« January 2007 | Main | March 2007 »
#5. "I'm surprised at how little we got done in four and a half days."
#4. "I have no concerns about these results being sustained."
#3. "Everything went as planned."
#2. "There's no more room for improvement."
#1. "I wish we could have spent more time in the conference room this week."
"How much should we pay for kaizen ideas?" This is a question we often hear during a kaizen class. The type of kaizen we are talking about here is the everyone-everyday kind, otherwise known as the soikufu system in Japanese, or not-so-aptly named suggestion system in English.
At companies like Toyota, the job description includes following standard work and finding a way to make it better. Doing your job and improving your job are one and the same.
Either by legacy or by design, kaizen ideas at Toyota do receive a monetary reward, but the reasoning is given is that these ideas are written up and tested on the workers' own time.
Paying for ideas is not a bad thing, but it can create a disincentive. If you have a very traditional company, you train your people in Lean and kaizen, ask them to improve their work, and pay them based on ideas implemented, these people might make out like bandits for the first few years while there is plenty of low-hanging fruit.
There is nothing wrong with that as long as people don't lose interest as it gets harder to find small improvements, or as new employees hear of the "good old days" when you could stumble across kaizen ideas without using your wits.
This can be avoided if you combine the suggestion system approach with management-led TPS transformation and solid, industrial engineering-based technical kaizen efforts to take out large chunks of waste, leaving the day-to-day kaizens as an ongoing picking of smaller fruits by everyone.
It's odd when you think about it. Should we pay extra for asking people to make use of a particular body part? Walking at work? That uses legs, so pay me an additional $1 per hour, please. Nose? Five cents per odor detected. Spleen? I won't even go there.
Why shouldn't everybody be asked to use their brain when they are at work? It's not as though your brain wears out with use. In fact, quite the opposite. And why should we pay extra for kaizen ideas? You give them work, which inherently contains problems, and challenge them to use their wits to solve the problems. Kaizen is the natural byproduct of minds at work.
Today's article in the Lexington Herald-Leader made my day a little bit better. The Scott County Way: Educators take a page from 'The Toyota Way' to boost curriculums:
It seemed only natural that Toyota's corporate culture would influence the local schools, said Superintendent Dallas Blankenship. He estimated that one in three students in the school district have one or more parents that work for either Toyota or a Toyota supplier. The school district has had several partnership programs with Toyota in Georgetown.
The Center for Quality People and Organizations (great name) is a non profit formed through the joint efforts of the Scott County School System and Toyota that is working on bringing Toyota Way thinking to schools.
"We don't necessarily make cars, but we make kids the best way they can be," said Ken Wright, director of instruction in the Scott County Schools.
Examples of Toyota Way thinking applied to education include seeing the process of educating as a "pull" in helping students learn, rather than "pushing" them through the program, the "go see" attitude of investigation needs and requests, and visual management.
Most meaningful perhaps is the use of visual controls, charting the math test scores of the students in a second grade class to raise awareness, build a sense of teamwork and need for improvement among the kids. They're building good habits early.
"Toyota's ideas have helped us think through better ways for us," Wright is quoted in the article.
I've heard that the word "education" comes from the Latin verb "educere" meaning "to lead out" or "to lead forth" or "to draw out." If this is so, by definition, true education must be a pull.
Toyota is not the only global brand having growing pains from its success these days. In today's Wall Street Journal article titled Starbucks Chairman Says Trouble May Be Brewing, Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz has sent out a memo questioning whether their drive for growth and efficiency has diluted the customer experience at Starbucks.
It sounds like Howard Schultz is a bit dissatisfied with the atmosphere of some Starbucks stores. From the WSJ article:
When workers first tried cooking the sandwiches, cheese sometimes dripped off them and into the warming oven, sending a strong odor of burned cheese through the cafes. Mr. Schultz complained when he walked into a Starbucks near the company's Seattle headquarters and smelled a burning sandwich, according to a manager at the store. Starbucks switched ovens and told workers to clean them regularly.
Way to go to gemba to find and solve problems, Mr. Schultz. The only problem is that with 13,000 stores and a plan for as many as 40,000 stores worldwide, there is not nearly enough physical presence of brand visionary Chairman Schultz to go around.
Starbucks switched ovens and told workers to clean them regularly. So they fired the ovens, told the workers what to do, and problem solved.
There is a lesson in point here about the difference between Toyota-style genchi gembutsu management and problem solving as a habit, and the "stumble upon" problem solving or innovation typical American of management's approach, as being illustrated in the Wall Street Journal article.
