matt hrivnak . com

One of the single most effective projects that I worked on in the past five years was also the simplest; in fact, I proposed this change in my first week of work.

During my interview, the engineering director took me for a walk through the plant.  It was obvious that a lot of changes needed to be made.  He complained, “Every time we have a defect in this cell, we have to scrap the whole lot, 50 pieces.”  I was shocked that a man with a title of “Engineering Director, North America,” could not see the solutions that were right in front of him.  

My initial reaction was to ask a question, “Have you tried reducing your lot size?  Maybe cutting your lots in half?”  His response was even more dumbfounding, “What do you think that would do?” 

So, I went on to describe all of the benefits of Single Piece Flow, and added the obvious fact that if the company requires the entire lot to be scrapped because of one defect, then you would only be scrapping 25 instead of 50 every time that one occurred.  He really got the point once I asked him to think about it on a larger scale, “How many would you have to scrap if you had a lot size of 1,000?”  Of course, he said, “1,000.”

When I got there, the process looked something like this:

There was an obvious disconnect between each process, even though the stations were literally five feet apart.  Each station operated as its own entity, not caring whether or not it was receiving or shipping defective products.  The operators were there simply to put in their time and collect their money.  They cared nothing for the products they were making and took no pride in quality workmanship.  If something failed at one of the inspection stations, then the entire lot was scrapped – big deal – they did whatever someone told them to do for eight hours and that was it – product or no product.

As you can see by looking at the diagram of the process, they had incorporated Inspection stations.  Inspection is a large portion of waste in many manufacturing processes. Sure, it may be necessary in some instances, but the inspection should still be dealt with in-process instead of having it as its own workstation.  

By having Inspection as three entirely separate workstations, defects accumulated lots of 50 waiting in queue and valuable resources were tied up in labor, fixed overhead and much desired floor space.

As a result, I suggested eliminating Inspection from the process.  Well, I should say, I suggested eliminating the wasteful aspects of Inspection.  Because we are dealing with electrical devices that are tested to a standard, the cables must be checked during manufacturing to certify the product as passing the standard, so the Inspection needs to be in there somewhere.

I suggested that we put the inspection testing equipment within the previous station’s area (i.e. the pre-inspection station, e.g. wire insertion, pre-mold, mold), to be checked one at a time as they are made.  The results showed instantly!

• In each of the cases, the inspection operator was eliminated and added to other cells for more value added work.  
• Each of the pre-inspection stations would make one unit and test it instantly.  If there was a problem, it was solved immediately and no other cables would be tainted by the same issue.
• Additionally, in all cases, the inspection portion of the manufacturing could be done (by the testing apparatus) while the operator was preparing the next sample.  

At this point, we also rearranged the cell so that it was in the classic ‘U’ shape which cut the travel distance by 100’.  It had been segmented into two lines, with two operations being 110’ apart from another, this was shortened to 10’.

The bottleneck of the entire line was the Pre-Mold operation which was considerably slower than the other processes (the Wire Stripping and Crimping operations were very slow also, but each had 3 workstations, as these were inexpensive compared to a molding machine).  This was also the highest offender when it came to quality issues.  At this step, the individual wires were consistently getting snipped by the mold, causing complete electrical failure of the connector.

Before the improvements, it was easy for this process to make upwards of 200 bad cables before the Inspection station got around to discovering their was a problem!Because it was the bottleneck, it was absolutely imperative to always keep the Pre-Mold operation filled with work.  To achieve this, we setup a sequenced pull system that started with a supermarket between the Wire Insertion w/ Inspection operation and the Pre-Mold operation.  To keep the supermarket fed, we introduced FIFO lanes upstream.  The supermarket handled multiple varieties of cables because the Insertion operation was the first step in the system where product variety appeared.

In the operations upstream from there we used FIFO lanes because the product mix was entirely the same.  Each was held to a maximum storage amount; the supermarket with 5 and the FIFO lanes with 2.With the addition of the FIFO lanes and the supermarket, we were able to work at the pace of the bottleneck.

Granted we were able to speed up the processing of the bottleneck through a SMED event, which required some machine design from the maintenance department, but it was still the bottleneck regardless. 

Efforts to justify the purchase of another molding machine for that area were just not cost effective. (As part of the SMED, we added a second bottom half to the mold which could be loaded while the current cable was being molded.  After the current one finished, the top half lifted up and the other bottom half slid into place, and the molding continued while the other bottom half was unloaded and reloaded for the next cable.)

Since we were so constrained by the Pre-Mold operation, we were able to use the same operators that ran the operations upstream from Pre-Mold to run the operations on the back end of the system.The results speak for themselves:

• Output of quality products increased from 1.20 units/hour to 5.56 units/hour.
• Quality problems and rework was down by 90%.
• The number of associates went from 14 to 9, allowing those additional 5 people to be moved to areas where they could perform more value added work.
• Associates saw the real effects of their work, taking on more responsibility and having more respect for themselves, the jobs that they perform and the products that they produce.

One of the toughest aspects of the Toyota Production System (TPS) for people to understand is why single piece flow is so important, and how it works.  I can’t count the number of times I’ve answered questions and statements like these: 

“What is single piece flow?”

“If we make one, move one, then our efficiencies will fall and we can’t have that…”

“Why use smaller batch sizes?”

