Lean

Mar 9 2012

What visible actions should managers take to support Lean?

Fifth in a series of questions  from the Spanish magazine APD (Asociación para el Progreso Directivo). My answer is as follows and, perhaps, your comments will help me make it better:

I take a “visible action” to be an action in support of Lean implementation that is visible to others, meaning related to appearances.

Being regularly present on the shop floor and asking questions about both routine operations and improvement projects is clearly one such type of action. Lean implementation does not go well with absentee management. Managers must act as a visible incarnation of the company’s concern for what happens on the shop floor, but, while doing so, they must be careful not to get involved in technical discussions in which their positions would give their ideas undue weight, and to respect the authority of the managers directly in charge of the shop.

The managers should wear clothing that does not set them apart from the production teams. Suits and ties are inappropriate where operators wear overalls, because they symbolize distance. If operators wear uniforms, the managers should do too, without visible signs of rank. The message must be “We are on the same team.” There is a hierarchy in the organization to do the work, but it should not carry over to activities that are not strictly work. In this spirit, unless they are entertaining visitors, managers should eat in the same cafeteria as operators, with the side effect that the food and service quality improve. They should also use the same restrooms and forgo reserved parking spaces.

Lean includes activities that require participation by everyone, like 5S or TPM, and managers must ostensibly participate so that no one can claim that these activities are beneath their dignity or that they are too busy. Operators who see the plant manager occasionally participate in the cleaning of a machine will not be reluctant to clean their own work spaces.

By • Management • 30 • Tags: ,

Mar 8 2012

More Lean bashing in the French press

Through the two following charts from the Curious Cat blog, we can compare France’s manufacturing output to similar countries like Germany and Japan. In population, France is roughly 75% of  Germany and 50% of Japan, but in manufacturing output, it is only 50% of Germany and  25% of Japan.  Furthermore, France’s manufacturing share of  GDP is sinking faster than in other advanced economies.

With French factories an endangered species, one might expect some humility and a willingness to adopt techniques that are recognized worldwide as the state of the art. That is, however, not happening: while the French manufacturing ship is sinking, the mainstream press still describes Lean as “controversial” and a disease to be avoided.

Following is the translation of an article in Le Parisien, dated 3/4/2012:

“Lean,” a “fat free,” controversial mode of work organization
Louis Vuitton, PSA, BNP Paribas, Danone or Philips or Pôle Emploi… The “Lean”  method of organizing work without “fat” that aims to eliminate the superfluous (downtime, unnecessary gestures, waiting time, motion, excess inventory, defects, etc..) has been spreading in business in recent years, sparking heated debates.
Lean contaminates all sectors
Coming from Japan, the concept attracts some companies by the dramatic productivity gains that are claimed (up to 30%). But it is often perceived by employees and unions as a factor in the deterioration of working conditions.
First used at automotive suppliers like Valeo and Michelin, Lean spreads today in all sectors, including services, where, according to experts, the method goes over particularly badly.

According to Philippe Rouzaud, author of “Employees, Lean spins its web around you …”,  the original concept is accompanied by “promises to improve working conditions.”  The idea, according to him, is to say that since the employee was doing useless things, he will be happy not to do them anymore.

But in reality, these productivity gains raise the question of the welfare of employees, when the “useless” movements eliminated gave them an opportunity to breathe.

Moreover, its implementation fails in about 90% of cases, because companies remember only productivity.

An expensive  method
“Yes, Lean, unfortunately, is a very powerful tool,” he says. But, “you realize, given the economic situation, that behind many programs using the tools of lean, there are job cuts.”

Eric Queyssalier, consultant at Progress Partners, which helps companies implement lean, defends the  method as leading to a ‘real valuation of labor. ” But, he admits that the Europeans may have “understood everything.” When misguided “Lean brings the intensification of work” and is generating psychosocial risks of musculoskeletal disorders, etc.., says Rouzaud.

In 2006, a report by the Centre for the Study of Employment (ECE) and noted a deterioration of working conditions in Europe in “Lean” organizations compared to other organizations, including Taylorist.

The ergonomist Emmanuelle Florence also emphasizes that this is a very expensive process to put in place that requires a “total redesign of ways of thinking, so in general, companies do not return back.”

“We’re playing the sorcerer’s apprentice on health and working conditions in France. We will see the consequences in six months, a year or two years … ” warns Mr. Rouzaud.

Recently, the Nanterre District Court gave a weapon to employee representatives, through a decision that should set a precedent: the implementation of Lean requires consultation of the Health and Safety Committee.

To respond to such an article, where can we begin? Perhaps what is most fundamental to the ideology behind it is the assumption that true improvement is impossible, and that the only way to increase productivity is to make people work harder. The article equates eliminating wasted motion with eliminating rest for operators, but what kind of rest does an operator get while hand-carrying a car battery over 50 feet? If you eliminate that long carry by presenting the batteries right at the assembly station, you save time and improve ergonomics simultaneously. You win on both counts; there is no tradeoff; it is a genuine improvement.