Here's a pair of personal Starbucks stories. A few months ago we had a severe windstorm and lost power for most of a week. The local Starbucks became something of a refuge. The baristas did a great job keeping everyone's spirits up, managing the long queues, taking and calling out orders. They took some initiative and made good out of a bad situation. I will go to that Starbucks store again.
A few weeks back I was in Philadephia on a very cold and windy day. Due to the layout of this particular downtown Starbucks store, the only way they could remove the large plastic garbage container was to drag the trash can through the store, bumping past our table, and at one point stationing the trash next to our table for a few minutes while they unlocked half of the glass door (which was larger than the opening of the unlocked half of the door) so that trash can could be taken outside, and down about 5 steps. Did I mention that this was a very cold and windy day? I may never go back to that store again.
To some degree you can chalk up this difference to the physical constraints of the store, but truly exceptional organizations have teams of people who are trained in how to overcome various local conditions and obstacles to solve problems or deliver great customer experiences.
Howard Schultz's memo is a good start. If Starbucks wants to maintain the customer experience, they need to teach the people on the gemba (Starbucks stores) these principles and how to make decisions to fix problems like the smell of burnt sandwiches, garbage 2 feet from my coffee, and the freezing cold wind blowing through the doors wedged open while the trash can goes bump bump down the steps.
Luckily, genchi gembutsu, or the habit of going on-site to see the actual product or service being produced or delivered in order to manage by fact and solve problems, is highly teachable. It just has to start at the top.
The harder Toyota's overwhelming success becomes to ignore, the more books and articles are written about what makes them great. Many say the same thing, but in different ways. I've just started flipping through a Japanese book titled The Textbook of Toyota-style Work and I've already found something interesting.
In the section titled A Study of Toyota's "Gemba Power," the book describes how Toyota employees are loyal to the company due to how the company treats them, and how Toyota people have a uniformity in how they think and act that gives them power.
Stylishly, this is called the seven habits. They are that Toyota people:
1. Listen well to others
2. Think about what is the problem
3. Show a willingness to encourage and suggest
4. Have a habit of thinking of what needs to be done in order to win
5. Discuss things with each other
6. Are thorough about genchi gembutsu
7. Have an willingness to just try it
These are values and behaviors at the root of what makes Toyota successful. Obvious things. Easy to describe, hard to get everyone to do all of the time.
Lean Six Sigma is not Lean. It is Six Sigma, but one that is more "Lean" than just regular "Six Sigma." In the English language the adjective (Lean) modifies the noun or subject word (Six Sigma). So Lean Six Sigma is technically not Lean at all, but a form of Six Sigma that has less fat in it than regular Six Sigma.
Just like "diet soda" is not a form of diet but a form of soda.
"Six Sigma Lean" on the other hand, is redundant since Lean manufacturing already implies Six Sigma, in that the development of Lean manufacturing at Toyota comes directly from Deming's work on statistical quality control. Although they are not so popular elsewhere, QC Circles are active in Japanese companies as well as in Toyota. The whole "QC Story" approach to work team kaizen based on the scientific method is implied in Lean manufacturing. So I think that Six Sigma Lean is redundant.
Don't even get me started with Lean Sigma.
If there were a "soda diet" that made you thin by drinking just Cola, that might work, but I think this would just make you sick.
So what do we call the intentional merging of Lean and Six Sigma values, skills and tools?
I caught a rerun of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night on television. The bit of news involved the $22 billion in cash lost in Iraq during Paul Bremer's time there. Both political parties want to be seen as addressing this problem, but sadly not as a team.
The Democrats have established a committee to address government waste, fraud and abuse at www.oversight.house.gov while the Republicans have done the same at www.Oversight@Mail.House.gov
"We seem to have rival tip line websites," observed California Representative Henry Waxman.
In order to make sure that the point was not lost, Jon Stewart quipped:
"The House Oversight Committee established a waste and inefficiency tip line... and then another one!"
Sometimes the U.S. government makes the comedian's job too easy.
As I was flipping through my copy of the February 2007 issue of Dental Economics today, an interview with two Danaher executives caught my eye. Danaher is known as a leading American company who has quietly and profitably grown through smart acquisitions and the application of kaizen and the Toyota Production System. You can read more about them here, as well as in a recent article in the Superfactory blog.
Danaher is now the number two dental company in the world, according to the article. Bob Joyce head of the Dental Equipment Group in the Americas and Daniel Even, President, Sybron Dental Specialtie spoke with the interviewer about DBS (the Danaher version of TPS):
Dr. Blaes: Why will a company be better as part of Danaher?