“How will smaller batch sizes help?  We’ll just have more changeovers and our costs will go up.”

“We can’t achieve single piece flow and if we are able to, it will be too costly for us to operate that way.”

“Our customers will never get their orders if we do that because all we’ll ever be doing is changing over and setting up machines…” 

When it comes down to it, single piece flow is the best way that a manufacturing system can be set up.  Now, in most industries, systems are setup that will never allow for single piece flow in the traditional sense because of machining capacities and capabilities.  Examples of this are piece work items that are manufactured automatically by machines that have multiple machining heads that are performing the same task concurrently – something like the minting, pressing and stamping of coins – multiple dies punching hundreds of coin blanks out at one time, etc.  With time and revolutionary machine designs, single piece flow would ultimately be possible. 

In order to highlight the benefits of single piece flow, I’m going to use a list that is characterized by Liker in The Toyota Way (if you don’t own it, buy it – it is well worth the money), pages 95-97.  I’ve kept the list the same, but have added my own reasons as to why these benefits occur: 

1. Builds in quality – this is the aspect that is most overlooked by opponents to single piece flow.  Since you are not dealing with batches, in particular, large batches, any defects can be correctly instantly or removed from the system at that time by the operator.  Defects are fixed or removed instead of being passed on.  Defects also become more noticeable and do not become hidden amongst a batch.  The most significant benefit is that any quality issues are more apt to begin and end with that one particular unit.  This happens because the defect is located, a cause is determined and a solution is remedied (PDCA in action).
2. Creates real flexibility – because you are dealing with a lot size of 1 you can end production for that product at any point throughout the day within the number of minutes it takes for that 1 unit’s cycle time to elapse.  This is improved with the advent of SMED as changeovers are reduced and a larger mix of products can be produced within a shift, servicing more customers than a system processing larger batches of products.  If processing a lot size of 20 takes 5 hours of machine cycling time to complete, then processing a lot of 1 will take .25 hours.  In this way, you would be able to switch products and start producing something else after 15 minutes, instead of waiting 5 hours for the previous lot to complete its cycle.
3. Creates higher productivity – operators focused on single piece flow are working on mostly value added activities leaving less time for non-value added time to interfere.  In addition to this, as each piece is processed, it can be moved onto the next workstation and processing can begin there – eventually you will get to the point where you are producing units at an output rate nearly equivalent to your slowest individual process (i.e. theory of constraints).  Also, any quality issues can be quickly removed or remedied within minutes on a single piece as opposed to reworking an entire lot, this saves larges amounts of rework time that would normally bog down a production line and utilize operators in a completely non-value added manner.
4. Frees up floor space – because single piece flow naturally works within a cell there is less space for the accumulation of inventory between processes.  A cell is setup to maximize production floor space and improve communication between processes to improve quality and increase throughput.  There is no waste associated with defects, scrap, unneeded stacks of raw material, stacks of finished goods waiting for the next process – none of that because as soon as inventory is created (in the form of 1 unit) it is absorbed and processed by the next station and so on, down through the line.
5. Improves safety – single piece flow means that there is no need for large batches to be shuttled back and forth, over thousands of feet within a production facility.  All of the processes are arranged in a cell with minimal space between them.  Again, inventory does not build up and will not require movement, batch sizes are 1 so bins and containers used to move products will be very small, allowing for operators to lift small, light packages instead of large, heavy packages that may contain multiple units.
6. Improves morale – this is a natural phenomenom that occurs because each operator gets to see the outcome of their hard work instantly.  This instant gratification builds a passion for creating well-made, quality items.  Overtime, operators will pride themselves on high levels of quality and products that they produce because they can actually see the benefits that they add to the product – and each one they produce is, in and of itself, a unique special well crafted item.
7. Reduces cost of inventory – simply due to the fact that you have less inventory of raw materials, inventory of WIP, and inventory of finished goods means that your company will be able to dedicate their capital and resources in other areas instead of overhead.  Additionally, any inventory that becomes obsolete because it is sitting around waiting to be processed will no longer occur.  This could mean expanding by purchasing new capital or technologies, improving existing work centers, giving more benefits, providing higher salaries to attract a better workforce.

Recently, I facilitated a kaizen event which was targeted at dramatically reducing the setup time of a Former-Winder twisting machine in a textile plant.  Naturally, we performed a SMED event; dedicating 3 days to the event and 2 days of prior videotaping (performed by me, under ‘normal’ conditions). A little background on the Former-Winder’s operation.  It is a machine that takes in raw material Yarns or Ends, twists them together into a strand, and winds them onto a 3 foot long bobbin.  The Yarns/Ends used can number anywhere from 2 and go up to 150 in some cases.  The bigger the yarn needed, the more raw material packages that will be required.  These raw material packages are put up onto fixtures, called Creels, that hold them while they feed out yarn.  The pictures show the creels in this case.

