have plants making 1 million identical electricity meters per year while others make 200 custom-designed machines and fixtures. In service, you have organizations that issue drivers’ licences all day, every day, and others that provide advice on interior design that is custom for each home and occupant.

Manufacturing needs the appropriate technology and management to make things, including expensive facilities, often with large, noisy, dirty, and even dangerous machines, and a  support structure for logistics, maintenance, quality, etc.  It attracts some people and not others, and the experience of working together in production creates a level of camaraderie that is rarely found in service… I could go on and on.

The consequence is that improving Service is a different challenge from improving Manufacturing. I never bought the notion that a system like TPS, developed to make cars, could be a panacea for all business activities, and this is why I remained focused on Manufacturing.

Whether Lean is an expanded or watered down version of TPS, I consider that it has to prove itself in every new domain, even in Manufacturing. In Service, it seems to help in hospital operations, and the crossover value of industrial engineering in this field has been established since Frank Gilbreth redesigned  operating room procedures 100 years ago.

Would it help in the organization of distribution centers for eCommerce? Perhaps, but it is not a foregone conclusion. Does Amazon use Lean? The closest I could find to a positive answer is one sentence by Jeff Bezos in an Harvard Business Review interview quoted by Pete Abilla on Shmula:

“I literally learned a bunch of techniques, like Six Sigma and lean manufacturing and other incredibly useful approaches.”

Amazon fulfillment center shown on Shmula
Amazon fulfillment center shown on Shmula

Unlike other Shmula readers, I can’t jump from this to the conclusion that Amazon are based on Six Sigma or Lean. Instead, what I hear Bezos saying is “We studied what’s out there, and went our own way.” And that way is a game changer in retail worldwide, worthy of study in its own right.

By • 6 • Tags: , ,

Dec 26 2013

What’s eating John Seddon?

I want you to cheatBack in 1992, Seddon published “I want you to cheat,” as a distillation of then seven years of consulting experience with service organizations in Britain. It contains some general principles, supported by examples. It is quite readable, and contains no personal attacks on anyone. While “I want you to cheat” does not reference any giant on whose shoulder the author sits, more recent publications from Seddon repeatedly acknowledge Deming and Ohno.

It was his comment that “This respect for people stuff is horseshit” at a conference in Iceland in 2012 that drew my attention to his work. While certainly aggressive, it was not a personal attack. The latest kerfuffle is about the following statements in his 11/2013 newsletter:

“Every time I have been to the jamboree they have had an American lean guru spouting nonsense and this is no exception. This time it’s the guru who claims lean fails because it is what he calls ‘fake lean’ and his lean is the way to go! His ‘real lean’ starts with ‘respect for people’. I can imagine ‘respect for people’ events and tee-shirts (he sells tee shirts) while there is no change to the system conditions that drive misery and other forms of sub-optimisation. Only in America; the home of the terrible diseases.

What would you call a profound idea in this guru’s head? A tourist!”

bob emiliani
Bob Emiliani

The target of this attack, although unnamed, recognized himself. It’s Bob Emiliani, and he posted a response on his blog, entitled Kudos to John Seddon.  Bill Waddell then chimed in with John Seddon – Where Ignorance and Arrogance Collide. To Bob, Seddon is like a student who did not understand the concept of “respect for people,” while Bill dismisses Seddon as a blowhard from a backward little country who has failed to understand the depth and the subtlety of the US version of Lean.

Bill Waddelll
Bill Waddell

There is a good reason while the etiquette of on-line discussion groups forbids personal attacks: they cause discussions to degenerate into trash talk and name calling. It may be briefly entertaining, but quickly turns off readers who don’t have a dog in these fights and just want to information. Besides insulting Bob Emiliani, Seddon has steamed up patriot Bill Waddell with derogatory comments about America. You reap what you sow.