Bob Joyce: Probably the most significant advantage of being part of Danaher is the Danaher Business System. [...]
What is the DBS?
Bob Joyce: The Danaher Business System, or DBS, is the one thing that is distinctly similar across all our businesses, and we are incredibly passionate about it because it defines our culture and drives our performance. It’s a very powerful system of values and continuous-improvement tools, including a well-honed training model for our associates. DBS is used to guide and measure everyday activities to meet and exceed customer expectations.
Dan Even: Guiding all our efforts is a simple philosophy rooted in four customer-facing priorities: quality, delivery, cost/price, and innovation. Always keeping these priorities in mind, we use DBS to guide what we do, to measure how well we execute, and to create options for doing even better - including improving DBS itself!
Talking about kaizen, the Danaher executives describe who you might meet during a kaizen event at Danaher:
Bob Joyce: Central to DBS is “kaizen,” or continuous improvement. Everyone within Danaher, including our leadership team, gets involved in kaizens, our continuous-improvement events. We start by identifying a customer issue and gathering a team to participate in an event that will fix a customer issue in less than a week. It’s not uncommon to see Larry Culp, our CEO and President, in the middle of a kaizen, moving equipment around the factory floor. As I said, we are incredibly passionate about DBS because of the rapid impact it can have on customer satisfaction and our business performance.
It's not uncommon to see the CEO in the middle of a kaizen... You might want to print out those words and glue them to your CEO's door, if your experience with getting the CEO on a kaizen team has been anything like ours. Getting the CEO on a kaizen team is like pulling teeth.
The most common reason given is that CEOs are too busy to spend three to five days on a kaizen team making huge improvements to their core business processes. To that I say that if you do enough kaizen events and kaizen education, the CEO's job will get easier, all by itself.
In the few cases when the kaizen event was planned around the CEO's schedule, allowing him to be on the kaizen team, amazing things happened. All of those executives, who were always so busy to attend kaizent team review meetings or visit the gemba at the end of the week to see the gains the team members had made, somehow got all of their work done and were able to attend when the CEO was there...
Another reason given is that people will be intimidated by the CEO and team members will clam up and not give their input. If your supreme leader lacks the people skills and communication skills to such a degree that you can't trust him not to disturb the harmony of a cross-functional team for a week, there's a training and development opportunity for you. Of course in some cultures this may be a barrier that is too high to overcome in the short term.
"Our CEO already fully supports kaizen" is another reason given, assuming that support is the only important role a CEO in a cultural transformation. CEOs also need to develop the skill to do kaizen, which arises from a a set of values and guiding principles, learned by doing. This excuse rings particularly hollow when coming from a corporate Lean VP whose primary function is to report to the CEO how the sites are doing with Lean, so that the CEO does not have to go to gemba to check for herself.
And my favorite CEO excuse is that "We have people to do kaizen" as if by hiring industrial engineers, black belts and certified improvement professionals, you somehow make up for the lack of total employee involvement, from the top down.
Why shouldn't it be like pulling teeth? Bad teeth, like bad habits, need to be removed and replaced with better ones. Then you need to brush every day so you don't need to pull the other ones. It's just good hygiene.
The CEO can't and shouldn't be on every kaizen event. Nobody should. Not every kaizen should be an event. But if removing waste, or more importantly if removing obstacles to removing waste does not rank in the top five things to do for your CEO, you may find yourself being acquired and assimilated into a company whose CEO has pulled those teeth already.
Chrysler is feeling the squeeze. Third quarter losses were twice as large as projected. The DaimlerChrysler leadership are using their wits in an ongoing effort to turn things around. Chief Executive Dieter Zetsche has stated that "All options are open."
Sadly, "all options" are probably less than five, and likely do not include anything more radical than continuing to do what Chrysler has always done, just borrowing money and time from new sources. It is impractical, if not impossible, to truly pursue "all options" and often this is code to stock analysts that "We will make the changes needed to increase shareholder value."
The upshot of this is that the happy plans made in good times by Daimler to acquire Chrysler are not working out so well and now DaimlerChrysler Moves Forward On Plans to Sell or Spin Off U.S. Unit according to a February 18, 2007 Wall Street Journal article.
Setting aside the development of the Toyota Production System for a moment, there were three key events in Toyota's history. Chrysler could learn from these.
First, Toyota started out in the automatic loom business. They sold the patent for this invention to a company in England, and opted to manufacture automobiles. The future was not in textiles, but in automobiles. This was a smaller decision for Toyota to make 70 years ago than it would be for Chrysler today. However, if they are considering "all options" Chrysler should ask whether what the world needs over the next 70 years is more automobile design and production capacity.
