Which of the two do you want your office or shop floor [...]]]> Where do you want to work?  If you’ve ever been to Disney or Epcot you may remember the experience.  You park your car or get off the tram and you don’t need to be able to read a map, or the signs, you just follow the walkways and it just seems obvious where to go and how to get there.  A ton of science goes into making the experience at the Magic Kingdom completely different from that of the traveling carnival that shows up at the edge of town in the empty lot next to the volunteer fire house.  At the carnival you can’t get from here to there, if you even can figure out where there is.  Kids may have a bunch of fun at either, but the parental stress level is completely different between the two amusement parks.

Which of the two do you want your office or shop floor to be like, Disney or the carnival?  If Disney is your destination, how do you get from here to there?

1. Information is the output of an office.  Information can take many forms: email, databases, presentations,decisions.
2. Wastes of Defects, Storage, Motion, Overprocessing, Waiting, Overproduction all occur in much the same ways as on a factory floor.  For example motion can be seen in walking, reaching, searching, questioning, interrupting.  Each of these activities cause delays and stress.  But we adapt and accept and live with the abnormal.  We just get used to it.
3. Time is the inventory of the office.  Time piles up in our in-boxes and databases.  Time happens when work stops.  We run out of information, need a signature, find a mistake and then set that work aside and pick up some other job, file, task.  We keep busy.  But the thing we were working on sits and waits, the clock ticking away.

Making the abnormal viable, finding where the time is piling up isn’t easy, but that’s the mission of the visual office; making the piles of time visible, and then once we can see the inventory of time we just might get uncomfortable and creative and go do something to reduce the inventory, and speed up the flow.

Here are a couple references …

Simulations can be used for:

Sometimes the simulation is role playing theater, other times the ‘game’ has logic and is reproducible, with known inputs and expected outputs.  The photo here is of a recent workshop where we studied how the warehouse dock floor would look after changing the pick waving rules and packaging.  Here outbound goods will be switching from trailer loose stack to returnable shipping containers.

Would we need more floor space?  Do we have enough pickers and loaders?  How do we pick and load multiple deliveries nose-to-tail?

While computer modeling [...]]]> Simulation is the act of imitating or mimicking the behavior of some situation or some process by means of something suitably analogous.  The imitation of a process can be used for debugging, and validating process design changes or use to communicate or train associates.

Simulations can be used for:

• process design
• testing new ideas
• debugging designs
• testing understanding
• gaining commitment
• testing alternatives
• communicating and training

Sometimes the simulation is role playing theater, other times the ‘game’ has logic and is reproducible, with known inputs and expected outputs.  The photo here is of a recent workshop where we studied how the warehouse dock floor would look after changing the pick waving rules and packaging.  Here outbound goods will be switching from trailer loose stack to returnable shipping containers.

Would we need more floor space?  Do we have enough pickers and loaders?  How do we pick and load multiple deliveries nose-to-tail?

While computer modeling is certainly a consideration the use of table-top simulation has many benefits:

• Many problems are difficult or expensive to test in real life
• Many people process information visually
• A number of alternatives can be quickly tested as the team uncovers issues and finds solutions
• Simulation costs are very low; you don’t need expensive software or extensive training

Here’s the process we used to build our ‘war game’:

1. Decide what we wanted to test; i.e. the output – in this case floor loading and labor resources
2. Gather the input – shipping orders for a typical busy day, number of pickers by zone, number of packing loaders, shift schedules, picking and loading rates, floor space and equipment dimensions (carts, containers, trailers, etc)
3. Determine the constraints, rules; e.g. number of loaders per trailer, length of breaks
4. Document assumptions; e.g any trailer can be at any dock door, break and lunches can be staggered, etc.
5. Be creative and design the game pieces (entities) and determine their quantities; in this exercise carts, containers, bins, trailers
6. Scale physically (1inch=5feet), scale time (1 day of 10 hours took an hour of game time)
7. Collect metrics, such as; line per hour, wave start and end time, trailer load duration, number of floor spaces occupied, number of time floor space turned over, number of workers needed

Once the model ‘behaved’ like the current process the team began introducing rule changes which uncovered obstacles.  One of the first changes was reducing the wave batch size from 90 minutes to 30.  Next came changes to packaging and trailer loading.  By the end of the workshop new procedures were debugged and ready for full scale dry runs leading to a live implementation next month.  Stay tuned …

Euclides A. Coimbra and his associates at the Kaizen Institute have created a wonderful and detailed work on the application of continuous improvement to supply chains.  Here is a full exploration and application of lean from end to end of the extended value stream.  Two thumbs up!