After loading the creels, the operator needs to install gearing that produces different levels of twist in the finished strand.  Creating a small sample allows the operator to perform a quick in-process check after changing the gears.  If it is okay, the operator puts in an empty bobbin and starts the machine.  If not, then he changes gears with engineering’s help (that’s what the ISO documentation says at any rate). Watching the video we put together this timeline, identifying the CURRENT STATE (i.e. the way in which it was currently being performed)External Setups in GREEN and the Internal Setups in RED:

• Get & read traveler (1 min.)
• Check prioritization (1 min.)
• Get gears (15 min.)
• Install gears (5 min.)
• Return gears to proper place (1 min.)
• Clean/grease machine (5 min.)
• Program computer (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Obtain/order material (45 min.)
• Creel placement (20 min.)
• Create material space (10 min.)
• Get/prepare cart (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Teardown (16 min.)
• Return material (several trips) (9 min.)
• Prepare & inspect creel (foam donuts, check eyelets, inc.) (2 min.)
• Check for/install small packages (10 min.)
• Get/install new packages (several trips) (22 min.)
• Untie packages & feed thru eyelets (38 min.)
• Setup distribution plate(s) (13 min.)
• Setup wax tank (if necessary)
• Locate & get proper die (5 min.)
• Install die (1 min.)
• Return old die to proper place (1 min.)
• Feed machine (6 min.)
• Run (.5 min.)
• Chalk for twist (TPF) (.5 min.)
• Stop & check TPF (.5 min.)
• Sign off by other person (.5 min.)
• Make adjustments (6.5 min.)
• Run (couple minutes)
• Stop & calculate weight/counts (repeat if necessary)
• Check traveler for QTY (.5 min.)
• Run Machine

—————————————————

76% Internal:  179 min = 2.98 hours

24% External:  58 min = .97 hours

Total Time:   237 min. = 3.95 hours

We then went through this list and created a ‘theoretical’ best case scenario that showcased the true Internal and External Setups.  Some of these are not even possible due to current technologies owned by the company:

• Get & read traveler (1 min.)
• Check prioritization (1 min.)
• Get gears (15 min.)
• Install gears (5 min.)
• Return gears to proper place (1 min.)
• Clean/grease machine (5 min.)
• Program computer (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Obtain/order material (45 min.)
• Creel placement (20 min.)
• Create material space (10 min.)
• Get/prepare cart (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Teardown (16 min.)
• Return material (several trips) (9 min.)
• Prepare & inspect creel (foam donuts, check eyelets, inc.) (2 min.)
• Check for/install small packages (10 min.)
• Get/install new packages (several trips) (22 min.)
• Untie packages & feed thru eyelets (38 min.)
• Setup distribution plate(s) (13 min.)
• Setup wax tank (if necessary)
• Locate & get proper die (5 min.)
• Install die (1 min.)
• Return old die to proper place (1 min.)
• Feed machine (6 min.)
• Run (.5 min.)
• Chalk for twist (TPF) (.5 min.)
• Stop & check TPF (.5 min.)
• Sign off by other person (.5 min.)
• Make adjustments (6.5 min.)
• Run (couple minutes)
• Stop & calculate weight/counts (repeat if necessary)
• Check traveler for QTY (.5 min.)
• Run Machine

—————————————————

11% Internal:  26.5 min = .44 hours

89% External:  210.5 min = 3.51 hours

This gave us a starting point for base lining and making improvements.  “How could we improve our current setup process to be as close to this as possible?”  First, we took all of the ‘current’ internal setups that were really external setups, and made them into external setups, changes shown in BLUE.  This saved about 25%:

• Get & read traveler (1 min.)
• Check prioritization (1 min.)
• Get gears (15 min.)
• Install gears (5 min.)
• Return gears to proper place (1 min.)
• Clean/grease machine (5 min.)
• Program computer (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Obtain/order material (45 min.)
• Creel placement (20 min.)
  • Preparation (10 min.)
  • Physical move (10 min.)
• Create material space (10 min.)
• Get/prepare cart (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Teardown (16 min.)
• Return material (several trips) (9 min.)
• Prepare & inspect creel (foam donuts, check eyelets, inc.) (2 min.)
• Check for/install small packages (10 min.)
• Get/install new packages (several trips) (22 min.)
• Untie packages & feed thru eyelets (38 min.)
• Setup distribution plate(s) (13 min.)
• Setup wax tank (if necessary)
• Locate & get proper die (5 min.)
• Install die (1 min.)
• Return old die to proper place (1 min.)
• Feed machine (6 min.)
• Run (.5 min.)
• Chalk for twist (TPF) (.5 min.)
• Stop & check TPF (.5 min.)
• Sign off by other person (.5 min.)
• Make adjustments (6.5 min.)
• Run (couple minutes)
• Stop & calculate weight/counts (repeat if necessary)
• Check traveler for QTY (.5 min.)
• Run Machine

—————————————————

57% Internal:  134.5 min = 2.24 hours

43% External:  102.5 min = 1.71 hours

So, after a few hours of suggestions, some time working the setup process on the gemba, we were able to make a second pass, saving around 72%!  We designed a new creel that could have one side loaded with the current job and a second side that could be prepared for the next job.  This required a 30 day list be made up and completed because of the nature of the maintenance work needed and a few other action items that were external to the SMED event itself:

