I started my career at a GM V-8 engine plant in the mid 90’s. “Hours per Engine” was the primary metric… at least pre-lean (or really pre-“synchronous manufacturing”, as lean was a dirty word with the UAW).
We benchmarked ourselves against Toyota and a comparable Ford plant. We knew their number, and I’m sure they knew ours. One of the least satisfying things I did there was creating “stack up” charts that attempted to explain away the different in performance on that single metric.
If we had spent as much time focusing on real shopfloor improvement as we did on that metric, just imagine. That chart, and all of the excuse making and explanation, valid or otherwise, was pure muda. Things got better when we got a NUMMI-trained plant manager… we did focus on lean improvements (I mean synchronous), but that metric still was (and I’m sure is) important.
Maybe a better benchmark is “have we eliminated all waste” or “are we perfect”? Maybe a better use of time is time spent solving problems with operators (or teaching them to solve problems) rather than placating the executives with charts and excuses? How do you measure up against that?
Thanks for reading! I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please scroll down to post a comment. Click here to be notified about posts via email. Learn more about Mark Graban’s speaking, writing, and consulting.