Some of the graphics look to once have been powerpoint and when reproduced are to small and grainy to be able to read.  There isn’t an index so finding topics is limited to the table of contents.  The book is hard bound, and printed on good paper.

Some of the vocabulary is odd; “border of line” might be better said as” interface” or “borderline”.

Economic Order Quantity, or as referred to in this book, Wilson’s Formula, is treated in a refreshing way.

We can say that Wilson’s formula still applies today.  The only problem is when people assume that changeover time (or, generally [...]]]>

Euclides A. Coimbra and his associates at the Kaizen Institute have created a wonderful and detailed work on the application of continuous improvement to supply chains.  Here is a full exploration and application of lean from end to end of the extended value stream.  Two thumbs up!

Some of the graphics look to once have been powerpoint and when reproduced are to small and grainy to be able to read.  There isn’t an index so finding topics is limited to the table of contents.  The book is hard bound, and printed on good paper.

Some of the vocabulary is odd; “border of line” might be better said as” interface” or “borderline”.

Economic Order Quantity, or as referred to in this book, Wilson’s Formula, is treated in a refreshing way.

We can say that Wilson’s formula still applies today.  The only problem is when people assume that changeover time (or, generally speaking, ordering cost) is rigid and cannot be reduced.  Many people don’t think to do Wilson’s calculations because they are still misled by two strong paradigms: flow at any cost and efficiency at any cost.

The ‘flow at any cost’ paradigm is a rising paradigm that is currently gaining in popularity.  People hear about the wonderful Toyota Production System (TPS) and start to increase the flow by reducing the batch sizes blindly, without looking at Wilson’s formula.  What happens is that the CAPEX requirements explode, because the small batch sizes together with big changeover times decrease efficiency.  The result is that flow is indeed achieved – but at the expense of capital expenditure, not by internally reducing the changeover time and increasing equipment flexibility.  You can see this effect in many rich companies that are implementing Lean manufacturing and the TPS.

For a more in depth review check out Jon Miller’s posting on Gemba Panta Rei,
Review of Total Flow Management by Euclides Coimbra.

Hot off the press from the Lean Enterprise Institute …

Page 12 & 13 have a brief description of Coefficient of Variation and a SKU Scatter Diagram (weekly volume vs. SKU stability).  10 weeks usually isn’t sufficient for meaningful or statistically significant calculation of standard deviation.

The guidelines given need to be tempered with the granularity of the data.  While a coefficient of variation of less than 1.0 can be considered stable for weekly data, it would be considered very noisy when using monthly data and quite stable when using daily demand.

This small quibble aside the authors Martichenko and von Grabe do a wonderful job describing lean principles for the supply chain, or as they prefer, the fulfillment stream.

Type 1 – Rate-base or Just-in-time

Type 2 [...]]]> Determining an appropriate production model starts with Demand Profile and Demand Segmentation.  High volume low variability items, and low volume high variability items behave very differently.  How to decide if a particular product is a candidate for a one piece flow cell or a craftsmen job bench?  Look to the coefficient of variation for a clue.

Type 1 – Rate-base or Just-in-time

One place to start is to look at customer demand. All lean practitioners know about Takt Time, or the customer drum beat, and is used to match the pace of an operation with customer demand.  Takt Time is calculated at Available Time/Demand, and is by definition an average.  Customer demand is anything but average, and so we need [...]]]> Maslow’s hammer, or a golden hammer is an over-reliance on a familiar tool; as Abraham Maslow said in 1966 in A Psychology of Science, “It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.”  So, must every product in every business segment be set up in a one piece flow cell? Or put on kanban with an heijunka to smooth demand? Or run on a rate-based assembly line? Certainly not!  One size rarely fits all.  But how to know which techniques make sense?