• Get & read traveler (1 min.)
• Check prioritization (1 min.)
• Get gears (15 min.)
• Install gears (5 min.)
• Return gears to proper place (1 min.)
• Clean/grease machine (5 min.)
• Program computer (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Obtain/order material (45 min.)
• Creel placement (20 min.)
  • Preparation (10 min.)
  • Physical move (10 min.)
• Create material space (10 min.)
• Get/prepare cart (if necessary) (1 min.)
• Teardown (16 min.)
• Return material (several trips) (9 min.)
• Prepare & inspect creel (foam donuts, check eyelets, inc.) (2 min.)
• Check for/install small packages (10 min.)
• Get/install new packages (several trips) (22 min.)
• Untie packages & feed thru eyelets (38 min.)
• Setup distribution plate(s) (13 min.)
• Setup wax tank (if necessary)
• Locate & get proper die (5 min.)
• Install die (1 min.)
• Return old die to proper place (1 min.)
• Feed machine (6 min.)
• Run (.5 min.)
• Chalk for twist (TPF) (.5 min.)
• Stop & check TPF (.5 min.)
• Sign off by other person (.5 min.)
• Make adjustments (6.5 min.)
• Run (couple minutes)
• Stop & calculate weight/counts (repeat if necessary)
• Check traveler for QTY (.5 min.)
• Run Machine

—————————————————

21% Internal:  49.5 min = .825 hours

79% External:  187.5 min = 1.71 hours

We looked heavily into streamlining the leftover Internal Setups and determined that most of the streamlining had already been done. These machines (literally, these same machines) had been working in this plant since the 1940s and people had come up with quicker and better ways of doing things in that time.  Of course, we are still working towards streamlining and looking for those opportunities daily.

So, some team work, some more aware operators and better methods will allow us to service the internal customers of this process a lot faster, in the exact quantities they need and that means we can service a much greater variety of product lines within the same timeframe as before!

Although SMED was clearly developed during the 1900s, there are several cases from throughout history that can be referenced when trying to explain SMED.  The very basic idea of SMED, i.e. preparing and completing External setups while the machine/process is working on the current job, while streamlining Internal setups, etc. (if you are new to SMED, check out my article SMED…What is SMED?), can be seen in common processes that are around us.

The most common of these, which is more or less the cliche reference now because it seems every Lean trainer uses it, is the quick changeover of tires witnessed by Nascar and Indy racing fans at every race.  When you think about changing a tire, you think of several elements, like:

1. Getting your tools
2. Loosening 4/5/6 nuts
3. Jacking up your car
4. Pulling off the old wheel
5. Putting on the new wheel
6. Individually picking up the nuts and resetting them
7. Tightening the nuts
8. Putting the old tire in the trunk
9. Putting your tools away

I assume it is something like that for most people.  Now, the quick connection they make here is that in an auto race, the pit crew is completely ready with their power tools, 1 guy jacks up the car, another takes the a) in cart racing, 1 (and only) nut off while maintaining it in the tooling head, b) in Nascar, the nuts are fixed to the wheel so only tightening is required, another guy removes and replaces the tire, and the nut(s) is tightened, etc.  You can see how that works.

Well, when thinking about SMED, there is a better example that I like to use.  So far, I’ve been a little on my own referencing this and some of my professors had a hard time grasping the concept of this being related to SMED.  Eventually, they saw my point and some of them use it in their classes to this day.  Unfortunately, this is not the most pleasant example of a SMED because of the nature of the resulting action, but it really gives a solid example of SMED.

Since the beginning of firearms, reloading has been a critical, essential, and frankly, a crucial aspect of warfare.  For any of you who are not that knowledgeable when it comes to the evolution of the gun, I’ll fill you in.  After the first couple hundred years of firearm development, the gun was stuck in a period of lackluster progression.  At the time of the American Revolution, muskets, a smooth bored muzzle loading rifle was the most widely used rifle in the world.  Due to the loading nature of the musket, a well trained infantryman could fire about 3 or 4 shots per minute.  Looking at this from a process standpoint, this gives us (assuming ~3 shots/minute):

• Setup time:  20 seconds (includes aiming)
• Cycle time:  ~1/10th of a second

The process for loading a musket, looks something like this:

1. Stand the musket on its butt end, with the open barrel facing the sky
2. Get out the gun powder (from a powder horn)
3. Pour the required amount of powder down the barrel
4. Put the powder horn away
5. Get out the ball (i.e. bullet) (from a snap enclosed pouch)
6. Put the bullet in the barrel
7. Pull out the rifle’s ram rod from its casing on the side of the barrel
8. Stick the ram rod in the barrel and push the bullet fully down
9. Put the ram rod back in the side casing
10. Pick up the musket
11. Cock the hammer (which contains a piece of flint for creating a spark)
12. Get out the powder
13. Pour some more powder on the flash pan
14. Put the powder horn away
15. Aim the rifle
16. Pull the trigger and hope the flint sparks and ignites the powder, firing the gun

That’s a lot to accomplish in 20 seconds. A small pictorial of an American Revolutionary War soldier is below (source:  http://www.americanrevolution.com/images/ContinentalArmy.jpg)

Like many processes, loading a rifle was held back because quicker changeovers were not possible due to technological issues and lack of progress in that area.  Slowly, the technology did improve and the flint-lock hammer was replaced with a preloaded percussion cap (like the kind you can buy in a toy store that makes a loud pop) that could easily be placed on a pin, before being struck by the hammer. 

