Tag Archives: six sigma

Time-Space-WIP Continuum

Cyril Parkinson was onto something when he postulated in1955 that “Work expands to fill the time available for its completion.”  While this sounds a bit like hard science, it was actually a semi-serious dig at the capability of British Parliament to find ways of filling time (and spending money).  Today we refer to this postulation as Parkinson’s Law. Over the years, several more humorous corollaries have also been offered:

  • If you wait until the last minute, it only takes a minute to do.
  • Work contracts to fit in the time we give it.
  • In ten hours a day you have time to fall twice as far behind your commitments as in five hours a day. (from Isaac Asimov)
  • Data expands to fill the space available for storage.

But what did Mr. Parkinson mean by work?  Webster says, work is the “physical or mental effort or activity directed toward the production or accomplishment of something,” i.e., value-added activity.   If we take Webster’s meaning for work then it’s really not the work that expands – that’s a constant. It’s what’s left over after the customer has been satisfied – let’s call it Waste.  And the physical manifestation of that waste is what we erroneously refer to as “Work In Process.”  This could be either material or information that has been produced too soon, or is ridden with defects and is therefore delayed.  Toyota refers to this more accurately as stagnation.  But for most of the rest of us it’s called Work In Process; WIP.  The moniker is forgiving:  It must be okay, because it’s work and it’s in process, right? 

I continue to be amazed when I visit factories, just how much space is given up to this partially completed stuff.  In hospitals, it manifests itself in the waiting rooms and the gurney’s stretched along the halls with patients waiting for a bed. And in insurance companies, it’s the virtual queues of customer claims urgently awaiting a response. 

So, to end the week I’d like offer Lean Peeve #5: WIP, and offer an additional corollary to Parkinson’s Law: 

Work in Process expands to fill all available space. 

If you’d like a laugh, check out his humorous video the GBMP team made in 2012:  WIP it.  Enjoy. 

O.L.D.

By the way, even though our conference is virtual this year, we are not giving up on a little fun there too.  If you’re joining us on October 7-8 for the Northeast L.E.A.N Conference, don’t miss “Lean Before Dark” on the afternoon of the 7th, when we’ll try some asynchronous Karaoke. 🙂  And for you DEVO fans, check out this LinkedIn post from our day one closing keynote,  John Carrier:  WIP Leads to Bull Whip

Indirect Distortion

When Stan Davis wrote Future Perfect in 1987 (then called the “book of the decade,” and still a good read), he foresaw a reversal in thinking that has since become normal.  For example, the expression “Time is money,” has flipped to “Money is time,” the focus now being on money as the measure of time.  While his book was not specifically a Lean book, it coined the term “mass customization,” that is now a basic customer expectation.  Most impactful for me, however, was his reminder that organization follows strategy, and that as strategy does a 180, we need to modify our organization and policy to support it.  New jobs and entire organizations have sprung up in the last 30 years to support Lean Transformation.  The same is true for Digital Transformation.  New job titles, new reporting structures and new policies all to support technology that was science fiction when I entered the workforce.   These are good changes to embrace. 

What has been more difficult, however, for many organizations, is letting go of the old organization and policy that supported earlier strategies.  These constructs that have been baked into our infrastructure and systems die hard. One example of this is the concept of direct and indirect labor. 

Let’s call it Indirect Distortion, Lean Peeve #4.   

Fifty years ago, when I entered the manufacturing world, roles were very clear: You were either touching the product or not.  Supervisors, material handlers, stock keepers, inspectors all were considered indirect.  But as our shopfloor adopted a Lean strategy, the closer we approached one-piece-flow, the distinction between direct and indirect became more blurred.  For example, when we set-up a cafeteria style stock area adjacent to assembly and rotated assemblers through the material handler role there was initial pushback.  “You can’t have direct folks doing indirect tasks,” I was told.  Why?  It would “mess up our costs.”   Fortunately for me, our V.P. of Finance visited the floor for himself to understand.  The job was reclassified. 

On the other hand, as our stockroom shrank, we redeployed stock keepers to insource production from an external supplier.  Until our standard cost system caught up, this created an illusion that were losing money.  Once again, through some myth-buster heroics from our V.P of Finance we demonstrated that the change was, in fact, super-profitable.  I was fortunate to have this support on site.  Many sites, like one I worked with years later as a consultant, do not have that advantage.  I once visited a division of a medical device manufacturer that was deemed by the corporation to be its productivity leader.  What I learned on my visit was that this site unofficially “borrowed” production workers from the floor to make improvements and solve problems.  This deceptive practice, while highly effective, was hidden from corporate management, lest the borrowed workers be classified as indirect labor at a time when management was taking an ax to that population.  “Doesn’t corporate see this?” I asked.  “No,” replied the site manager, “they never visit.”   