One place to start is to look at customer demand. All lean practitioners know about Takt Time, or the customer drum beat, and is used to match the pace of an operation with customer demand.  Takt Time is calculated at Available Time/Demand, and is by definition an average.  Customer demand is anything but average, and so we need to understand the variation or range of demand placed on our process.

Here’s an example …

To build a demand profile take the following steps:

1. Pick the product or product family or business unit of interest.
2. Determine an appropriate time unit – hourly, daily, monthly.
3. Gather the true customer demand as best you can.  Be careful about using promise dates instead of requested dates, and be doubly cautious of schedules which are often smoothed, filtered, or otherwise manipulated.
4. Create the graph or time series plot as above.
5. Now calculate some simple descriptive statistics.  In this example the average is 17 with a range of 49 and a standard deviation of 11.

What can we conclude?  Should we design our operations control around a demand rate of 17 a day?  Is the variation in demand something we can deal with?  How?

As I ready myself for a new mentoring relationship in a few weeks, I’ve been pondering roles and approaches. What will I do the same, what will I change as I help facilitate a new lean transformation?

My job, as teacher and coach, is to assist the organization make change. Their chosen strategy is to implement lean and six sigma. The knowledge transfer approach I prefer is see one, do one, teach one.

At first the apprentice just watches me do my thing – plan the calendar, roles, objectives; do the training, explain the principles, and run the events; check the metrics and take everyone’s pulse; act on what I see. Usually I don’t explain what I’m doing; I just run the kaizen event; form subs teams, hand out assignments, train-and-do.

After a time, the student is called upon to perform [...]]]> Guest post by Larry Loucka on Mark Hamel’s blog Gemba Tales:

As I ready myself for a new mentoring relationship in a few weeks, I’ve been pondering roles and approaches. What will I do the same, what will I change as I help facilitate a new lean transformation?

My job, as teacher and coach, is to assist the organization make change. Their chosen strategy is to implement lean and six sigma. The knowledge transfer approach I prefer is see one, do one, teach one.

At first the apprentice just watches me do my thing – plan the calendar, roles, objectives; do the training, explain the principles, and run the events; check the metrics and take everyone’s pulse; act on what I see. Usually I don’t explain what I’m doing; I just run the kaizen event; form subs teams, hand out assignments, train-and-do.

After a time, the student is called upon to perform some of the routine activities, give some of the lessons,  and apply some of the tougher tools. Then comes the day when the roles start to reverse; the student tries to run a kaizen and the teacher observes, intervening off-line, giving feedback quietly, and asking questions, checking comprehension. As confidence and experience grow the student becomes the teacher.

Asked the other day, “What’s the difference in your approach and Shingijutsu?”  I was reminded of something James Womack once wrote. It’s a lengthy, but insightful quote,

“We’re now trying to write down all of the techniques you need to actually become lean. The Toyota teaching method is what we would call sensei-deshi, with the sensei being the great teacher and the deshi, the student. Basically, here’s how it works at Toyota: The kids get out of the university and join the company. Then they’re told, ‘Okay, you know how to do math, and you know how to read. Forget all the rest of the crap. We hope you had a lot of party time because now you’re going to be working long hours for the next 40 years, and we will teach you what you need to know. We’ll start by having you stay right here and look around for waste—muda in Japanese— and we’ll be back in a few hours.’ When the teacher comes back, he’ll ask the employee to tell him all about the waste he sees. It’s an empirical teaching method in which the sensei simply asks questions: ‘What do you think about this operation?’ ‘Why aren’t you looking over here?’ ‘Over there?’ ‘Why is something happening this way?’ They start with applications, and let you figure out the principles. Generally, the way we teach in the West is to start with principles, and then let the pupil to work out applications.”

Which way is better?

Comment by Zane Ferry added great insight.  Zane wrote …

Congratulations, Larry, on your new “relationship.” Good word. I appreciate the humility it conveys together with a sense of anticipation and even mild anxiety. It’s refreshing for a consultant to reveal his internal dialogue – as I sense you might be doing here – in this particular context without a lot of posturing and coded language (consultant, client, contract, deliverables, performance, etc.). Uttered reflexively, that language sort of language, nonetheless, undermines the potential of the fresh student/teacher encounter before it’s even begun. Kudos, Larry, for not succumbing to that impulse if you did happen to feel it coming on.