This removed the clumsly action of pouring small amounts of gun powder into the flash pan while attempting to hold your composure.  Around the same time, ammunition companies began packaging the gun powder and the bullet in a paper encased packet that required the soldier to reach into only 1 compartment instead of 2.  The soldier would simply pull out the packet, bite off the end, and stick it in the front of the barrel.  So, after removing these small, but time consuming external elements, the process looked something like this:

1. Stand the musket on its butt end, with the open barrel facing the sky
2. Get out the paper packet
3. Bite off the top and place the rest of it in the barrel
4. Pull out the rifle’s ram rod from its casing on the side of the barrel
5. Stick the ram rod in the barrel and push the bullet fully down
6. Put the ram rod back in the side casing
7. Pick up the musket
8. Cock the hammer
9. Get out the cap
10. Place the cap on the pin
11. Aim the rifle
12. Pull the trigger

This type of rifle was used extensively around the time of the American Civil War.  At the same time, bullets were being improved through new packaging techniques that encased the bullets and powder in a metal shell that could be loaded into a moveable turret as you would expect to see on a revolver.  Much like the one pictured below:

It took another 25 years or so for this technology to be moved from pistols to rifles, but eventually, the rifle went from muzzle loaded to a pump action carbine to a bolt action rifle to the extremely fast firing machines guns used today.

With the development of the encased bullet, there was no longer a need for a percussion cap and the loading process looked something like this:

1. Preload a small batch of bullets into a ‘clip’ (does not need to be done during battle)
2. Attach the clip to the gun (again, the first clip can be done during down time)
3. Aim the rifle
4. Pull the trigger
5. Repeat steps 3 & 4, as necessary

So, as they do, things progressed and eventually you end up with a mechanism like we see today.  Almost all of the external setup elements have been removed from the gun loading process, however, there is always room for continuous improvement. 

An Uzi (shown), can fire up to 1,200 rounds per minute (rpm)!  That’s 20 rpm or .05 seconds per bullet!!  Some machine guns are capable of firing at rates up to 3,000 rpm.

By advancements in technology that allowed external setup times to be reduced and internal setup times to be eliminated (and the streamlining of all other internal setup times), firearms have seen a throughput increase of 40,000% (using the musket and uzi as examples - (1,200 rpm / 3 rpm) x 100%)!  That kind of increase is unheard of in most manufacturing operations, but can be seen from time to time when dealing with automation.

 How about that for an example of how much improvement you can get from a SMED?!

How to calculate OEE: 

OEE stands for Overall Equipment Effectiveness and is the most comprehensive calculation used to determine how effectively you are utilizing your equipment.  It is an important part of total productive maintenance, can help better calculate efficiency losses, and is useful when incorporated into the cycle time calculations.

In order to calculate OEE, you will need to collect some data:

1. PERFORMANCE RATE - The Performance Rate is calculated by looking at the actual operating speeds of your machines in comparison to the operating speeds that they were originally designed for those machines or the products being run on them.
   • Product A was designed to run on Machine 1 at speed setting 10, the highest speed possible.  Due to the machine’s old age and fragile state, it can only run safely and produce good versions of Product A at a speed setting of 6.  The Performance Rate would then be 60% (i.e. 6 / 10
2. AVAILABILITY RATE - The Availability Rate is calculated by measuring any production losses due to downtime from equipment failing, breaking down, etc. as a portion of scheduled manufacturing time.
   • Machine 1 runs 36 hours for every 40 available manufacturing hours due to breakdowns.  The Availability Rate is then 90% (i.e. 36 / 40).
3. QUALITY RATE - The Quality Rate is calculated by determining the amount of losses due to quality issues like scrap and rework as compared to the total parts processed.
   • Machine 1 ran 100 pieces of Product A, but only 98 met the quality specifications.  The Quality Rate would then be 98% (i.e. 98 / 100).

 Now, once you have these 3 important measures, the calculation of OEE is very simple:

          PERFORMANCE RATE  x  AVAILABILITY RATE  x  QUALITY RATE

Using the examples from above (Performance Rate = 60%, Availability Rate = 90%, Quality Rate = 98%):

          60%  x  90%  x  98% = 52.9%

 Essentially, the OVERALL EQUIPMENT EFFECTIVENESS (OEE) is the % of effective use that you are getting out of your piece of equipment.  It is a compounding, thorough look at your true equipment uptime as a percentage of your total available manufacturing time.  This metric is important for loading workcenters and determining capacities because you are completely aware of a particular machine’s (or machine type) total ‘real’ uptime.

‘Lean Lexicon, a graphical glossary for Lean Thinkers’

Compiled by the Lean Enterprise Institute

While this is not your traditional style of book, the ‘Lean Lexicon‘ contains so much great material that I just had to post it in a book review.  This book is just what it says it is, ‘a glossary for Lean Thinkers.’  Whether you are new to Lean Manufacturing or consider yourself an expert, this would should be in your Lean library.  The book is sorted in alphabetical order, and setup so that related topics point to one another, which makes for easy connections between lean tools and applications.  Also, another benefit is the inclusion of historical figures such as the Kiichiro Toyoda, Sakichi Toyoda, Shigeo Shingo, and Taiichi Ohno.  It lists everything you could ever want to know about Lean (at least from a basic definition basis), including some lesser known topics like A-B Control, Chaku-Chaku, Demand Amplification, Kaikaku, and Capital Linearity.  These are the types of topics that hold Lean together and are known to Lean experts, but often overlooked by rookie Lean implementors who stick to the mainstream tools like 5S and SMED.