Second, Toyota welcomed the scientific method into their management thought process. They learned and applied the teachings of Deming, Juran, Ford, Gilbreth, Maslow and others. Science values fact, learning through experimentation and learning from failures and mistakes. Chrysler may be facing a near-death experience for the third time in 25 years. What has Chrysler learned?
Third, Toyota made vehicles for the U.S. military. On the brink of bankruptcy due to making too many cars at too high a cost and selling too few of them, Toyota was saved by the special demand for vehicles during the Korean War.
Taiichi Ohno talked about the shift from from "reduced volume production" to "limited volume production" in his book Workplace Management. The key difference in meaning is that the former is slimmed down operating model based on decreasing sales, while the latter is an operating model that is based on intentionally limiting the production volume to only what you will sell. "We do not make what we will not sell," said Taiichi Ohno about Toyota's operating model.
Chrysler, you are a very good industrial design firm. Invent something that fills an emerging need. Then make a commitment to the scientific process and the persistent habit of learning from past mistakes. And get the U.S. government to pay for these things, ideally without a war.
There's a good article over at the New York Times on February 15, 2007 titled The 'Toyota Way' Is Translated for a New Generation of Foreign Managers. It's not about putting Jeffrey Liker's book The Toyota Way into other languages, it's about Toyota taking a more intentional approach to teaching the thinking behind the Toyota Production System to its people.
Until recently, Toyota people spoke of the Toyota Way as something that was best learned by living it while working at Toyota. It was "in the air", so to speak. Reasons I heard for not writing it down included the belief that it was best learned by doing, and that if it was written people would do only what was written and not change it. I suspect it was actually because until recently there was no need.
Now that's changed. There's only so much "Toyota Way particles" to go around, and with so many factories being built and staffed around the world, the factory air is running thin of the stuff.
The Toyota Institute in Japan has been established to teach the values that lead to the behaviors that make Toyota the most successful manufacturing company in the world. Listed in the article, these include:
- mutual ownership of problems
- genchi gembutsu
- kaizen mind
- making problems visible
- open offices
These are not secrets. In fact a lot has been written about these things, sometimes in these pages. According to the article, Toyota has not written these things down prior to 2001, however. Much of this is obvious it is just a question of doing the obvious exceptionally well.
“Before, when everyone was Japanese, we didn’t have to make these things explicit,” Mr. Konishi said. “Now we have to set the Toyota Way down on paper and teach it.”
Mr. Konishi is the General Manager in charge of the Toyota Institute. He doesn't explain why they didn't need to make the Toyota Way explicit in the old days. I don't think it has anything to do with being Japanese, but quite a bit can be lost in translation, and the Japanese education system is not famous for being good at teaching English.
There seems to be a bit of PR spin at work here with Toyota putting the blame for its recent quality problems and recalls on foreign workers in whom Toyota has failed to instill the philosophy of building in quality. Teaching the Toyota Way will help, but doing some serious hansei on their design process may also be needed.
The true challenge for Toyota will not be training new overseas employees in the Toyota Way, but in managing the turnover of these people in a job market that increasingly values Toyota Production System training and expertise.
Toyota Canada's new guiding principle, slogan and value statement, to put it in marketing speak, is 'make things better'. Toyota Canada gives itself a giant pat on the back in explaining the results of their extensive market research. But what's not to like about 'make it better' anyway? I can't imagine the citizens of any country getting up in arms about that slogan.
Speaking of Canadian citizens getting up in arms, about a dozen years ago I was in Montreal walking with some Asian friends. A group of youths drove by in a car and yelled "Toyota!" at us. My friends explained to me that it was meant to be a racial slur. I hope I haven't offended any readers with that slur. In light of today's press release, the irony of this memory is rich.
Stephen Beatty, Managing Director of Toyota Canada Inc., lists three reasons for this rebranding. First, Canadians associate 'make things better' with Toyota and second, Canadians associate 'make things better' with themselves.
"[...] And third, that 'make things better' is a philosophy that no other manufacturer can claim with the same conviction that we do."
This a bold claim, though this chest-beating by Toyota would be more impressive if done on the streets of Detroit or in Washington D.C.
Good call, Toyota Canada. But if we could draw your attention to the top of the page for just a moment...
Make things better? Yes, we called it here, over two years ago. Maybe it was the three years I spent in Canada...
