|
|
| Lean Roadmap Newsletter
Becoming a World Class Enterprise
18th Edition
Greetings!
In this edition, we continue our discussion on How to Prevent Lean Implementation Failures - 10 Reasons Why Failures Occur. We will discuss, from the least critical (Reason #10), to most critical/fatal (Reason #1) why Lean implementation failures occur. Today we will discuss Reason #2:
- Why Lean Failures Occur - Reason #2: Lack of Communication (Part II of III)
Also, in this edition we continue with our Lean Leader Coach series:
- The Lean Leader Coach - Walking the Talk
This series is intended to provide tools, tips, ideas, and coaching for leaders whose organizations are implementing Lean as their operating system. |
|
Free Lean Webinar Schedule |
|
Accounting for Lean -- What Operations Needs to Know |
This Webinar is designed for organizations that use "Standard Cost" as their management cost system. It gives operations personnel an understanding of how and why "red flags" can be set off in the standard cost system during a normal Lean implementation. Title: Accounting for Lean -- What Operations Needs to Know Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 Time: 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM EDT Space is limited. Reserve your Webinar seat now at: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/988004698
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.
System Requirements:
Internet Explorer as default browser
Speakers for listening, microphone to verbally participate
PC-based attendees
Required: Windows® 2000, XP Home, XP Pro, 2003 Server, Vista
Macintosh®-based attendees
Required: Mac OS® X 10.4 (Tiger®) or newer |
|
Policy Deployment & Lean Implementation Planning |
This is a more detailed (than our previous 1 hour webinar) introduction to the most powerful Lean activity your organization will ever accomplish! This webinar covers the 10 Step Roadmap to Successful Policy Deployment using Lean as a System.
Title: Introduction to Policy Deployment & Lean Implementation Planning (2 hour session)
Date: Thursday, October 29, 2009
Time: 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM EDT
Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/803215146
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.
System Requirements: Same as above Webinar. |
|
A3 Problem Solving |
This is an introduction to the structured problem solving format known as A3 Problem Solving. Popularized by Toyota, the A3 format is used in Toyota for problem solving, proposal writing, and status reports.
This is a repeat of the previous A3 Webinar
Title: Introduction to A3 Problem Solving
Date: Thursday, November 5, 2009
Time: 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM EST
Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/423770627
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.
System Requirements: Same as above Webinar. | |
|
|
|
10 Reasons Why Lean Implementations Fail
Reason #2: Lack of Communication (Part II of III) |
| Great two-way communication is the key to the empowerment and productivity of our most underutilized asset - our people.
by Larry Rubrich |
|
The Power of Communication - A Real life Example
In 1993, United Technologies Automotive (UTA) owned a facility in Howe, Indiana. The facility produced automotive interiors. On May 1st, a new plant manager arrived at the facility to find the following conditions:
- 250 people, unionized facility
- The previous month, the plant lost $400,000.00 (and had been losing money every month)
- Plant was operating at a quoted efficiency of 42%. In UTA's world, 85% was expected from the plants. At this point, the Howe plant was at 49% of where the corporation wanted it to be. Stated another way, if we were supposed to produce 10,000 pieces per day, we were only producing 4,900 pieces.
- Premium freight charges (only the premium), previous 12 months, $68,000.00
- Lost time accidents for previous 12 months = 32, Workers Compensation charges for 1993 = $155,000.00
Basically, the understanding between the corporation and the management group was that if the plant was not operating profitably in 12 months, it would be closed. We didn't feel threatened by this understanding--it was a fact of business that we understood--because companies are in business to make money. It did, though, create a sense of urgency for change.
What We Changed
1) The first all-associate monthly meetings were started on May 7th. We wanted to share financials with the associates and it took us 5 days to close April. This was a three shift operation, so we conducted two meetings, first and third shifts together and then second shift (optimum is one meeting, because everyone should hear the exact same presentation, and the exact same questions and answers). Attendance at these meetings was mandatory. They were held monthly like clockwork.