 Overall, there is very little that this book could be accoused of lacking, and I can’t think of anything off the top of my head.  Add this book to your Lean library and pick up a copy for your coworkers or employees so that you, and they, can reference topics in the midst of a Lean transformation!

What is Kaizen?  Many people that are new to Lean Manufacturing will at some point end up saying, “Kaizen?  What is Kaizen?  What do you mean by Kaizen?  What does Kaizen do?”  Several terms and definitions come to mind when talking about Kaizen.

On page 24 of The Toyota Way, Liker comments, “Kaizen is a total philosophy that strives for perfection and sustains TPS on a daily basis.”

Kaizen is a Japanese term meaning “Change for the better” or “improvement”.  It is most commonly translated into English as “Continuous Improvement”.  Kaizen is one of the forerunners in Lean thinking and requires discipline and constant re-evaluation.  It works on the basis that nothing can ever become perfect.  There is always something that can be improved.

Kaizen on a company scale can mean several things.  As part of a continuous improvement culture, most companies hold what are called Kaizen Events.  These are generally an activity that remove people from their daily tasks and place them on a team, to accomplish a goal within three to five days.  These are highly targeted projects with achievable results, such as moving machines so that they can work closer to one another for continuous flow, or designing and implementing a new queuing system for a specific purpose, or a SMED event (What is SMED?), etc.  No matter what the goal is, the process is relatively the same:  Plan, Do, Check, Act.

Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) was developed by W. Edwards Deming and introduced in Japan in the 1950s.  It is based on the Scientific Method and is a precursor to Six Sigma’s DMAIC process (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, & Control).  This is how PDCA breaks down:

• Plan – Develop a sound, well thought out goal (that can be achieved with moderate effort) and how to achieve it.
• Do – Implement the ideas and/or changes needed to achieve the goal, including training.
• Check – Review what you’ve done; be critical, but not negative.
• Act – Depending on how the Check step went, sustain these results or perform the whole PDCA cycle over again.

You can see that this is pure continuous improvement as the cycle can be completed over and over again.  In the Toyota Production System, they have slightly changed this language to be Plan, Try, Reflect, and Standardize.  Different verbiage, but same expectations of process and results.

Typically, most Lean training and resources define two types of Kaizen:  System or Flow Kaizen and Process Kaizen. 

A System or Flow Kaizen deals with an entire value stream being evaluated for opportunities of improvements and will usually include action from several levels of management. 

A Process Kaizen is a concentrated improvement of a single process (or groups of the same type of process).  This type of Kaizen will usually include a cross functional team dedicated to improving that individual process.

Both of these types of Kaizen are abundant in any successful Lean enterprise, and are at the very heart of those organizations.  Working within a company that needs help implementing Lean can begin to wear on your mind, especially if you are the agent of change.  For my entire professional career I’ve had to take on this role.  You push and push everyday for changes because you can see the waste sitting all around the plant and office; in stacks of wasted inventory and DMR’d materials to frivolous steps in product development processes.  It’s tough to keep a positive attitude. 

Over time I’ve learned to incorporate the idea of Kaizen into everything that I do.  I make it a habit to say this word to myself over and over again at different times during the day.  While at work, it keeps me in the moment and opens my mind to thinking that everything can be made better if we just apply ourselves a little bit more.  Now, I tend to Implement Then Perfect which is a good, offset definition (sort of) of Kaizen, where as early on in my career I would spend too much time pondering possibilities instead of just doing.  This creates better outcomes and makes you think on a Results Driven basis, which is really the way you want to think - you will constantly grow and improve - just like a company that is maintaining a strong Kaizen mentality.

On a personal level, use Kaizen to improve you life and it will work its way into your professional career.  Incorporate it into your daily life with exercise, eating habits, vices, etc.  If you want to start working out, start small and build from there - add a little bit everyday.  That’s small, incremental improvements that work.  If you eat too much, try to eat 1 less bite at 1 meal every other day, and eventually move up to 1 bite for every meal, everyday.  If you smoke and want to quit, cut back slowly and your body will respond favorably.  These methods work for you and the same type of stepwise improvements drive positive changes in your company.

If you know someone who claims to be perfect – they’re not.  Even a lot of the most successful people will tell you that they are not perfect and that that belief is what got them to where they are today – and it keeps them there.  You maybe thinking:  “Won’t that thinking just make me depressed?”  The truth is, no, it won’t.  Once you allow yourself to see the flaws that are holding you back, you will be much more likely to overcome them.  A good motto that I try to live by is:  Always be happy, but never be satisfied.  That is the essence of Kaizen.  That will bring continuous improvement to your life.  That is Kaizen.

While working in a textile factory in the early 1900s, Sakichi Toyoda saw a problem with the way the textile looms ran:  if one of the threads broke, the machine would continue to produce bad product until an operator noticed that the break had occurred.  Improving upon this, he developed a self-monitoring device that stopped the loom when one of the threads broke.  This produced dramatic improvements in quality, as well as freed up operators that had previously spent much of their workday watching looms for quality.  That particular invention is still used in many textile operations around the world, as well as in most manufacturing processes in general.  It wasn’t the particular application that was important; it was the overall idea.  This idea was later termed Jidoka, and when translated into English, literally means “automation with human intelligence”.  This idea would become one of the two main pillars of the Toyota Production System (TPS), and is still in use in every Toyota operation and process.