I have, however, heard comments that were as strident as Seddon’s from other consultants, from Japan. They were equally dismissive of US Lean, of American management in general, and even the country as a whole. This was usually, but not always, in private communications rather than in publications. These “insultants,” however, often got away with it, with audiences looking past the invective for useful ideas, and I think it is the appropriate response. Ignore the rant and engage on substance. If some is offered, you will be better off for it.

It is also worth pondering why people feel compelled to act this way. For John Seddon, I don’t know; I am not privy to his thoughts, but I can guess. We should remember that, in the market of ideas, we in the US have a worldwide home court advantage. Ideas command more attention and are more credible simply because of the “Made in America” label.

Lean is the most ironic example. The Toyota Production System did not come out of the US, yet the worldwide internet chatter and consulting business about it is dominated by a US version known as “Lean,” which is as faithful to the original as Disney’s Aladdin and The Hunchback of Notre Dame are to Arabian Nights and Victor Hugo’s novel. Borrowing, metabolizing and even distorting ideas from other cultures is done everywhere, and is to be expected; what is special about the US is that the American version radiates back to the world and overwhelms the original.

Last year, the Olympics opening ceremony in London reminded the world where the industrial revolution began. For more than a century, the world looked to Britain as a model for politics, economics, and manufacturing, but these days are gone, and for an idea to come from Britain is now a handicap rather than a credibility enhancer.

John Seddon happens to be British. For 28 years, he has been making a living as a consultant to service organizations in the public and private sector and, as anyone with this kind of experience would, he has developed an approach to doing it. We may or may not agree with it, but it deserves a respectful hearing. What I read into Seddon’s current stridency is that he has not been getting it. I think he is turning up the volume to prevent his voice being drowned out in the Lean tsunami coming out of the US.

Seddon dismisses Lean consultants as “tool heads.” I like tools. I use tools all the time, both in private and professional life. But I don’t use them indiscriminately. Following are three questions about a tool, that I would not ask about a hammer or a phone, but would about, say, Kanban or SMED:

1.    Who invented this tool?
2.    What problem was he/she trying to solve?
3.    Do I have that problem?

They strike me as a reasonable way to decide whether to apply it or not. And where did I find these questions? On John Seddon’s website. I think I will use them with clients.

 

By • , 8 • Tags: , , , , , ,

Dec 23 2013

Pinnacle Misses the Mark with Lean Manufacturing | Gunther W. Anderson | Iowa Labor News

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing

“…There is a difference between lean manufacturing and just plain cutting corners. Pinnacle is attempting to achieve a similar end result (increased profits and productivity) without investing the time, effort, and resources necessary to achieve those results through true lean manufacturing practices, and they are doing so at the expense of their workforce…”

Michel Baudin‘s comments:

This union member’s criticism of his company’s implementation of Lean is remarkable for being so constructive. He does not dismiss Lean Manufacturing as just another ploy by management to squeeze more out the workers.

Instead, he blames his company’s management for being Lean in name only. He quotes Mike Thelen and David Meier on what Lean is supposed to be, and contrasts it with what the company actually does.

Not having heard management’s side of the story, I have no idea of the extent to which his points are valid. The tone of the article, however, shows the author as a thinking man who wants to improve the way he works, exactly the kind of people you want around when genuinely implementing Lean.

See on iowalabornews.com

By • 3 • Tags: , , ,

Dec 18 2013

Rewarding Employees — but how? | Bodo Wiegand’s Watch

Bodo WiegandBodo Wiegand heads the Lean Management Institute, which is the German affiliate of the Lean Enterprise Institute. I just received the latest issue of his newsletter, Wiegand’s Watch, about various means of rewarding employees. I don’t necessarily agree with all his recommendations, and would like to point out a few key points:

  1. The way symbolic rewards are perceived varies with the national culture. For example, handing out plaques at all-hands meetings works in the US but can backfire in France. Symbolic rewards work, but you have to be sensitive about which ones are appropriate in your context. Wiegand’s context is Germany.
  2. When granting tangible awards, you need to consider the long-term effects on behavior, and particularly on the willingness of people to work as teams. You have to think through how a particular scheme will play out, and be on the lookout for unintended consequences.
  3. The basis for granting awards must not be a spike in performance that could be due to luck. It must be a permanent improvement due to  clear, specific and identifiable actions.

