Tag Archives: six sigma

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.

Pole Vaulting 4.0

One summer when I was a kid, my friend Rick and I built a pole vault set-up in my postage- stamp- sized backyard with a plant box (the place where you plant the pole as you begin your vault) and a couple uprights to hold the crossbar.  We used bamboo poles acquired from a local carpet store for both the crossbar and the pole vault pole.  The pit consisted of a couple old pillows – good enough for 12-year-old beginners.  Over the months of July and August we wore out a path in the grass and the skin on our elbows as we tried and failed to clear the bar.    To try this event is to appreciate the number of things that have to go right simultaneously. Our only source of information was a chapter from a book on track and field events. But by summer’s end, bruises and all, we were both able to clear a height of six feet.

As Rick and I entered junior high school, we joined the track team to continue our trek to greater heights.  Our backyard skills transferred fairly well, but now there was new technology.  An eight-foot bamboo pole was replaced by a twelve-foot aluminum version, enabling a higher vault, but also requiring significantly more speed on approach.  With a singleness of purpose, we trained every spring day, and by season’s end we were both able to manage the longer, heavier pole and hoist ourselves to a lofty elevation of nine feet. 

Time marched on as Rick and I honed our skills, but with little technology change. Over the next six years, the sawdust pit was replaced with an air-cushion landing area, a nice safety feature that did nothing to increase the height of our vaults.  And while new technology in the form of fiberglass poles was beginning to replace aluminum, the skills to capitalize on the new material were conceptually very different and even counter-intuitive. The idea of “bending the pole” to gain greater height was very new and not well understood.  In the absence of this new information, fiberglass poles behaved much the same as their aluminum counterparts, providing little height advantage.  Rick and I both maxed out our pole-vaulting careers just under twelve feet in our senior year of high school.  

So, what does this story have to do with Lean and continuous improvement?  Several things:

First, Rick and I became practiced with a method that required revision as technology changed. The method we learned well as kids ultimately bounded our development. In the words of improvement expert Tomo Sugiyama, in The Improvement Book, practice makes permanent, not perfect.  Or paraphrasing Deming Prize winner Ryuji Fukuda from Managerial Engineering, Before you practice, first be sure you are learning from a good teacher.  Practicing a bad golf swing does not improve it.   

Second, having new technology and benefiting from it are two different things. In 1965, my friend Rick and I had the physical technology in our hands, but the information component necessary for human benefit was not yet available.  As Stan Davis notes in Future Perfect (1987), information is the new currency. First to coin the terms “information society” and “mass customization,” Davis augured the impact of what is now dubbed IoT, the Internet of Things.  Today, for example, thanks to multi-sensory technology, bio-mechanics, high-speed digital video and analytics, the physics of pole vaulting is informed like never before.  The result?  The current world record for pole vault is over 20 feet.  Unfortunately, like Rick and me, too many organizations spend millions for new technology, but then skimp on training employees how to use it.  Perhaps this is because the technology is an “investment,” but training is an “expense.” 

Finally, Pole vaulting is a human endeavor that has been around for thousands of years, slowly advancing from oak sticks to bamboo to tapered aluminum to fiberglass and carbon fiber, each technical change meeting first with objections (fiberglass poles were actually banned from the 1972 Olympics), and then through gradual learning and acceptance propelling athletes to new heights.  Owing to the science now behind it, perhaps we can call it Pole Vaulting 4.0; not really a revolution but more a continuous evolution supporting human endeavor.  So, why not take it to another level:  Replace the athletes with robots.  We could. But should we?  This consideration is, for me, the most worrisome.  Harkening back to my backyard, where Rick and I first learned to fly, I wonder about the implications for human development. What do you think? 

(By the way, current pole vault world record holder, Armand Duplantis, also began his reach for the sky as kid in his back yard!  Have a look at the joy of human endeavor: Twenty feet and climbing.)

O.L.D.                                                                                             

Hey O.L.D. Readers:   Industry 4.0 and IoT are central in the discussion at our upcoming 16th Annual Northeast LEAN Conference.  The theme, 21st Century Lean will deal with many of the ideas from this post. How can Lean thinking inform IoT?  Must we adapt Lean thinking to harmonize with Industry 4.0?  And thanks to the Internet of Things, you can join in from anywhere this year as we have pivoted to virtual for safety during Covid-19.   Please join Lean legend Jim Womack and Industry 4.0 experts, Fady Saad and John Carrier along with ten more Lean/IoT thought-leaders. Registration is super-affordable and you get to sleep in your own bed.  More information and registration here:  https://bit.ly/2ZKmo5t

An Ode to a Frontline Supervisor

Wedged between distant decision-makers and the people who do the work.
She is the go-to person for everything: safety, morale, productivity, quality and most of all, schedule attainment,
But has little authority and less support for any of these.
Who thanks the supervisor, as she caroms from crisis to crisis,
From broken equipment to absent employees to material shortages,
Unable to spend more than a few minutes with each of her fifty direct reports? 
Who soothes her frustration and anger? As the master of workarounds, she does what she must to get things done.
Unheralded, unappreciated, and usually blamed for the broken system she is charged to manage, she privately counts the days to her retirement.

Ok, perhaps, I’ve overplayed this a bit, and the last time I wrote an ode was in a 17th century literature class about 50 years ago.  But I was struck last week when teaching a Shingo Institute workshop by a question from one of the participants, as we discussed the principle, RESPECT EVERY INDIVIDUAL.  Referring to an excerpt from a 1952 episode of I Love Lucy, a popular example of autocratic management, my student queried, “What’s the supervisor’s name?”   

(If, by chance you have not seen this video clip, stop for a moment and view it.  Here’s a recently colorized version:  Lucy 2020.)

The excerpt is from a 1952 episode of I Love Lucy, but I recall seeing it first in 1994 when Toyota Production System Support Center (TSSC) played it in a training for my company.  They referred to it as “traditional manufacturing,” and asked our class to identify things that would not be conducive to TPS.  There were many observations of bad practices and bad behavior, which I will not relate at this time. Watch the clip yourself and see how many you can find.

What struck me about the question is that in the many times I’ve shown this video, all attention and empathy by observers is typically devoted to Lucy and Ethel. The supervisor is just a nemesis.   In fact, the supervisor, as we Googled, has no name – she’s just SUPERVISOR.  This new line of questioning led to a productive class discussion regarding the common plight of frontline supervision.  Not excusing her bullying behavior, merely asking her to be more caring and supportive trivializes her problem and disrespects her as well as Lucy and Ethel.  Hence the keyword EVERY in the principle RESPECT EVERY EMPLOYEE.  I’ve often referred to frontline supervision as “most difficult job in the organization.”   What do you think?  And, by the way, how many practices and behaviors can you name that are not conducive to TPS? 

O.L.D.     

Enjoy your summer as best as you can in this crazy pandemic environment.  And if you’re looking for an energizing event to kick off the fall, checkout out our Northeast Lean Conference: 21st Century Lean. Yes, of course, it’s virtual but we have a super line-up of speakers and participants – and all of the engaging activities of our in-person conference: thought leader keynotes, breakouts, Lean Lounge, Silver Toaster Award and Lean after Dark.  Plus – bonus video material for attendees.  Here’s the link:  http://www.northeastleanconference.org. Hope to see you there.