In chapter 32 of Taiichi Ohno's Workplace Management, Ohno said, "There is a correct sequence to kaizen." We must first study and improve the work itself (manual work) then improve the process (sequence, steps) and then improve the machine. The idea is that you should not buy a machine without first considering the process and building it around the people and the work that they do. Yet this is not at all how the world works, unfortunately.
A few years ago when my laptop broke, my company purchased me a new one. At that time, no consideration whatsoever was given the the manual work I would do with this machine, the process itself, or the sequence of steps needed to perform my work. We simply bought the a mid-range Wintel machine and it was back to work.
Recently, I learned by accident that I have probably wasted thousands and thousands of seconds over the years in how I rename files. If you select (click on) a document and press F2 it lets you rename the file.
Did you know this? All of these years I have been right clicking, holding down the clicker and dragging mouse down to "Rename", nervously navigating past "Delete".
How many more things like this are there? I need to spend more time looking over other people's shoulders while they work at their computers.
This is certainly not the most important work element in a typical day of working at the computer, but it is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If an Industrial Engineer had first studied and kaizened my manual work, my laptop keyboard would be a lot bigger, possibly with color-coded keys, and my mouse a lot smaller.
I understand that Microsoft did a similar study of user behavior, and added a "slide show" button to the Vista operating system that allows you to turn off anything that might interrupt your slide show during a presentation. This is another small example of building the machine around the process of how people work. There is a correct sequence to kaizen.
Taiichi Ohno also said the fastest motion is the easiest method. Never accept equipment as it is given to you by the manufacturer, never accept the process method as it is today, never accept the average time as the correct time. Be dissatisfied and do kaizen.
Blogger BDG123 at Rantings on Markets, Economics and Business Strategy is an electrical engineer and mathematician by training, one-time corporate consultant and corporate sales and marketing executive in the information technology and business consulting, and securities trader, according to his profile.
Last week he asked some questions on the industrial economy and followed up today on the issue of whether in the grand scheme of things the pursuit of low manufacturing wage means a thing. He invoked Shigeo Shingo and Henry Ford while peeling off a rant:
The reality is manufacturing efficiency and the ultimate end product cost contains many variables beyond labor rates. Cost is more about a maniacal focus on continuously optimizing efficiency, quality and lowering labor's input into the final output. Labor's input into final output is not wage rate but continuous improvement of doing more with less via technology and business process improvement. And, a great industrial company never rests as it pertains to continuous improvement. Always questioning how to do more with less, even questioning if I need a skilled worker to do unskilled labor. Or whether my skilled labor would serve my client better by focusing on higher value work. So, where does this notion that people must make piddly salaries come from? Is this a reflection of too many finance minded executives infiltrating all sectors of our economy? Because I can assure you, most of what is taught at Toyota would require you to throw what was taught at Wharton Business School. Manufacturing and operations related segments of the economy are not about spreadsheets, they are about real commitment to rolling up your sleeves and understanding how you make something and continuously make it better.
Amen. He lists the seven types of waste plus information, then continues:
Do you see wage rates in the above list of lean manufacturing focus areas? If I pay someone $25 an hour or $10 an hour, how does that fact improve the processes above? To the contrary, doesn't the fact that I pay higher wages mean that I should be able to attract a more qualified worker and a more committed work force? That I should theoretically find employees more capable of adding more intellectual value to my organization and thus finding continuous answers to the never ending innovative improvements required in a competitive world? And, in the end, wouldn't that allow me to reduce the labor cost per unit of output? Part of excellence in any organization is to encourage all teammates to provide continuous feedback on how to improve operations regardless of what their role is in the organization. When was the last time your organization asked you to participate in such an exercise? At Toyota it is a condition of employment. It is processized. It is demanded and expected that you use your brain regardless of what your job title is, be it janitorial services or CEO.
He asks
What is the only variable between those four companies? Senior management's commitment to their company, the success of their products and their employees?
but takes it a step further
May I ask what the difference is between a country who has a poor record of human rights and a company which only values the bottom line at the expense of associate welfare? Is there a difference?
and makes a case that this is a matter both of social responsibility and a matter of pro-business, when he asks
In the end, as a shareholder or customer or consumer, is that an environment you endorse?
There's a lot more ranting where that came from. Also check out his Quotes for Daily Reflection, Self-Improvement and Success along the left margins of his blog. There are one or two reflections in there for everyone.
Our clients often ask us to help them with building a Lean video library. They want us to recommend 5 or 10 videos on Lean manufacturing that will help their people learn first the general concepts, then the more in-depth tools and systems.