The second pillar of TPS was developed by Sakichi Toyoda’s son, Kiichiro, and is called Just-In-Time.  In the 1930s, Kiichiro, the founder of the automotive branch of the Toyota group, theorized that he could keep the entire production process stocked with needed goods if the previous operation would respond to the precise needs of the downstream process.  This thinking dramatically reduced the amount of time operators spent waiting for parts to work on, while limiting the amount of the waste in the process.  He would continue this idea by working closely with suppliers to level production and ultimately, reduce all excess inventory levels.  Jidoka and Just-In-Time were both developed before the start of World War II.

After the war, one of Toyota’s executives continued the development of TPS and is credited as the chief architect of the system that is still in use today.  As chief of production, Taiichi Ohno developed TPS into a company wide cultural experience which required each associate to participate.  In many American factories, then and now, operators were reluctant to add their input and often feared change.  Conversely, Ohno praised change and suggestions from everyone.  During his tenure (and with the assistance of the famed consultant Shigeo Shingo), Toyota invented many “tools” which would come to encompass much of Lean Production.  Two such tools, 5 S and Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED), have been written about extensively, and are often some of the first steps a company will take while trying to implement the system.  Over the years this developed into the idea known as Kaizen, which when translated means “continuous improvement”.  This idea still stands as the overall image of Toyota, as they are always re-evaluating every process, from order taking to final inspection.

After the publication of The Machine That Changed the World, companies began to familiarize themselves with Lean Production and the toolset became common knowledge.  The overall concept of Lean is what prompted this blog.  As you will read throughout this site, Lean is not an idea, it’s a way of life.  It is about embracing change and being able to look inward and realize that there are always improvements that can be made.  Once a company adapts this kind of thinking, they are consistently able to find themselves improving in all areas, from on-time delivery to quality!

Lean works.  Lean is right.  Lean is good.  Lean consistently proves its worth through continuous, stepwise gains for companies brave enough to take on the challenge of looking within themselves to correct deep founded issues with their status quo and historical patterns of behaviors.  So, why doesn’t Lean help every company that implements it?

The truth is, Lean doesn’t work for some companies because THEY (i.e. the companies it doesn’t work for) don’t allow it to work for them.  And that is why Lean fails.

Recently, something caught my eye that I’ve known for quite a few years now.  It was refreshing to see, but only because misery loves company and in terms of Lean, is still rather unfortunate news.  The annual survey from Lean.org read like this (July 2007):

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Survey: Middle Managers Are Biggest Obstacle to Lean Enterprise

Cambridge, Mass., July 18 — Middle management resistance to change is now the number one obstacle to implementing the innovative business system known as lean production, according to a new survey completed by nearly 2,500 businesspeople and conducted by the Lean Enterprise Institute, a nonprofit management research center.

Middle management resistance was cited by 36.1 percent of respondents in LEI’s annual survey about lean business system implementation in the U.S. The top three obstacles to implementation were middle management resistance (36.1 percent), Lack of implementation know-how (31 percent), and employee resistance (27.7 percent).

Last year, backsliding to the old ways of working was the primary obstacle to introducing lean management principles, followed by lack of implementation know-how and middle management resistance. Backsliding dropped to sixth place in this year’s survey.

“Applying lean management principles exposes problems in traditional business systems, which often is threatening to middle managers in the problem areas,” said Chet Marchwinski, LEI communication director. “To get middle managers on board with the lean transformation, organizations must transform the metrics and behaviors for judging their performances.”

For instance, traditional financial metrics often need to be removed from day-to-day management decisions about key processes. Instead, operating managers have to learn to help employees look for waste and remove it.

Since 2003, LEI has surveyed managers and executives annually about the key obstacles they face in transforming their companies from mass production to lean. The latest results are based on 2,444 responses to an opinion survey distributed electronically to the 77,200 subscribers to LEI’s monthly e-letter. Respondents were asked to select all applicable obstacles from a list of 12 possibilities. Members also were polled on industry trends and the implementation level of their lean transformations.

I guess there is an obvious sense of naivety on my side for thinking that Middle Management Resistance would eventually go away, but that would be assuming that there isn’t a general ignorance and lack of a kazien mentality (i.e. betterment, continuous improvement mentality) exhibited by most managers.  Managers do things because they believe that they know what is best.  “It’s always worked that way, so why try to change it.” 

There is comfort in familiarization and docile activities that typically bog down managers.  Lean requires a huge, cultural change that breaks down the barriers of the common ways of looking at things.  It also requires a great deal of involvement from everyone within an organization.  This is especially true for the CEO (or senior staff entirely) AND the lowest ranking members of the company.  Middle managers are the glue that holds these groups of people together.

I could go on forever on this topic and describe to you how this all ties into the Theory of Constraints and The Goal, departmentalizaiton vs. cellularization, etc., but I’ll just give you a few sentences.