A memorable quote from Jim Womack, our opening keynote at this year’s Northeast L.E.A.N. Conference, comes to mind: “Cost accounting makes liars out of all of us.”    The point is that a Lean strategy is too often thwarted by status quo organization and policy and, in this case, even the language that describes it.  

O.L.D.

Stay tuned. Lean Peeve #5 coming tomorrow. Oh and by the way… there are less than two weeks until my organization’s annual, but inaugural virtual, conference, “The Northeast Lean Conference: 21st Century Lean”.   Send a team and recharge your Lean batteries for 2021.  Here’s the link the program and registration.

Local Efficiency

“What do you do for a living,” a neighbor asks.  As I try to explain about GBMP’s attempts to help customers improve productivity and quality, my neighbor interjects with a smirk, “Oh . . . you’re an efficiency expert.” He thinks I walk around holding a stop watch, trying to find ways to make people work faster.  “Well,” I respond, “we try to improve SYSTEM efficiency, not just local efficiency.”  About this time, he has zoned out, not particularly interested in the distinction I’ve made, and he changes the topic to football (see yesterday’s blog post.)  I’ve written more than a few posts over the years about the difference between local improvement and system improvement. Here’s one more. 

Lean Peeve #3 is Local Efficiency.

Alluding to the stopwatch, I’ll begin with the definition of efficiency: standard time / actual time X 100%.  This is the one you’ll see on your ERP system. Say that I’m machining PARTA with a standard time of 60 seconds.  That standard was measured by someone with a stop watch to determine that fastest repeatable time for the operation. But I actually take  65  seconds each for this lot.  My efficiency is 60/65*100% = 92%.  Simple enough.  However, PARTA is two levels deep on the bill of material of the final product sold to the customer and is therefore essentially decoupled from actual need by weeks or longer.   My efficiency is not based on the ability to provide what the customer needs, but on a standard that rewards me ala Lucy-in-the-chocolate-factory to go as fast possible. Consider the implications of this definition of efficiency in context of the metaphor.   What would happen if each person in the canoe pictured paddled as a fast as he or she could?  (Having been in the Boy Scouts, I know what happens.) That’s classical efficiency, or, as Toyota calls it, local efficiency.  SYSTEM efficiency would have everyone paddle at the same rate (call it Takt time), which is pretty evident in a canoe.

But let’s take this idea back into the factory: I have just completed an order for 360 PARTA’s, built according to my MRP (based on EOQ, fixed lead-time, pan-size, safety stock and a raft of other order modifiers that will be the topic of a later post) with an efficiency of 92%.   These will subsequently be sub-assembled in a different department according their MRP requirements and ultimately built and shipped to the customer in a still different quantity from either upstream process, each department operating at high local efficiencies.  There are no colliding paddles as in the canoe metaphor, just lots of squandered capacity and excess inventory. 

What do you think of the SYSTEM efficiency is in this example?

It turns out that where efficiency is concerned, the whole is not necessarily equal to the sum of its parts.  In fact, in a functionally organized workplace (ironically set-up as such to maximize local efficiency) we can expect system efficiency to be far less than the sum of its parts.   We can all be paddling as fast as possible, thinking we’re doing great – but the boat is going in circles. 

Speaking at a Shingo Conference some years ago, my friend and mentor, Russ Scafede, who was a senior manager at both GM and Toyota during his career, reflected this way on local efficiency: “At General Motors, we use to joke that all of our divisions were making money; it was only the corporation that was losing its shirt.

How do you measure efficiency?  Share a story. 

O.L.D.                                                       

Want to learn more about True Efficiency?   Please tune into the 16th Annual Northeast L.E.A.N. Conference to learn how taking the best thinking from Lean Transformation and Digital Transformation can accelerate your continuous improvement efforts.  Only two weeks to go before opening day. Our three exceptional keynotes (there are also ten breakout sessions and lots of networking opportunities) include Fady Saad, co-founder of MassRobotics, who will discuss the rise of robotics and AI technologies and how their applications will disrupt the way we understand and implement lean methodologies and approaches as we know it today. From applications in manufacturing, logistics, construction, agriculture and healthcare, robotics and AI will change the way we do things. Learn how the lean community can better prepare and adapt to this new era of smart systems.   You can get more information and register here. 

Student Body Right

Football season is back in a 2020 sort of way with real players and crowd sound effects, so here is Lean Peeve #2, a post to celebrate.  Student Body Right is a play popularized in college football in in the 1960’s in which the ball carrier ran toward the right end of his offensive line as every other player also pulled right in front of him to block.  To the untrained eye it just looked like the entire team just ran to the right, hence its name. But, to the trained eye, this was a carefully choreographed play where every player had a specific, timed assignment. Click this link to see it in action – kind of like standardized work, the best use of resources to do the job.  Football is a brutal sport, but it’s the science that makes the play effective, not the brute force.  