The Four Hour House video is a good one, teaching teamwork and TQM. For anyone building anything complex, this can be a nice eye opener.
Then there is the so-called Mercury Marine video. Made in the late 1980s, I believe, the 5-minute clip I have shows a series of stills, set to carnival music, of a very wasteful traditional manufacturing process. If anyone knows whether this is commercially available, do let us know.
The Charlie Chaplin DVD Modern Times has several good illustrations of how not to manufacture in modern times, as well as good examples of the seven types of waste.
The video on Genie Industries' website titled Genie's Continuous Improvement Journey is quite a nice one for a PR piece, though it takes a quick eye to catch many of the details.
The 5S at Boeing series looks a bit dated, but the content is not bad.
Of course the folks at Productivity Press, AME and SME have a wealth of videos, though I haven't viewed them all.
We are in the early stages of acquiring some video titles on kaizen and Lean processes, so look for more news on that in future posts.
Which ones are your favorite Lean videos? Do you have a top 5 list? Let us know, and hopefully we can create a Lean video library catalog for everyone to share.
Ron Pereira of the Lean Six Sigma Academy blog started the discussion on Standard Work earlier this week, and I would like to pick up where he left off.
Standard Work is one of the more misunderstood concepts in Lean manufacturing. It is neither standardization nor work standards. You can learn more about Standard Work here, here, here, here and here in the Gemba blog if you are new to Standard Work.
There are three elements to Standard Work. Takt time is a fundamental concept of Lean manufacturing that is widely understood. Work sequence is fairly intuitive. Then there is Standard Work in Process or SWIP. This is a bit trickier.
SWIP is the minimum necessary in process inventory (work in process or WIP) to maintain Standard Work. No more, no less. So how do we calculate Standard Work in Process quantity? There are a number of questions you need to ask.
Technically you can get fairly close if you say SWIP = Sum of Cycle Times / Takt Time but you still need to go back and figure out how much SWIP goes where. So here are the step by step rules to determining SWIP:
1) What is the crew size?
Since Standard Work is the most effective combination of manpower, material and machine i.e. the best known method today, based on takt, work sequence, and SWIP, by definition there should be manual work. If it's a fully-automated "lights off" process, you really don't have Standard Work. At that point you probably have an NC program.
In any case, because crew size is determined as sum of manual cycle time / takt time, you will need one piece of SWIP per person.
SWIP(manual) = Crew size x (1 piece/person)
Rounding rule: There is no rounding, unless you have found a way to have less than a full person, in which case you round up to the nearest whole number.
2) Which processes are single-piece automatic cycle machines?
Standard Work presupposes that there is multi-process or multi-machine handling. It also presupposes that human and machine work are separated, wherever possible, and that when there is an automatic cycle, the worker will unload, load and walk away. It also presupposes that automatic cycle times are less than takt time. This means that for every automatic cycle process, there will be at least one piece of SWIP in the machine.
SWIP (single piece auto) = Single-piece automatic cycle machines x (1 piece/machine)
Rounding rule: There is no rounding since you cannot have less than a full machine, if you do... round up to the nearest whole number.
Note that these are single-piece automatic cycles, meaning that you can unload and load one piece each takt time. The calculation for automatic cycles with batch processes or cycle times and lead times longer than takt is different (see below).
Another way you can state this is that:
SWIP(single-piece auto) = Automatic Cycle Time / Takt Time
And then round up, but it is a waste to do this calculation since it must always be within takt and therefore 1:1.
3) Which processes have a single-piece non-machine automatic cycle?
Non-machine automatic cycle is an awkward phrase, but this includes things like the time for paint to dry, the time for epoxy to cure, the time for hot parts to cool, etc. There may be no machine involved, but it takes a certain amount of time for something to happen "automatically" with the parts left alone.
SWIP(single-piece non-machine auto) = Automatic Cycle Time / Takt Time
Rounding rule: Always round up to the nearest whole number.
Often a turn table or a FIFO rack is used for parts needing to cure, so that the first one in (been curing the longest) is the first one out (done curing). There should be one done curing every takt, and a new one with epoxy placed in the rack or turn table each takt.
4) Which processes have a batch automatic cycle?
These are processes in which the equipment design allows you to unload and load only a batch at a time, instead of one at a time. A good example would be heat treating processes in which you need to pull a vacuum and cannot open the door for hours once the cycle starts. You take a batch of parts out, then load another batch. The cycle time per piece may be lower than takt, but the overall automatic cycle time is over takt. In this case:
SWIP(batch auto cycle) = (Automatic time / Takt time) x 2
Rounding rule: Round up to the nearest whole number, then multiply by 2.