In the first meeting, we laid out the status of the plant and the financials in a non-threatening manner. No one outside the management group had seen the financials before. It took some explaining. We told everyone that we were in this together and that the key was teamwork - we would either win as a team - or lose as a team. There would be no individual winners or losers.
It is interesting to note a comment that was overheard from a company supervisor after the first company meeting which was about an hour in length: "What a waste of an hour, we could have been making parts all that time!" My thought--yeah, and at 42% efficiency! Sometime later this supervisor made the comment that the problem with the plant was that all the shop floor people were stupid. Shortly after that comment, this supervisor was given the opportunity to contribute at another company.
2) On day two we discovered that it was difficult for the production associates to communicate with the rest of the facility because the plant was long, narrow, and divided into three sections by walls. If a particular production line or manufacturing cell had a problem (for example, they needed more raw material, had a quality problem, or one of their machines had broken down) they had two choices. They could go to a supervisor's desk and page the person over the PA system (which some people didn't like to do), or they could wander around the plant looking for the appropriate person. While this person was looking for help (all motion waste), the line was generally not running (waiting waste)--all due to poor communication.
 Figure 2-3
To improve communication between the production operators and the rest of the facility, we installed Andon or signaling lights like the ones shown in Figure 2-3. This is nothing more than a column of different colored lights where each light has a specific meaning and each column is numbered to represent different production areas cells. A green light indicated the production cell was running and meeting the customer's production and quality requirements. A red light indicated the production cell was down for a machine or quality problem that the team can't fix themselves and immediate assistance was needed. This light was wired so an alarm rang when it was turned on. A three person response team (Quality, Maintenance, and Supervision) was set up to go to the particular cell number on the Andon display. Only a member of the response team could turn the audible alarm off. A blue light indicated the production cell needed raw material delivered or parts picked up. An amber or yellow light was the signal that a supervisor was needed in the area. The white light, which the teams nicknamed the "brag light," meant the team had implemented an improvement which allowed the production cell to run quality parts at a rate higher than the "standard" rate.
3) One of the rules in Lean is that you must first standardize and then measure any activity you wish to improve. At the UTA-Howe plant, we set up production boards, like the one shown in Figure 2-4, in all production areas and cells. Production boards like these generally invoke fear in the production associates because they are typically used by traditional managers as tools to beat people up. In Lean, they are used strictly as communication tools.
Figure 2-4
The board shown in the Figure 2-4 was used as follows. Each hour the customer requirement for this particular part was 38 pieces. If after the first hour, the team produced 38 pieces, the team would post the 38 pieces on the board for that hour along with the total for the shift which, after one hour, was also 38 pieces. Let's say during the second hour the team had a quality problem that reduced their productivity to 30 pieces. On the board they would post 30 pieces for the second hour and now, after two hours, the total is 68 pieces. The team was also responsible for noting in the "comments" column what prevented them from doing what the customer required that hour - producing 38 pieces. It was then management's responsibility to review the boards to determine what problems the teams needed their help solving. When cells were not producing to the customer's requirements, it was a problem for the entire company team.
Information was collected hourly (real time is even better) on the production boards because, if the team fell behind because of a problem, it was possible for them to make adjustments and catch up. Without the production boards, the cell team and the rest of the company had no idea where they were in their schedule.
4) To raise the awareness of safety problems in the plant, a safety incentive system was started. OSHA will caution companies about using safety incentive systems because they believe that people will be tempted not to report accidents if it will hurt the incentive system. This is a legitimate concern that must be addressed in the development of the system.
During the second plant meeting (June), the plant manager stood next to a 25" color television (not a big deal today, but it was huge in 1993) and said that we would raffle off one TV for every month during which there were no lost time accidents. There was one lost time accident in June, and then the plant went two years without a lost time accident.