I mention this because I think that this impulse is a defensive one that cuts two ways, both damaging. First, it works to impersonalize a relationship that we know, in our heart of hearts, is likely to expose our own vulnerabilities and weaknesses in a context with considerable professional risk. Yeow. If something happens to go sideways once we’re deeply involved, well, the impersonal characterization of the relationship has already numbed our ego slightly to the sting of potential embarrassment. Alright, that’s just human nature; however, a really unfortunate and counterproductive consequence of the same posture can be a sense of blamelessness on our part for “the break up.” Introspection that should occur naturally upon the loss of an important relationship is blunted; the law of cause-and-effect is denied; root cause analysis (our cherished tool) is never applied. The lesson is lost on the teacher, so to speak, and our potential for becoming genuine “mentors” is stunted.

The second cut is, in fact, the cruelest – a deception right on the threshold of the fledging relationship. The language and posture we’ve drawn as a defensive foil, perhaps even unconsciously, now functions aggressively by establishing an imbalance of power in the student/teacher relationship. The very pointed message it delivers is: You (student) are the one “subject to change” in this exchange; I (teacher) am the “agent of change” here. In essence, we say to our earnest disciples: ‘I am not really in this with you equally. Sure, you’ll have to make huge investments on many levels. You’ll need to change in all kinds of ways to mature. But me, I’m there already just trying to help you catch up.’

Other obstacles to growth accompany this type of flawed commitment, but the point is that arrogance, insecurity, callousness, and pride will undercut even the most knowledgeable mentor if s/he is afraid to lay it all on the line alongside their student’s good faith offering.

But back to your real question, Larry – whether to lead with principles or applications. Over the course of many years spent with Shingijutsu consultants, I think I’ve consistently seen a PDCA approach on their part to mentoring us. In the best examples, the sensei always seems, first of all, to be very conscious of the idiosyncrasies inherent in his path to understanding, application, and then what you might call mature knowledge or “wisdom.” Yes, idiosyncrasies. The best mentors are definitely aware of them – their own and, incredibly, ours too. By this I mean, they’ve been students of American cultural and intellectual biases for decades now. (A number of them have actual memories of their hometown’s bombardment by Boeing-made B-52s and their country’s surrender to the US in WW2.) They see the strengths/weaknesses of the biases in our daily environment and then in the unique behavior of their individual students. They listen far more than they speak so that when they see a meaningful “learning-opportunity” arise for, say, me (not the same thing as a “teaching opportunity”) they’ve already discerned my innate predilections – what appears to make Zane tick – and are at the ready with what they believe is the right words, actions, request, blunt objection or abject lesson in first principles that will work…then and there for me. I’m convinced this preternatural sensitivity is the result of many years spent in the explicitly humanistic systems deriving from the Toyota Production System itself.

Just a few days ago, in fact, I was commenting to one such consultant about the noticeably positive change in a particular team member’s involvement. That member, a respected engineer, had been noncommittal, even combative at times to the simple team objectives as part of a new product design modification and review process; specifically, the need to involve a sub-assembly vendor in the equipment design phase. In spite of that obvious “bad attitude,” the consultant had appeared blithely unaware of the fellow over a period of 2 months no less. Then, out of nowhere, the consultant posed a seemingly mundane (obvious) question to him: “Do you think the vendor would want to produce this whole sub-assembly for us if we designed the right fixture?” It worked! A new change-agent was ushered out of the darkness and cooperative design efforts ensued just like that.

“Why did your comment have such an impact on him after all this time?” I asked. “Oh, that? It wasn’t what I said,” sensei chirped. “It’s what he heard. He’d quietly realized the primary aim of HIS design idea wasn’t going to work after all. To him, my comment represented a way out and he seized it.”

Win-win. Of course, I thought to myself. The consultant had seen that member’s principle-based learning bias, placed it squarely within that company’s organizational culture, accurately foreseen that member’s final dilemma, and then patiently waited to inconspicuously and sympathetically present a lifeline. Here, it was a lesson in “application” based on “principles” of human behavior that resonated when it mattered.

May the Force be with you, Larry.

Unplanned work is a failure of either planning or reliability engineering:

So, when change happens we celebrate because this is an opportunity to learn and improve