BLOG
BLOG
In our last post, we described many of the major accepted systems of lean methodologies and their core philosophies. While there are slight differences in the methods of each, it is important to note that all have the same fundamental basis and yield extreme benefits if carried out properly within an organization. It is less important to decide which system and first attempt to clearly define what it is that you want to improve.
Which is best?
Assuming the problem is clearly outlined and success outcomes defined, the next step is to select the best methodology to lead to the desired improvement. I’ve been asked several times from managers about implementing various aspects of these systems. What is the best one to use? In which should I invest my time? How can I take my current system to the next level?
I would answer this question by saying, “It depends.” What do you intend to accomplish? Are you a low volume, high complexity manufacturing house? If so, start with Six Sigma methodologies and focus on quality. Are you reaching volume with one of your products and therefore seeking to increase throughput? Take the principles of Toyota Production System (TPS) and put them to use on your line.
For any of the methodologies, an organization should first focus on ensuring that you have defined standardized work for (at least) your production processes. Standardized work is the foundation (as seen in the TPS house, Figure 1) from which all else builds. This is true of all of the methodologies listed. It is pointless to engage in the DMAIC exercise (Define—Measure—Analyze—Improve—Control) for improving existing processes and DMADV exercise (Define—Measure—Analyze—Design—Verify) for creating new processes if the systems are not in place that at least attempt to make work standard.
Most high level quality managers will have been certified in Lean Six Sigma, and most high level operations people will have been inundated with their company’s efficiency methods, whether it is steeped in TPS methods or otherwise.
If I was being asked where to start the implementation of a lean manufacturing system on an operation without any other information, I would implement the foundations of TPS and adapt it to the company’s culture and requirements. More specifically I would start off with implementing standardized work and ensure it was done correctly through a full round of training within industry (TWI) implementation. I would have a person committed to ensuring training on standardized work and developing a roadmap for implementation for all products.
Once standardized work was established, I would make sure my problem solving skills were established within leadership (as in Six Sigma), and make sure that my shop floor management and visual management were established so that flow of production information up and down the leadership chain was clear. Then I would implement 5S, further standardizing the workflow due to all material, equipment and tooling being in predictable places. From there, we could begin introducing the rest of the components of Lean Six Sigma and/or TPS.
I will also mention that as soon as I had standardized work, problem solving and shop floor management established, I would invest in the tools that Drishti has to offer. Drishti will make training easier, reduce variability and reduce the problem solving cycle by exponential levels if it supplements an organization with mature standardized work. Like TPS, Drishti is built on the backbone of standardized work, which is key to establishing cycle time outliers, deviation alerts, best practices, and more. Drishti helps in all of the facets that one uses to choose which lean methodology to use (questions of quality, questions of productivity and throughput, questions of efficiency and waste, questions of training).
What makes or breaks a system?
While all of these systems have potential value within an organization, it is less important to me which one is chosen to be implemented and more important how it is implemented. An organization will be more successful and gain greater benefits by implementing only one component, such as standardized work, and doing it fully and correctly than it will by introducing the entire advanced system partially and with limited buy-in and resources from the business.
Indeed, for any system to work, no matter how simple and beneficial it may be, the difference is the organization’s willingness to commit to it. That includes the implementation of even our products at Drishti. It means devoting the proper resources, getting buy-in from its leaders and workers and consistently reinforcing its tenets. If any of these things don’t happen, then a system will fail and never realize its potential.
Oftentimes businesses will buy into the concept of a new tool (like Drishti) or methodology, but not leverage the proper resources. They will simply give cursory training to staff (without adding new staff or creating ownership over the program). The benefits of the training will wear off shortly thereafter as true commitment has not been made by an organization. This diminishment applies to a single element or tool of a lean manufacturing system as well as the whole.. Ownership of the system needs to be identified;, training and retraining needs to occur regularly; and efficacy of the system needs to be evaluated regularly.
Success is nearly impossible by just slapping another hat onto a staff member who is already stretched thin, which ironically is often why businesses seek to implement these methods in the first place (to alleviate staff overwork). Rather than invest in half measures in the short term, despite the pain of implementation (adding more staff, more training, more meetings), if an organization commits with the proper investment in time, resources, and personnel, it will pay for itself over and over again.
So why do companies so often fail at implementing lean tools or methodologies, even with the best of intentions?
Leadership focuses on conceptual end states while neglecting step-by-step requirements for success.
The reality of needing to give more resources seems unappealing or is simply not doable at the time.
Leaders believe their people can succeed with just one round of training and inspiration (though failure to do so rarely reflects a poor work ethic on the part of the worker, and more on the realities that these concepts are hard).
Some members of organizations feel more advanced in their system implementation than they actually are.
Drishti recently conducted a survey of more than 400 senior manufacturing leaders on topics relating to risk assumptions, resource management and lean manufacturing. Among the many topics covered, one thing particularly interesting to the specific topic of lean manufacturing was the amount of belief that one's own organization was extremely mature.
Unfortunately, unconscious bias can make it difficult for manufacturers to truly assess their lean progress. While more than 38% of respondents claimed to be at level 4 or 5 when it comes to lean practices, the reality is much lower, according to Dr. Jeffrey Liker, lean expert and author of "The Toyota Way:"
- Excerpt from “The Toyota Way” by Dr. Jeffrey Liker
All of the methods of lean manufacturing have great benefits. While they are not all the same, they aim for many of the same goals (increased efficiency, reduced waste, as well as a standardized method for approaching these issues). It’s not always one size fits all, but the underlying principles of each of the systems provide great benefits if full and proper implementation occurs.
That said, proper implementation and dedication to the cause is the hardest part if an organization truly wishes to see the full potential of whatever path it chooses. Standardized work is an important foundation to implement as a mass manufacturer, no matter which system an organization uses. To see the greatest benefits from a mature lean manufacturing system, leveraging tools like Drishti will provide the greatest potential improvements in an assembly operation across the board.