5) To help develop company-wide team work, we also implemented what was called "Adopt a Cell." Each management person was asked to adopt one of the production cells. The goal was to provide visible, physical, verbal, purchasing, roadblock breaking, or whatever kind of support the production teams needed. It was a way of showing that we were all in it together. Management people ran machines, attended daily cell meetings, and purchased needed cell supplies and equipment. The plant's financial controller spent two weeks on second shift with the team from cell #7. For most of the management group, it was a valuable shop floor learning experience.
Four to Six Months Later-More Change
As we learned to communicate and teamwork grew throughout the plant, the following additional changes were implemented:
-
We held daily "start of the shift production meetings" with all cells. The purpose of these meetings was to communicate schedules, to review cell problems and status of solutions, and to review the previous day's performance. Meeting length was 10 minutes maximum.
-
Customer quality issues became the responsibility of the team that manufactured the product. When a customer called and said they had a problem with our product and needed someone to come to their facility, members of the team that produced it went to the customer's plant. This wasn't done to punish the teams; it was done to put the team members, who were the process experts and in the best position to fix a product problem, in direct face-to-face contact with their unhappy customer. It was pleasing to note that none of the teams were required to go to the customer twice about the same problem.
-
The plant manager stopped giving customer tours. When customers or prospective customers wanted a plant tour, the plant manager would escort the customer to the first manufacturing cell where the customer was handed over to the cell team leader. The team leader would introduce the customer to the associates who worked in the cell and show the customer how the cell processed material. When that cell tour was complete, the team leader would escort the customer to the next cell's team leader. At the end of the tour, the plant manager met the customer at the other side of the plant. This system worked great. Customers liked it, and as it turned out, the cell associate were some of the best sales people around. It also gave the production associates the proper respect for their knowledge, skills, and contributions.
-
When we had supplier quality problems, our suppliers had to answer to the production cells also. Suppliers had to be taught that their customer, the people they had to satisfy, was the cell that used their product, not the purchasing department.
Celebrations Along the Way
Celebrating improvements along the way is very much a part of a WCE. They don't have to be expensive celebrations, or take a lot of planning or time. We celebrated with donuts, hats, "T" shirts, cookouts (even in the winter), and jackets. It was a way of having some fun and saying "thank you" to the entire team.
Sometimes we get so focused on what needs to be done, that we lose sight of what has been accomplished. Celebrations allow us to look back at the progress so far and thereby re-energizing our efforts. Often we were accused of making up reasons to celebrate, but here is a list of improvements we used to celebrate:
- Every 10% improvement in company efficiency
- When an individual cell's performance achieved 100% (we mean 100%, not the 85% UTA would have accepted)
- Every time a new white Andon light was on (the record was eight at one time)
- The first year we went without a lost-time accident (and saved $105,000.00)
What About Results?
- We started our journey in May; by October of that year the plant efficiency was at 65% (a 55% improvement)
- November of that year was our first profitable month
- By February of the following year the plant was at 80% efficiency (a 90% improvement)
- In April we made a $186,000.00 profit (a $586,000.00 turn around from the previous May)
- In July the plant efficiency hit 100% (a 138% improvement and the only plant in the division ever to achieve this level of performance)
And the Most Remarkable Part of the Results!
We went from 42% company-wide efficiency to 80% and all that was done was develop 2-way communications and promote teamwork! It wasn't until we reached 80% that we had the nerve to ask the corporation for money to spend on improvements.
It is important to note that the productivity increases shown in the above example were not achieved because people were working harder or faster. They were working smarter. Working smarter means eliminating or reducing people's wasteful activities (scrap, rework, machine downtime, machine setup time, searching, hunting, looking for people or things, etc.) and substituting value-added activities (activities the customer will pay for) like more throughput (more on this in Reason #5). People would say the morale was much higher and the work environment less stressful when this plant was producing at 100% versus the initial 42%.
