Is The Lean Toolbox A Tad Obese? Lean Manufacturing

Lean was not my introduction to formal improvement.

Indeed, I think that fact, more than any other, has had the biggest impact on my view of lean. Much as I love it, I have something to compare it with because I came to it after several years of TPM and after working on the front line, solving problems, for a lot longer.

Learning TPM was my career changing move: re-enforced by being made redundant and needing to eat - in that order.

When learning TPM, I spent a long time working with a team of managers to develop and implement a functional training plan and an implementation program. I was told two previous attempts at implementation did not sustain. Ours was an enormous amount of work, very time consuming - and very satisfying.

In 9 months, we had ran a successful pilot on the bottleneck machine. In another year or so, we were well on the way to a successful, factory-wide implementation.

Many of us were skilled engineers, so the techniques we used in TPM (maintenance, data analysis and problem solving) were fairly familiar to us. This made training much easier - more of a familiarization and a new perspective on the subjects.

With all that complexity, TPM, it seems, is only regarded as a "tool" in the lean toolbox.

So...?

It turns out, with my background in physics, I have a natural desire to question the way everything is done. I need to understand "The Why" as well as "The How". If you know me at all, you will rapidly discover that I am not fobbed off by fuzzy answers.

Through discussions with others and my involvement with LinkedIn, I have access to a world of ideas: much of which I learn from but some that trigger questions in the back of my mind and won't go away.

The most recent trigger was someone talking about a new insight to lean management. His ideas were reasonable but the central argument was contradictory.

The discussion took the "common" view that lean is (almost) entirely culture. But there was also an objective for lean companies to target up to 20 improvements a year.

How can we do a number of improvements with no tools?

I like to use examples and analogies as most folk can compare them with their own experience. I think this one makes a good discussion point.

Consider a company that uses TPM, SPC, OEE, FMEA, Fishbones, brainstorming, the 7 QCD's and strives to provide quality products - but has no knowledge of lean. Do we have a lean company or just one that uses readily available production improvement tools?

They will not promote a lean culture because they don't know what that is. But they do ensure quality and service for their customers. It might still be a good place to work and there is no reason to assume their company standards will not last.

TPM is a factory-wide improvement methodology that takes years to implement. Originally, it was created to resolve issues with poorly operating equipment (which, to be fair, is probably why folk still use it) but, over time, it evolved to cover all departments. Some of the techniques it uses were developed in parallel with TPS and are very similar to lean - indeed Toyota would probably be a user of TPM.

I tried to explain my view on tools but it did not go down well. I felt I was being dismissed as just using lean for the tools. I also mentioned that I believed a set number of improvements might risk creating projects just to meet the numbers.

Why is the Lean Toolbox becoming obese?

These tools (above), I have found can be improved by blending with lean, but they are not lean tools, as such, and must be learned in their entirety. They can - and should - be used by lean practitioners but I would argue they are not "stock" lean tools as they have been around for longer than lean.

Now, let us pull another trigger.

I often read comments about lean and the growing number of techniques to be found in the lean toolbox. I often joke that all it takes is for a lean practitioner to stand next to technical book and it is adopted as a lean tool, spreading like an airborne virus.

My worry is that when we refer to "Lean Tools" and its "toolbox", the expectation by, well... everyone... would be that the lean practitioner is capable of applying all these tools.

I wonder, then, why is there a desire, if not a need, to keep adding to the toolbox?

I suspect this need is because "lean" wants to be a version of TPS (The Toyota Production System), which sits atop the lean pedestal, visible but out of reach.

TPS seems to have a mysticism about it and, as many will agree, it is not well understood.

Me, I don't see TPS as an all encompassing version of lean. I believe it is just a smart. well run company that uses all the production and management processes it needs - and a parent version of lean.

So, this desire to compare lean with TPS and all its processes is like assuming a doctor is also a vet and both can work happily on people or animals, which is simply not true. Just as some TPM techniques are "lean" but others are just common improvement techniques, not lean but needed.

One company I visited had down times in the order of 25%. That is more than one day down in every four days. When I asked the 6 Sigma improvement leader about the use of TPM, he seemed uninterested. Then he added that TPM was a lean tool, suggesting he understood it. I was a tad suspicious as when I was shown the workshop all I saw was a bit of 5S, some new shelves and a clever digital "whiteboard" - used as a high tech waiting list.

How long do we spend training for a black belt? I checked the web for a quality trainer and it advertised 4 weeks.

I wondered how long training should be to properly include TPM as well as all of the other associated lean 6 Sigma tools -- and cover all the psychology related to changing a company culture.

I suspect not.