The article also assumes that increasing productivity leads to job cuts. Why not take this reasoning to its logical conclusion and decrease productivity to create jobs? Let us design production lines so that two people are needed for the job one can currently do. Then we’ll hire 1,000 people rather than 500, all at advanced economy levels of wages and benefits.

How will that work out? Competitors will be thrilled, and the economy will have to do without the contributions the extra 500 people would have made elsewhere. To me, the assumption that it is OK to waste human talent in this fashion is the worst form of disrespect for people.

By • Press clippings • 0 • Tags: ,

Mar 8 2012

What support infrastructures do you need for Lean?

Fourth in a series of questions  from the Spanish magazine APD (Asociación para el Progreso Directivo). My answer is as follows and, perhaps, your comments will help me make it better:

What kind of Steering Committee, Lean Office, Lean Champions, or Continuous Improvement group do you need to put in place?

Ideally, none. Lean is not supposed to be a career opportunity but instead part of everybody’s job. Over time, it becomes so much “the way we do things” that it no longer needs a name. In reality, all organizations find it necessary to provide some form of organized support. Even Toyota has an Operations Management Consulting Division (OMCD), of about 60 members, that mostly works with suppliers.

But there are many pitfalls to avoid in setting up this kind of support at the right time, and in properly defining its scope. For example, a Lean Office at the corporate level established at the start of Lean implementation is likely to be out of touch with factories and focused on standardization rather than effectiveness. Such an office can easily turn into a Lean inquisition, castigating heretics in factories for using “non-standard” approaches, and  stifling the very creativity the company needs to grow its own version of Lean.

Another risk, at the plant level, is to create a Lean Engineering Department responsible for carrying out all Lean projects. This is ineffective for two reasons:

  1. The people responsible for operating production lines have no ownership in what the Lean Engineering Department has designed. They don’t understand it and have no motivation to make it work.
  2. The Lean Engineering Department cannot be large enough to do all the work that needs to be done. It just cannot have the bandwidth. Involving the people from operations is not a luxury. They are the only resources available to get the job done.

A successful Lean program starts with a handful of pilot projects. These projects need support from the plant manager personally, and the leadership of an enthusiastic production supervisor, usually with coaching from an outside consultant. As you ramp up from, say, two pilot projects to fifteen projects conducted concurrently in different parts of the plant, you start to need a Steering Committee of the plant manager and his or her direct reports to select projects, set priorities, resolve resource conflicts, and provide a forum for project leaders.

Soon, the organization of Steering Committee meetings, the scheduling of consultant visits and training sessions, the documentation of projects and the promotion of the plant’s program to both internal and external audiences generates enough work for a full-time Lean Champion. As Kevin Hop points out, it can be the start of a group supporting projects,  into which engineers and managers rotate for for periods of 6 months to a year between assignments in operations.

At the corporate level, Lean specialists can help plants locate resources and exchange their experience through mutual visits, technical exchange meetings, and on-line collaboration. As Lean skills grow in the company, the corporate group can help spread the knowledge and allow standards to emerge for some activities.

Many manufacturing organizations have borrowed the Black Belt system from Six Sigma to implement Lean, in which 1% of employees receive special training and a certification to work full-time in implementation support. While I am not questioning the effectiveness of this approach for Six Sigma, I have never seen it work for Lean. Instead, I have seen Black Belts frustrated with a position in which they feel they have responsibility without authority.

By • Management • 4 • Tags: , ,

Mar 8 2012

What are the key behaviors for Managers to ensure a consistent Lean implementation?

This is the third in a series of questions I have received from the Spanish magazine APD (Asociación para el Progreso Directivo). My answer is as follows and, perhaps, your comments will help me make it better:

The sequence of projects through which Lean is implemented must be chosen with care, but, once management commits to a project, there must be no turning back, as even maintaining the means of turning back sends a mixed message that puts the project in jeopardy.

The worst managers can do is revert to the old way of working at the first sign of trouble. Assume for example that you have worked with a customer to ship in returnable containers and that, one morning, you run out of returnable containers. The temptation is great to revert to disposable containers but, in order to do this, you would have to keep stocks of disposable containers, your customers would have to dispose of the empties, and you would be giving up the handling, quality and cost advantages of returnables. The proper response instead is (1) to notify your customer to arrange an emergency delivery of returnable containers and (2) identify and remove the cause of the shortage. A manager who reverts to the old ways is showing an absence of commitment that quickly propagates through his organization and causes the transformation to fail.

Commitment and consistency, however, does not mean having a one-size-fits-all solution to all problems. What is implemented must be carefully planned for the specific circumstances of the project, and adjusted as needed. Lean is incarnated in specific tools in car manufacturing, which may not be applicable in a different industry. The essence of Lean is not in these tools but in their underlying principles, and the implementation of Lean in a new industry usually consists in redeploying these principles with tools that may not be the same as in car manufacturing.

By • Management • 1 • Tags: , ,

Mar 2 2012

The origins of Lean – as viewed in France’s L’usine Nouvelle

The French magazine L’Usine Nouvelle is similar to Industry Week in the US and has a special place in my heart as the first organization ever to pay me for my writings. I wrote an article for them on quality in Japan in February,1981, and they sent me a check.