On the other hand, in business, something charading as Student Body Right appears to the untrained eye to be productive, while in fact it is not.  Take, for example, that end of month push in manufacturing when an army of employees are marshaled to a production area to meet a month-end bogie.  While the sheer numbers may appear effective, “throwing bodies” at the task is marginally more productive at best and is more likely to end in employee injuries or part defects.  Or consider a stock trading company where all investments must be posted same day.  By day’s end, the entire company is crowded into one department to finish the posting.  Guess when most mistakes happen? Dealing with unevenness (Mura) creates craziness and stress (Muri) more like this play: For a laugh, click this link.  No science, just brute force.  Do you know the name of this play? 

So, how do you run your offense?  With science or brute force? 

O.L.D. 

P.S. As I look forward to our annual Northeast Lean Conference, coming virtually to a compute near you on October 7-8, I am especially excited to hear our day one closing keynote Professor John Carrier discuss 7 Key Control Concepts To Drive Your Digital Transformation. In the race to implement new manufacturing technologies and systems, such as the Industrial Internet of Things, it is often forgotten that factories and operations already have systems in place—and the inner workings of these systems tend to actively resist any change forced upon them. John will share ideas to help manufacturing executives and frontline leaders implement technological change at their companies while developing a company culture that puts people first. Read more and register your team today here.

Lean Peeves

With just 16 days before our 16th Annual Northeast L.E.A.N Conference (by the way the acronym stands for Lead, Enable And Nurture), I’ve decided to share a post-a-day with my readers.  Each post is taken from my 35 years as a student of Lean, and will highlight something that has in my view presented an obstacle to understanding continuous improvement.  Depending upon your point of view –and I’d like to hear your point of view — some of these may seem trivial and others more significant.  For me, each is significant enough that it is a piece of the context by which I see things.  By extension, I worry that if others do not also see these things as I see them, then our collective ability to improve is limited.  My sixteen Lean Peeves, presented over the days leading up to our conference on October 7-8, are shared in no special order.  But because this year’s conference, 21st Century Lean, deals with the harmonization of Lean Transformation and Digital Transformation, I’ll try relate each of my peeves to one or both of these.  Here is the first Lean Peeve:

Lean Peeve #1:  Waste Modifiers.   Why are modifiers like “unnecessary” or “excess” used to describe waste?   Sometimes they explicitly name the waste, (as in the image I pulled from the internet, e.g. Overprocessing,) and other times in amplifying explanations of the waste.   I grate my teeth when I see these interpretations emblazoned on posters in the factories and offices I visit. Shigeo Shingo’s famous quote is relevant here: “Elimination of waste is not the problem; identification of waste is the problem.”   Shingo did not differentiate between “necessary” and “unnecessary” Motion, for example, because ALL Motion is a waste.  Consider the wiggle room that these adjectives afford.  Once we apply them, the ideal is watered down to “the best we can do.”   Who decides what is necessary or not, and how does that standard impact our ability to identify waste?    And, from a digital transformation point of view, while IoT shows great promise to provide an integrated image of work flow (and waste) along a value stream, what if the standard has blind spots?    For some reason, a few of the seven wastes get this special dispensation: “Unnecessary Motion” or “Excess Inventory” or “Over Processing.”    Thank goodness I’ve not yet seen, “Excess Defects.”  

Want to short-circuit creative thinking about elimination of waste and embed misconceptions into IoT?   Just add some forgiving adjectives to obscure the ideals.  Want to learn more about the critical relationship between Lean Transformation and Digital Transformation?  Join us on October 7-8 for the 2020 Northeast L.E.A.N. Conference (virtual/digital of course:).  Only $295 for GBMP members.  You can see the agenda here.

O.L.D. 

By the way, I have a couple more beefs with waste distortions that I’ll share in later posts.  But tomorrow my post will be “Student Body Right.”   Can you guess what that will be about?   Please check back. 

Also, a quick note about our conference Kick-Off Keynote – Adapting Lean Thinking to a Crazy Century” – presented by James Womack. Yes, THE James Womack. Lean production and its companion lean management were created in the period between 1950 and the early 1970s in a world that seems stable by 21st century standards. He’ll discuss whether the ideas and methods of lean thinking, created for the long-term steady improvement of stable enterprises, are suited for this new era, and in what ways might they be adapted. He’ll help us grasp the situation in the new century and examine the role of lean thinking in a crazy time. I’m really looking forward to this session (and many more). Hope to “see” you there.