Tag Archives: VSM

Caramel Corn Kaizen

caramelHoliday shopping last week at one of my favorite food places, Johnson’s Popcorn, I came upon a scene reminiscent of our Lean training video Toast Kaizen. After I placed my order for eighteen one-gallon buckets of caramel corn for friends and family, the Johnson’s  kitchen shifted gears from mail order sales to my take-out order.   I couldn’t resist capturing the teamwork on camera.  Here it is, or at least one minute of it: The process that produces the world’s best caramel corn.

No doubt, this process like any other can be improved, but I wasn’t watching it for that reason.  What struck me was that seeing the “process as a whole” is quite different than seeing the “whole process.”

For example, if we walk a typical functionally organized floor we see the process as a sequence of work, material and information flow – the “value stream” –  but we lose the spontaneity of relationships as we view each component separately at a different point in time.    Division of labor along functional lines really does create a division in understanding between those functions.  Functional organization may develop focused skills and capabilities, but it also blinds workers to system efficiency opportunities.

Thinking back to my own factory, for example, welders welded, machinists machined, assemblers assembled, inspectors inspected and packers packed.

In the words of a skilled welder who worked in my factory, “Hey Bruce.  You know I’ve been working here for almost twenty years, but I’ve never actually seen where my parts go once they’re completed.”

While each function attempted internal improvements, none had a line of sight up or down stream to inform them about the whole.  Value Stream Mapping at least created a means to share process understanding, but only on a batch basis, delaying problem solving and improvement.  Subtle moment-to-moment opportunities were invisible to workers isolated by function.

On the Johnson’s line, however, sharing was instantaneous as every employee could see the process as a whole.   Perhaps we would refer to the caramel corn line as continuous flow or a pull system or some other Lean tool referring to the flow of material, but more important was the breadth of information available instantly to everyone in the process.  Imagine how much more effective our problem solving could be if every function had continuous visibility to every other function in the process.   I think we call this teamwork.

While the rest of the Ocean City New Jersey boardwalk hibernates for the winter, Johnson’s ramps up to ship its delicious products around the world.   My stash of eighteen buckets of caramel corn is boxed and awaiting holiday deliveries.   Best wishes to you and your team for whichever holiday you celebrate.

O.L.D.

lfxBTW: If you are looking for the perfect Lean gift, I highly recommend a subscription to Leanflix: On-demand streaming of GBMP’s entire library of award-winning Lean training videos plus additional educational and inspirational content for Lean Practitioners including podcasts of more than two years of my monthly “Tea Time with The Toast Dude” webinars, 6 years of Northeast Lean Conference keynote presentations and much more, with three ways to buy/subscribe.  I highly recommend viewing them with a bucket of Johnson’s world-famous Caramel Corn : )

Stagnation Nation

Twenty years ago, I was introduced to a graphical method for, as it was put to me, “sharing what you see” with others. It was referred to as a material and information flow diagram, or M&I for short. Brian S., a consultant from TSSC who was assisting my factory, pointed to a diagram he had sketched earlier in the day and said “This is how we see the current condition of line X and I’d like to confirm it with you before we proceed.” I gazed at the drawing, a little reminiscent of a process map, but with symbols like striped arrows, and starbursts and, in particular, headstones.stagnation

“Headstones!” I exclaimed to Brian, “What do they represent?”

“Stagnation”, he replied, “of either material or information.” He continued, “like stagnant water: not flowing, smelly, a bad thing.” He pointed to a process box labeled ‘Assembly.’ “See here, there are eight days of queue in front of assembly,” he said. “That’s stagnation.”

The power of this graphically explicit M&I tool was immediately apparent. At a glance, the entire process condition from incoming purchased material to customer shipment was far more obvious. I studied the diagram, staring alternately at the piles of WIP on the actual floor and then back at the headstones before each process box on the M&I. “Hmm,” I answered as I summed up the days of inventory, “this looks like cumulatively about fifty-six days of inventory in queue across the entire process. Or should I call it “stagnation?”

“Call it inventory if you like, but it’s stagnating together with the associated production orders,” Brian answered.

“When will you teach me more about this M&I tool?” I asked.

“Wait a little,” Brian responded. “We’ll show you more when we think you’re ready.”

About a year after this early lesson, Learning to See was published, introducing the world to Value Stream Mapping (VSM). Perhaps the most significant technical method in the last 20 years, VSM has created the opportunity for its practioners to “see” their workplaces in a new way. Today the prescriptive VSM symbology, nearly identical to that in TSSC’s M&I method, has been copied into hundreds of derivative value stream mapping books and can be seen on the walls of factories, offices and clinics around the world. I wonder, however, why the judgmental headstone (stagnation) was replaced by a more nondescript triangle symbol (inventory) when the ideas were translated from Toyota to the rest of us.

