Oct 28 2013
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
When I read Eric Reiss’s “The Lean Startup,” I thought it was an interesting read, from which I could glean a few new ideas. What I failed to see, however, is any relationship between Reiss’s ideas and Lean Manufacturing. Reiss sees one, and says so, but I would be hard put to explain what it might be.
See on blogs.jabil.com
Oct 25 2013
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
Misconception 2: ‘It is about factories.’
Misconception 3: ‘Lean is a within-the-walls activity to fix your company.’
Misconception 4: ‘Lean is an improvement process production people can do — management doesn’t have to do anything.'”
I agree with points 1 and 4, but I have issues with 2 and 3. “The Machine that Changed the World” was a book about factories, and it was based on a worldwide benchmarking study of the car industry sponsored by the Sloan foundation.
Lean is proven in Manufacturing, by the success of Toyota and a few other manufacturing companies. That Lean is applicable outside of Manufacturing is possible, and plausible, but not proven. Even in Manufacturing, it is far too early to proclaim “mission accomplished,” as most attempted implementations in factories have yet to deliver the expected results.
As for expanding beyond the walls of your company into the supply chain, yes, you should do it but not before you have your own house in order. Toyota itself didn’t do it until the late 1970s.
Going to suppliers before you have transformed your internal operations is not a recipe for success. Womack does not claim it is, but branding a focus on internal operations a “misconception” is an encouragement for managers to shift their focus to suppliers too early.
See on business.financialpost.com
Oct 18 2013
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
“Any single failure anywhere in the supply chain can bring operations and profits to a standstill. From the 2011 tragedies of the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan to last year’s devastating Hurricane Sandy closer to home, Mother Nature has a way of reminding us to reexamine catastrophe preparedness.
These events, and the tragic aftermath that follows, also serve to remind the insurance industry of the challenges in quantifying risk and accounting for exposure in an increasingly complex supply chain environment. As a result, risk managers are being asked new questions as insurance underwriters require them to seek information from a broader range of stakeholders within and outside of their organizations.”
The article is limited to a list of questions an insurer might ask about a supply chain, some of which cannot be pratically answered. The supply chain management literature often states the need to know your suppliers’ suppliers and your customers’ customers, but most companies don’t, and practically can’t.
After all, the point of buying from suppliers is to delegate responsibility for the whole upstream supply chain. If you have to worry about it all the way to mining raw materials out of the ground, you might as well make it all in-house from scratch, like at Ford’s River Rouge plant in the 1930s.
Asking the right questions is fine, but providing answers is better. Supply chain disruptions come in many degrees of severity and a variety of frequencies, from trucks delayed by traffic accidents to earthquakes and tsunamis.
You can, and should have preplanned responses to small, frequent disruptions. That may involve building some slack in milk run schedules, keeping small buffers of stocks, or having contingency plans for alternative transportation…
But you cannot practically have preplanned responses to all possible catastrophes. What you need is to monitor operations with vigilance to get early warnings, and develop relationships with your suppliers and customers that are strong enough that they come together and develop an ad-hoc, rapid response when disaster strikes.
This is the lesson I see in Toyota’s response to emergencies, from the Mississippi flood of 1993 to the Aisin Seiki fire of 1997 and the Fukushima earthquake of 2011.
See on www.industryweek.com
Oct 12 2013
The on-line chatter about Lean is all about how you need to break down functional departments — or silos — and organize the company around “Value Streams” that encompass all the resources needed to fulfill orders for a product or product family, and are close cousins of BPR’s business processes and Wickham Skinner’s focused factories. When discussing implementation, however, the same value stream boosters/silo busters recommend that you start by setting up a “Kaizen Promotion Office” or “Lean Department.” This reminds me of the 1980s BBC series Yes Minister, in which an effort to streamline government starts with the creation of a new “Ministry of Administrative Affairs” and the hiring of 25,000 more civil servants to do the streamlining.
While it is ironic to create a new functional department while talking value streams, it reflects a reality: the notion of organizing everything by value stream is simplistic. As discussed in my comments on Deming’s exhortation to break down barriers between departments, there are many activities in a manufacturing organization that we cannot or should not distribute among value streams, including the following:
of the time. If you split this department into 4 groups of 5 technicians each assigned to a value stream, then, if a machine breaks down within any value stream technician availability will be reduced to an unacceptably low $latex 1-.8^{5}=67\%$ of the time.As for the Kaizen Promotion Office or Lean Department, mission creep all too often takes it from a feasible facilitation and communication role to a direct implementation role, which is hopeless because:
For the changes to happen and to stick, there is no alternative to leadership from within the organizations responsible for the target operations and participation by individuals who are directly affected.
Nov 19 2013
Fundamentals of Performance Metrics | Bill Waddell
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
A thoughtful, rant-free article, focused primarily on the language of money. My few blog posts on the subject were on metrics in the language of things, as spoken on production shop floors:
See on www.idatix.com
Share this:
Like this:
By Michel Baudin • Blog clippings 0 • Tags: Lean, Metrics