Why times two? Any time you have a batch process that does not allow you to take one or add one each takt, you will need an extra quantity of complete parts. Think of it as a pulley and pail used to get water from a well. Sometimes called tsurbe system for "well bucket" in Japanese, it is the idea of having one bucket at the end of the rope in the bottom of the well, full of water, and one bucket at the top, full of water. During takt you empty out the bucket one by one, and fill it back up one by one, getting ready to lower the bucket into the well. The analogy is not perfect since the water is in the bucket before it goes down the well, and there is a transformation that happens to the bucket in the well (batch process).
In formulas 2, 3 and 4 there is no manual cycle time included in the calculation. Why? This is because rule #1 takes care of that. Since every manual cycle time must be within takt by definition of Standard Work, and since the unload / load time will involve one piece, there is no need to add manual time back into the calculation (in most cases).
5) Which processes leave the cell and are processed at a vendor operation or at another department?
The concept of the pulley & pail is the same as rule #4. The formula is slightly different, since instead of the automatic cycle time you need to determine the lead time which includes time to get the order to the outside process, time in queue, time to transport it back, etc. and can be days even for processes that take only minutes.
SWIP(vendor op) = (Lead time / Takt time) x 2
Rounding rule: Round up to the nearest whole number, then multiply by 2.
This type of pulley & pail system will allow you to flow through a batch process, vendor operations or shared resource and maintain one piece flow and Standard Work, with minimum WIP.
It's really not that complicated, just a series of "if... then" statements. The key thing is to think in one piece flow and be able to see past so-called monuments, outside processing and shared equipment which seem to prevent continuous flow.
So when it comes time to answer "How to calculate the SWIP quantity?" the answer is slightly ugly:
SWIP(total) = SWIP(manual) + SWIP(single-piece auto cycle)+SWIP(single-piece non-machine auto)+SWIP(batch auto cycle)+ SWIP(vendor op)
Someone who is a trained mathematician (volunteers?) could probably state this more elegantly as an algorithm.
There are several special cases where there are additional considerations to the rules above. One example is when the direction of work flow (manual work sequence) is the reverse of the process flow (material flow). Some labor-optimized cells that have unbalanced automatic cycle times can improve labor productivity by having an extra piece ready to load at the previous process, in order to eliminate waiting for the machine cycle to end.
Another exception to rule #1 is if the operator is unloading and loading a series of batch processes (the type for rule #3) and the transfer quantity is not one piece but a batch. In that case there will not be one in hand. But we are starting to approach arcana...
So as you can see, calculating SWIP quantity can be tricky.
And now a message from our sponsor: To learn more about Standard Work, or for some hands-on learning in Lean manufacturing and Lean office principles, call Gemba.
...but doing them exceptionally well. This was a comment from an economist on a TV news program in Japan I heard some while ago, that seems to have become common knowledge in Japanese business consciousness. This idea of the Toyota Way being "doing obvious things exceptionally well" (当たり前の事を徹底する) or "being thorough about the basics" has been a key phrase in Japanese books and articles on TPS lately.
In Taiichi Ohno's Workplace Management, the man echoed this theme when he wrote the chapter Rationalization Means Doing What is Rational. His examples were that when he visited Ford, GM and American Motors there was nothing amazing. What they were doing at the time was more advanced than Toyota, but it was normal, or rational. What he saw were obvious things. He went on to say that if something looked impressive, it was probably not so good.
You might consider the idea of going to the gemba (factory or actual work site) to be one of these obvious things. Others have spoken about it as "management by walking around" or "management by fact". It sounds obvious, go to the source and get the facts before making decisions.
Another obvious thing Toyota does exceptionally well is trying various things to improve processes and not giving up just because they may fail the first time. There's an English saying "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." This is probably centuries old, and common to most cultures. Yet how much is this a part of business culture or personal management philosophies?
Respect and develop people. That's a forehead-slapper. Who would have thought of getting better quality and productivity by treating people with respect and getting them involved? Well, Toyota got the message about this obvious thing 50 years ago and they have been thorough about it ever since.
I suspect that there is a mix of admiration and sour grapes in the expression "Doing obvious things exceptionally well" when it was first coined by the educated elite of Japanese business, who would probably prefer more complex theories of business, systems, and models that require more ivory tower time and less gemba time. After all, how many best-selling business books can you write about obvious things? How many academic careers can be built on the study of doing obvious things? Everybody already knows all of these things, don't they?
