Where Did Value Stream Mapping Come From?

A little background on the Learning to See workbook might help --I joined the Lean Enterprise Institute about two years after the book introduced value-stream mapping in 1998. Co-author John Shook (with Mike Rother) has said and written that he was familiar with the tool during his 10+ years at Toyota. It was called “material and information flow mapping,” as noted, and was done almost as an afterthought among TPS practitioners to depict current and improved states of processes while developing implementation plans. (BTW, the symbol used for inventory was a tombstone, which, frankly, I think is more descriptive than the triangle symbol created for the workbook.)

In the Introduction to the book, John and Mike note that at Toyota the tool never was used as a training method, nor was the term “value stream” used, however, the company put a lot of work into creating flow across processes. Mike came across mapping while studying Toyota’s methods at the University of Michigan and realized its potential to help people think horizontally -- to implement lean systems instead of spot improvements or “kamikaze kaizens” as they were being called 10 years ago. But, I agree that maps become “corporate wallpaper” without future-state implementation plans that are regularly updated, revisited, and that assign responsibility.

Hi Jon,

Thank you for your insight. I learn from you everyday. Thank you for the history, Chet.

I loved the original VSM you have on your posting. I noticed that it said Heijyunka and not heijunka. I am thinking it is the original Material and Information Flow Analysis chart. Am I correct, Jon?

Thanks again,

Harish

Hi Jon,

I use spaghetti chart to include both information(electronic & hard copy) and material flow. I would like to stress that a value stream map looks neat no matter how bad the process is where as in spaghetti chart one can see instantly what is wrong. One more additional point with spaghetti chart is that it includes the layout, and helps in designing the future state. I do not argue that VSM is not useful. I have found spaghetti charts to be more useful in my personal experience. I have modified the spaghetti chart concept to include my needs.

I do not see the value of having material and information flow perpendicular to each other when you said "value steam map is 2-dimensional (info flow top-down, material flow side-to-side)". They either flow in same direction (traditional push flow), or in opposite direction (pull flow) or in no relation to one another (common in many production floors). Why is it useful to see the 2-D view when it may not be the actual scenario. I have read a pull flow can defined as a system where material and information flow in opposite directions (toward each other).

-Harish

Thanks for the information (and that includes you, Chet.)

I've been part of numberous discussions on VSM in my organization. I've noticed it is one of the skillsets that seems to be lacking, and underused. The feeling many have is that the icon set is too poliferated and unfamiliar, and it drives people away.

We've taken to approaching the task with basic process maps, but adding the data boxes where appropriate. It's a good compromise that gets us the information we need, while making people more comfortable with the end result.