Last week, the current editor in chief, Thibaut de Jaegher, wrote the editorial translated below:

At the origins of lean manufacturing

Published February 25th, 2012 at 11 55 | L’Usine Nouvelle No. 3273

Everyone seeks their own production system. The Renault-Nissan Alliance has its production way, and so does Michelin. Alstom has developed its Apsys,  SEB its Operational Performance Plan …

Since the publication of the book “The Machine That Changed the World” in 1990, manufacturers worldwide have embarked on a frantic quest to eliminate waste, improve quality, and increase productivity.

Because this book coined the phrase lean manufacturing, we also think that Toyota is the instigator of these organizational methods. It is not the case.

Since industry has been industry, manufacturing engineers have sought to continuously improve their manufacturing methods. It only became a Japanese specialty after World War II. Before, the search for more efficient production systems and a scientific organization of labor was rather the prerogative of the Americans.

The first production standards have emerged during the Civil War, to facilitate the repair of guns on the battlefield. The American system of manufacturing (ASM) was used to accelerate the manufacture of guns and their maintenance during operations.As in the Toyota production system, this organization was based on two pillars: standardization and mechanization. And one might think that all sites of Springfield (the manufacturer of rifles) turned in just in time because of the war.

The ASM was probably one of the competitive advantages that allowed the “Yankees” to win.

I posted the following comment on 2/26:
This is another article that denies the contributions of the developers of Toyota’s system. To say that they did not invent anything and that everything they have done is just a rehash of American industrial engineering is like saying that Einstein’s theories are that a copy of Newton, Maxwell, Lorenz, etc..

As in all disciplines, advances in production techniques are based on previous achievements. The American System of Manufacture is a set of techniques aimed at the manufacture of interchangeable parts. It dates from the 19th century. It included among other things, technical drawings, the concepts of critical dimensions and tolerances, and it got the machine tools industry started. This a major contribution, somewhat forgotten because industry around the world has so thoroughly assimilated it.

And the Toyota system is built on this foundation, incorporating further elements from Taylor, Gilbreth, the engineers at Ford or GM, not to mention TWI. That does not mean that people at Toyota have added nothing there, or that their ability to incorporate these elements into a coherent and efficient whole is negligible. The Machine That Changed The World is a good book, which introduced the term “Lean”, but we should not overestimate the importance. By other names, the approach had already aroused a sustained interest in industry for at least 10 years it came out. My own introduction to the topic dates back to 1980.

Thibaut de Jaegher in turn responded as follows;

@ Michel Baudin
My paper does not deny the contribution of Toyota in the history of production but just reminds readers that there were production systems well before the TPS. Which you also recognize  claiming that Toyota was inspired by American methods, and particularly what I wrote about, to invent its own model.

And an anonymous other reader chimed in as follows:

@ Reglede3
This is very true. Americans, for the purposes of the conflict, however, have pushed the system of standardization to its logical conclusion.

In fact, it was the French who invented standardization (in the late 18th century) in the manufacture of guns (a lock adapting to any gun or butt). It passed to the United States through sales of French guns to the “insurgents”. The English invented the standardization of nuts and bolts.

I have several issues with this exchange. The first is the attribution of inventions to nations. As such “the French,” “the Americans,” “the English,” or “the Japanese” don’t invent anything; inventors are individuals, and sometimes teams. It’s not, “the Americans” who invented the assembly line but a team working at Ford in the 1910s, including Charles Sorensen, P.E. Martin, Clarence Avery, and others. Attributing nationalities to inventions is neither fair to inventors nor useful, because all it does is make the inventions more difficult to adopt outside their countries of origin.

The second point is that both the editor in chief and the anonymous reader are surprisingly casual about historical accuracy, considering that “the French” are known for historians like Fernand Braudel, who make cautious inferences from thorough research. Just-in-Time production of rifles in the Civil War? Interchangeable parts in the Revolutionary War? Come on! As often, the Wikipedia article on the American System of Manufacturing, and its list of references, is a good place to start checking the facts.

Why should we care? Because interchangeable parts technology is the first example of a successful, decades-long government-funded R&D program in the United States, and refutes the widely-held belief  that all innovation comes from the private sector. It was the first in a line of such efforts that, in recent decades, includes the Apollo program and the Internet.

Does it have anything to do with Lean? Yes, but so indirectly as to be irrelevant. The creators of TPS, like Taiichi Ohno, acknowledge Ford’s mass production system, as an inspiration both on what to do and what to change, and Ford’s system could not have existed without interchangeable parts.

By • Press clippings • 2 • Tags: , ,

Feb 28 2012

Lean at the end of the telephone game

Via Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
According to Nigeria’s Daily Sun, Lean is new there, and we can assume that the version that arrived is the result of a long chain of steps in the telephone game. This is how they describe it:

“The Lean programme, […] was first used as a term in quality improvement system when it was applied to the Toyota Production System (TPS) in the 1980s. Presently it is used by at least 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies in America. When it was first used by GE in 1997, over $400million was gained in the company’s operating income.”

Via www.sunnewsonline.com

By • Press clippings • 0 • Tags: ,

«< 48 49 50 51 52 >»