Wiegand also discusses travel awards. While it may not be perceived as a reward per se, I believe in sending members of successful Kaizen teams on factory visits. Their eyes have been trained by the Kaizen work, and, as a result, they learn more from these visits than others without this experience. As this is business travel, it does not involve significant others.

The following is a full translation from German of Bodo Wiegands’s  last newsletter,  :

Again and again, I am asked: “What do we do with our suggestion authors? ” or “Should we reward the Lean team? ”

Well, I personally don’t think much of spending money on Lean. I think  identifying and eliminating  waste is the responsibility of each individual and of the teams that work together. On the other hand, incentives can be a strong motivating factor for humans. Why give them up? But  money only has a short -term effect.

For everyone, visible signs of recognition have a much greater effect. It starts with the information board in the entrance , in front of which everybody passes. There, for each team you can show audit smilies or audit results. or the number of  improvement ideas implemented. Sometimes, you see this. But why not use, for example, parking spaces as rewards?

How does that work?

The parking lot is visible to all, and therefore well suited to show awards and recognition . In the parking lot, you can make success visible, in the form of a reserved space next to the General Manager and the name on a small sign — it works.

Travel awards also work – but not as well.

If you award a trip, it should be to the whole team and involve their relevant others . If it is only among the colleagues , it is taken rather badly with the family. But a trip together together with your partner, with sufficient separation from the other team members , will be perceived as an outstanding reward and rated as positive. This , of course, builds up  the pressure  to get it again .

Car rewards can also be a highly effective , but only among employees who have company cars. For this you only need to amend the rules for granting company cars:

  • Each company car has a  plate showing the type of engine. This you should not do without .
  • Each company car is grante to anemployee for only 1 year and then re-assigned based pm performance and goal achievement.

The best gets the biggest motor , the second and third best the somewhat smaller and the rest of the “normal” engine for the car class.

Believe me, it will be noticed, not only at work but also at home by the partner and children. And the downgrade to a smaller engine  will also be noticed by the neighbors .

In one company, we have used this to bring the sales in full swing. Because the owner was thrilled by the idea, but expressed concerns  about enforcing this with long-serving employees , we have made a car available to partners – with the same gradations in category,engine performance, and brands.

You can not imagine what happens when, after one year, the partner of the previous sales aces  had to switch from the premium brand to a smaller car. This was visible to all , friends , family, neighbors , etc.

In the first year, this yielded a contribution margin increase of about 20%;  in the next more than 15 %. A resounding success – and the additional costs of the cars for the partners – not worth mentioning .

 

By • 0 • Tags: , ,

Dec 16 2013

He got the map upside down | Bill Waddell

See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
“…, at Toyota and at lean companies using visual controls effectively, it [the organization chart] actually looks like this…”

 

Michel Baudin‘s insight:

The first time I saw an organization chart with the plant manager at the bottom and the workers on top was in an auto parts factory in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, back in 2001, before that city became so notoriously dangerous.

The chart had a photograph next to each name, and it was not a gimmick. The plant was not perfect in any way, but the plant manager wore an overall to the floor every morning to make his rounds, and the operators knew him.

The employment pattern in the maquiladora plants near the US border was similar to the one I saw shortly thereafter in the Pearl River Delta area of China: girls from the countryside came to work in the plants for a couple of years, saved money, and went home.

The work was tough and tedious, but the plant manager did his utmost to provide the best working conditions he could, and the workers knew it. You could tell from the way they were looking at him.

The employee turnover rate at this plant was 11%/year, compared to about 40% for the other maquiladoras in the neighborhood.

See on www.idatix.com

By • 2 • Tags: , ,

«‹ 20 21 22 23›»