Managers often look at results like these and make excuses such as, "these were special circumstances", or "you don't understand our business, we're different." Nonsense, all nonsense! These results are available in any business where the leaders and managers are fully committed to creating a sense of urgency, 2-way communication, and teamwork. The managers that make excuses always find it easier to blame "the people" than to look inward at their own performance.
Next issue: Lack of Communication (Part III of III) - Developing a Communication Plan
|
|
The Lean Leader Coach - Walking the Talk |
This series is intended to provide tools, tips, ideas, and coaching for leaders whose organizations are implementing Lean as their operating system.
by Mattie Watson |
In this issue of The Lean Leader Coach, we will examine a situation that is very difficult to address with Leaders - namely the enormously negative impact on the organization when the Leader's words and/or actions contradict the Lean initiative.
We began a Lean implementation in one organization with 5S. The facility was in dire need of a good sorting, straightening, and shining. The president repeatedly stressed his desire for a clean, orderly facility - both for associate morale and the initial impact on visitors. Although he had complimented the first teams on the success of their events (the transformation in the target areas was astounding), I soon began to hear grumbling that 5S only seemed to apply to the shop. Most of the offices lacked any evidence of 5S. Indeed, this President's own office looked as if his file cabinet had exploded. There were papers everywhere with not the slightest hint of order in the chaos. By not applying this lean tool to his own work area, the Leader sent a very clear message - Lean does not apply to me. With that kind of message, how can an implementation succeed?
Here's the touchy part. Who in the organization will challenge leaders on this? Our experience is that the leader is (usually) not intentionally trying to shirk responsibility or participation. Most of the time, these leaders are oblivious to how their actions or words are negatively impacting the organization. This is when the Lean Coach or Facilitator has to step up and explain the situation - respectfully, calmly and privately - to the offending party, regardless of the Leader's position in the company.
Let's go back to the President with the messy office. In reality, he did NOT feel that he was exempt from the Lean initiative. When I addressed the issue with him he became quite red faced and embarrassed. The next time I was in the facility he proudly marched me down to his office and showed me the result of his 5S effort. It was remarkable. He also commented that although the improvement had occurred some two weeks before (an entire Saturday was spent on the project), he was frustrated with how difficult it was to keep it that way. People would drop things on his desk in his absence without explanation. Mail was not placed where he had designated or items returned to where they belonged. When I commented that now he knew what the shop folks were experiencing, the light went on. He began asking folks in the plant what problems they were experiencing with 5S and how they were handling them. He then would implement those ideas in his office or offer suggestions to the teams. He addressed the problems in company meetings and expressed what he wanted done. His employees noted this effort and morale (and 5S performance) improved quickly.
A messy office is one thing. What happens when the leader DOES believe he or she is exempt from the effort? We will discuss that issue in the next newsletter.
| |
| WCM Associates Lean Activities Schedule
Training is not a cost!
It is an investment in your organization's future! |
"We have tried other Lean providers in the past, but WCM Associates has proven to be the best in all aspects of Lean."
Keith Lodahl
Goodwill Industries |
|
Certified Lean Facilitator Training
Milwaukee, WI |
|
|
This standard Certified Lean Facilitator training session will be hosted by Snap-on Tools in Milwaukee, WI.
You can attend just one class or start the journey to becoming a Certified Lean Facilitator by attending all 3 weeks.
Session dates are (2010):
Week 1 = January 11th
Week 2 = February 15th
Week 3 = March 15th
|
|
Certified Lean Facilitator Training
Appleton, WI |
|
|
This standard Certified Lean Facilitator training session will be hosted by Goodwill Industries in Appleton, WI.
You can attend just one class or start the journey to becoming a Certified Lean Facilitator by attending all 3 weeks.
Session dates are (2010):
Week 1 = January 11th
Week 2 = February 8th
Week 3 = March 8th
|
| Next Edition:
(All Editions will now be sent out on Thursdays)
| |
Larry Rubrich
WCM Associates LLC
© 2009 WCM Associates
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