Middle managers have their hands tied.  Too often, they are bound to their traditional metrics and methods of thinking.  This leads to production managers and supervisors pushing for their employees and workcenters to be producing at 100% capacity just for the sake of running production and keep uptime on par with traditional company goals.  This just creates over production, mismanaged inventories, misinformed operators, and in the end, a complete resistance to Lean Thinking.  In the end, for too many middle managers, production trumps Lean and Six Sigma because it’s all “ship, ship, ship….this product is a rush….ship, ship, ship”.  It’s rather ironic that all of these managers’ practices are the very nature and source of their need to have a always rushing mentality.

 An open message to all managers:  Study Lean, sign up for seminars or conferences, make an effort to earn that paycheck you receive for your work.  Ignorance is bliss, right?  WRONG.  In manufacturing, ignorance is a sin.  It represents the cognitive acceptance of absolute failure and is ultimately detrimental to your organizations’ success and continued growth.  It’s time for you to quit calling Lean a fad or referring to Lean tools as buzzwords because you are too lazy to better your thinking, better yourselves, better the people that work above and below you, and most importantly, to better your company. 

Lean works.  Lean is right.  Lean is good.

What is SMED?

If you are like the thousands of people working for a company that is moving towards implementing Lean Manufacturing then I am sure that you’ve heard some very unique terms and acronyms being thrown around.  The most common of these are probably 5S (Five S), Kaizen, J.I.T. (Just-In-Time), Poka-yoke and SMED.

In this post I am going to talk about SMED.  What is SMED?

Well, SMED or S.M.E.D. stands for Single Minute Exchange of Dies.  During the formative years of the Toyota Production System, Shigeo Shingo was determined to reduce the setup time associated with the car body molding process.  (Like many manufacturers, Toyota had traditionally been in the trap associated with Economic Batch Quantities, and originally would produce enough to justify the setup cost).  After some initial trial runs, he was able to create a process that could be incorporated by all operations.  This led to more and more setup reduction events that were eventually cataloged and rolled into SMED.

To fully understand and utilize SMED, one needs to be aware of the entire process related to changeovers and setups.  The classic definition of changeover (from so many sources, over so many years, I don’t know who to give the most credit to, but mostly Womack, Jones or professors of mine from some time ago):  The process of switching from the production of one product to another on a machine by changing parts, dies, etc. measured as the time elapsed between the last GOOD piece of the previous production run and the first GOOD piece from the production run after the changeover.

Notice that the word good is capitalized.  Most people I have worked with and around will, from time to time, negate this fact and try to remove it from the equation.  This is a sin as, depending on the process, adjustments and teardown times can amount to a large portion of a changeover.  Below is the typical breakdown of a changeover/setup by time spent on specific tasks:

Typically, a SMED is a planned Kaizen event that lasts for several days (usually no more than five) concluding in a presentation to senior management officials.  The team that is compiled to perform a SMED should be associates pulled from all aspects of the company.  For example, one of the SMED’s that I was involved with included the plant manager, two supervisors, two operators from the process (from 1^st and 3^rd shifts as selected by their supervisors), an operator from another area, a sales/marketing person, and myself, representing engineering and facilitating the event as the team leader.  That number of team members is right around the maximum that you should have working on one event.

The targeted area or type of machine group should be video taped ahead of time by the facilitator of the event.  This is an essential part of the SMED and will be used throughout the process as well as in the final presentation to show the results.

I typically take the first day of the SMED and use it to introduce the team to some of the concepts of Lean and drive home the SMED process and all of its elements.  The most essential part of this training is defining the two aspects of a changeover:  Internal and External setups.

Internal setups are any aspects of a changeover that MUST be completed while the machinery is stopped.  In most cases, these things will be process steps like installing a die, changing gears, flushing/purging a hopper, lubricating interior moving parts, etc.  Notice the keyword in this sentence is MUST (hold that thought for a second).

External setups are just the opposite, anything that MAY be performed or changed while the machine is running.  These are all of the things that should be done prior to the actual changeover and include arranging required raw materials (hopefully from a supermarket or Point-Of-Use (POU) inventory and not a warehouse across town), notifying a material handler to take away the completed product, loading payoffs or racks that feed into the machine, etc. 

As I said before, notice the MUST statement regarding Internal and the MAY statement regarding External.  How often do you think people will do something when you give the option of MAY? 

A lot of the time, operators will know that these types of things should be done before the machine stops running, but they don’t do them because there is no attention paid to have long it takes them to changeover.  Once it is brought to their attention and made part of the process (everyday) and most importantly, measured, they will start to make much more of an effort.

During the training, I will go over the SMED process with the entire team and answer any questions that each team member might ask.  The process, once understood, is very straight forward.  Actually, like a lot of the practices built into Lean, if you look at changes made during a SMED you should always be able to say to yourself, “Well yeah, that’s what I would have done because that’s common sense; get the materials while the previous job is running, do this and that, etc.” 

While we’re on the subject, the SMED process is as follows:

1) Record current state setup conditions and practices

2) Separate internal and external setups

3) Convert internal setups to external setups

4) Streamline the entire setup process

Now, when I have my team there and have gone through with them, all of the training necessary, we start by watching the actual process.  We always start by taking a walk out to the operation, looking at all aspects of the operation and paying close attention to operator movements, physical space limitations, raw material stores, etc.  After which we return to the SMED team area (usually a dedicated conference room for the week) and watch the entire changeover process that was videotaped earlier in the week.

To be cont’d….