This reminds me of a story Dr. James Womack told five years ago to the audience at the Manufacturer's Conference, organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Kent, Washington. He told of being called to the carpet by Fujio Cho of Toyota for his comment that there were no brilliant people at Toyota. Cho said to him, "At Toyota we have brilliant processes that even average people can perform flawlessly." Or something like that. This comment had a huge impact on my thinking.
The Toyota Way is simple to explain, difficult to follow.
We teach the Toyota system. We want to teach it to as many people as want to learn about it. As a consequence we think we provide Toyota with good PR. It seems not everyone at Toyota headquarters agrees.
Here is an e-mail we received last week from someone working at Toyota headquarters in Japan. I'll protect their identity since 1) they didn't ask to have their message read by thousands of people they don't know, and 2) the e-mail was from an AOL account so it may have well been a fake.
I work for Toyota here in Nagoya, Japan and the proud holder of the Title of Lean Teacher. One of only four Americans to hold such a title that was taught by Taichii Ohno san and Dr. Shingo san before they passed away..
I asked many people about some of the your claims that they were taught in Japan on Lean Kaizen and such and they do not believe it.To hold such a title in Kaizen is ABSURD!
As I live in Japan, I think it is funny how we Americans try to make money on something that we claim to be experts in.
Stick with the failing six sigma and stop using Lean to help the failing tool.
The Japanese and I are always laughing about what in the hell are you people back in the states are going to come up with next.
If you really want to know/learn LEAN then live with the people who breathe it, believe in it and has the passion. Not by attending a week long seminar.
WOW. This person seems unhappy. Perhaps they need to spend less time worrying about what some self-proclaimed kaizen experts in America are saying or doing and spend more time on the gemba. As a Lean Teacher, this person could do far more good there.
No one at Gemba holds a title in Kaizen, so I am not exactly sure what this person is talking about. Many of us did indeed spend weeks or months learning in Japan or from teachers from Toyota group companies who came from Japan, former students of Taiichi Ohno. At least a couple of us have worked with Shingo.
But it's not what you know or who you knew, it's what you do. The vast majority of people doing the most important work with Lean today have never been to Japan and have not worked with Japanese consultants. The real heroes of Lean are the people struggling to make real improvements on the gemba to keep real jobs local.
What matters is not the certificates you hold or how close you were to Ohno and Shingo. What matters is how you are using your knowledge to do good for others, today.
How do you motivate the people on the trailing edge of the bell curve? The so-called "anchor draggers" or CAVE people tend to attract the most attention or concern during the process of change. I wish we had time to bring everyone along and find ways to motivate those of us with the worst attitudes, but we don't.
Improvement should not be negotiable. When working within a TPS environment it is not only your job to "do you job" but to improve it.
When addressing the issue with leaders of how to motivate the people who simply will not go along with a good thing, we speak of "sacrificial lambs". You need to make an example of people who put up a strong and unreasonable resistance to doing kaizen. Management sends a clear message that "this is how we will do things" by removing the person who is an obstacle from the organization.
At Toyota everyone is expected to implement one improvement idea per month. One a month? Beyond a certain point, how much more self-actualization can a person handle? After all, you are coming to your job to work, not to realize your creative potential, right?
(If you nodded your head, you might want to stop following those sheep that are headeding for the chopping block.)
People talk of there being something "in the air" at Toyota, and it might be the buzz of all of those minds thinking, thinking, thinking... Over decades, these one-per-month ideas end up being millions of ideas across tens of thousands of employees.
Called soi-kufu (創意工夫), Toyota's Creative Idea Suggestion System is possibly the longest continuing and most successful improvement methodology today. It is a great process for motivating workers and for sustaining improvement. So simple, yet so powerful.
But it just doesn't abbreviate well. Creative Idea Suggestion System doesn't make a good acronym, and everybody knows it's not a real Lean tool unless you can make a TLA out of it, right?
Not only that, "suggestion system" is a misnomer for several reasons in that there is no suggestion box or centralized evaluation system for ideas (there is a decentralized system for evaluation, centralized system for rewards). So what else can we call it?
The phrase 創意工夫 is troublesome because 創意 literally means something more like "creative thought, will or intent." And for 工夫 it is even harder to get the nuance just right, meaning something like to "to devise" or "to modify something to make it better" or "to scheme" but in a positive way.
What does this have to do with how to motivate people to change? These words, and the original "creative intent" behind choosing them are vitally important, I think. There are perfectly good ways to say "suggestion system" in Japanese, but Toyota did not. The 創意工夫 process at Toyota does not exist primarily to take out cost, but to help people develop the "will to create a better way".