I would argue that it takes longer than 4 weeks to learn TPM alone. For someone without a maintenance background, I suspect it would take a tad longer.

Then I thought about 5S.

It is much easier, an initial few hours in a class plus a few hours over the rest of the week as we discuss the previous day's progress and address any new issues. Then back to actually doing a project. But, we are probably talking about 5 full days - more if we are changing a factory layout, with the use of mapping and spaghetti diagrams...

Then we have SMED.

It takes at least 3 days to do a class, analyze a short changeover, create a new procedure and create a documented process - plus time for any planned tasks, like making a machine modification.

Then we have SPC.

If we keep it simple, maybe a day or two to talk about the stats and theory plus some time for application.

Oh yes, and process mapping itself... The Big Picture and process maps. How long would that take?

My point is that all this time would be part of the 20-day black belt course, leaving not a lot for other stuff.

The Contentious Point

We worry about the high failure rate of lean implementations but, if my "triggers" are correct, how many of them are based on or rely on minimal theoretical training and even less practical experience.

It is great to claim lean has a toolbox with lots of tools... (even though we are not supposed to use them) but what good are all these tools if folk don't know how to use them properly? Perhaps we should be applying lean to the toolbox and taking out the stuff that is not essentially lean and learning them later as the subjects are needed within an organization.

There is a technique called Overall Equipment Efficiency (OEE). I call it "lean for the machine". Basically it tells us how many units of sellable product we actually make as a ratio of the amount we should be able to make (the design capacity).

One of its measures (Availability) seeks to count the number of hours a machine is able to make product. If we assume the machine should run for 24 hours a day, then maintenance periods are deducted, as are breakdown, setups, changeovers and all the waiting for materials and instructions. The time left is the time available to run product.

But the maintenance folk don't want PM time to be counted as a loss - because it needs to be done. Production don't want setups to counted - because they need to be done. Nor do they want changeovers to be counted - because they also need to be done...

Basically, everyone wants what they see as "essential" tasks to be excluded, so that their part in any low OEE figures is minimised. Now, if we assume we have a 12 hour maintenance period, the maximum time now available would become 12 hours (24-12) and not the full 24 hours.

If the PM is not excluded, the availability would be 50%. But, if we have a strong manager, they might succeed in getting it excluded. If it was excluded, availability would be 100% - of 12 hours.

How we define OEE becomes critical. We need to list what is excluded if we want to be able to compare values within the company or with other companies.

A lean 6 Sigma training course must be the same. It has to clearly define what the student can actually do. Training must be more than a mere summary of the tools that Toyota might use. It has to teach the full song and not just the chorus.

If I hire a LSS expert, I need to know if his toolbox is full of usable tools or just a few tools and a load of "how-to" instructions.

In short, we should have a lean toolbox, not one that is overloaded to the point of obesity with unread training notes.

At the very least, the toolbox should be transparent so we can see what is inside - just as we do in 5S.

Note:

The header picture is an analysis I did once comparing the contents of a few business improvement techniques. (It is readable if you use control+ a few times.)

It compared HR and People Skills, Business and Finance, Good Engineering Practice, TQM, Lean Manufacturing, 6 Sigma, Lean 6 Sigma, Total Preventive Maintenance and Reliability Centred Maintenance.

Although it is now used for a different purpose, it is still a very useful chart.

-----
Steve Borris is an improvement consultant and trainer, experienced in lean, TPM, 6 Sigma and RCM. He has had 3 books published:

• “The “Success or Die” Ultimatum: Saving Companies with Blended, Long-Term Improvement Formulas”
– Published April 2015 – Productivity Press.
Small conglomerate (Pharma, Call Centre, Materials Supplier, Tier 1 Auto supplier) inadequate profit. Must increase profits or be sold off. Covers diagnosis, culture, dealing with consultants, resistance, implementing solutions, project planning, mapping, SPC and even a training session.

• “Total Productive Maintenance”,
- Published 2005 - McGraw-Hill Scientific.
It is a simplified “how to” workbook on TPM and RCM. 5S, SMED, Lean , a review of 6-Sigma, risk assessments, safety and general root-cause problem solving are also included.
(Recommended reading for Caledonian University’s Asset Management MBA.)

• “Strategic Lean Mapping: Blending Processes for Perfect Solutions”
– Published February 2012 - McGraw-Hill Scientific.
The book mirrors my approach to issue diagnosis, using a range of mapping techniques. It also discusses my approach to blending processes around a core philosophy of Lean, selecting the process modules that best suit the issues.
(Being considered as recommended reading for Caledonian University’s Asset Management MBA.

Contact: steven.borris@productivity-jigsaw.com