“You can make your own symbols up,” Brian S. told me at a later time, “as long as you all understand what they mean.” But I think I’ll stick with the headstone rather than the triangle. Because fear of reducing inventory continues to be one of the biggest problems lean implementers face today, let’s make it as ugly as possible.

How about at your facility? Is it inventory or stagnation? I’d love to hear from you.

O.L.D.

BTW – There’s still time to sign up from my next free webinar on Tuesday, January 14, 3:00-3:45 p.m. EST. The topic is Value Stream Mapping: Mistakes and Faux Pas. Hope you can join me. Click here to read more and register.

Value Stream Wrapping

Gazing into a microscope as a college sophomore, I sketched the innards of a single-celled critter as part of biology exam.  I knew what I was looking for, but according to my professor, was a bit lazy transferring my observations to paper.  The result: no points for my illegible artwork.  I pleaded my case: “I’m not an artist.”

“Observation without sharing,” the prof replied, “has no value.  Practice your drawing.”

Thirty years later, I recalled the professor’s admonition as I stood in my company’s machine shop scribbling my first value stream map on a sheet of notepaper.    A few weeks before, our consultant from TSSC (Toyota Supplier Support Center), Bryant S, had given our improvement team a short tutorial on what he referred to as material and information flow diagramming, or M&I for short.  (M&I was Toyota’s name for what we now call value stream mapping.)  Drawing about half a dozen symbols on an easel, Bryant explained, “Here are few M&I symbols that you can use to share from a TPS point of view what you observe on the shop floor.  Take paper and pencil with you to the floor, and record what you see.  Your objective is to describe the current condition there in relation to the ideal TPS condition and then develop a realistic target and improvement plan that will fit on an 11×17 sheet.”  (Today this plan-on-a-page is referred to as an A3, a nifty way to capture and share what we see.)

My homework was to complete an A3 in my machining department using M&I diagramming. Regrettably, my artistry had not improved remarkably in three decades, so I cleverly (so I thought) transferred my observations to an excel worksheet using Microsoft drawing symbols to approximate the standard notation that Bryant had provided.  I anxiously awaited his return visit to show him my high tech rendering.

Bryant smiled when he first saw my handiwork.  “You should spend more time observing, and less time making it pretty.”

“I’m not an artist,” I pleaded, “and this is the only way I could fit my observations onto a single page.”

“If you can’t fit the key points of the observation on a single page,” Bryant responded, “maybe you’re missing the key points.  Keep it simple.  It doesn’t need to be artwork, but the process should follow a few simple rules.  It’s a means, not an end.  Bryant sent me back to the drawing board with advice:

  • Keep it simple – pencil, eraser, and a single sheet of paper.
  • Keep the TPS ideal in mind.  (He wouldn’t tell me explicitly what this ideal was, but based on hints, I took it to include perfect quality, exact quantity, lowest cost and immediate delivery.)
  • Take it to the workplace and observe directly to understand the gap between current and ideal.

Fast forwarding to 2012, I have a little better appreciation for the TSSC consultant’s concerns when I visit Lean ‘war rooms’ covered with VSM wallpaper: yards of paper roll and post-it notes; imposing but usually not illuminating.  A single sheet, yes; but a tad larger than A3 size.  Often key measures like Takt time or symbols like the push production arrow ( ) are absent, indicating a lack of interest in the TPS ideal.  How much of this scroll was written at the workplace, I wonder, and who goes to the war room to share?

I have an idea for recycling these scrolls (see right):

At the other extreme are the many computerized versions of VSM, offered as improved versions of the manual process. Today, there are hundreds of software tools designed to ‘streamline’ and ‘upgrade’ the VSM process.  Many have integrated other bells and whistles including hybrid VSM/process maps and statistical analysis techniques.  Not simple, not from the floor, almost never with the TPS ideal condition as a guidepost.  These souped-up versions of my 1996 Excel attempt run the risk, like PowerPoint presentations, of focusing resources on appearance over substance. They are pretty, but too often hidden away from most employees and the workplace, both during and after their creation.

Maybe I’m just showing my age, or maybe sometimes a pencil and an 11×17 sheet of paper is best.   What do you think?  Let me hear from you.

O.L.D.

BTW:  Speaking of sharing, mark you calendar for September 25-26, our 2012 Northeast Shingo Conference: Learning to Share.