Manufacturers Must Lean Forward, Not Backward

IndustryWeek : Viewpoint -- Manufacturers Must Lean Forward, Not Backward

The commentator, Dave Gleditsch, says:

"I was disappointed to see comments from the U.S. Department of Commerce official Al Frink at the August 8 Management Briefing Seminars held in Traverse City, Mich., suggesting that the American automotive industry may be too focused on cutting costs through Lean and Six Sigma initiatives and not giving enough attention to innovation as a vehicle for remaining competitive on the global landscape.

Mr. Frink fails to note that lean manufacturing creates not only improved cost performance, but even more important, it creates agility. And agility enables a business to be fast and flexible, with profitable performance. He also shows a lack of understanding of the depth of the challenge that many manufacturers -- particularly in the automotive sector -- face right now."

I agree with Gleditsch -- lean HAS to be more than just a cost cutting exercise. Lean needs to focus on the customer and on creating value. But is the auto industry treating JUST as cost cutting? What do you think? I've been away from the industry too long to really know. Is the auto industry using lean to create value or just to cut costs?

Many Causes, Which is "Root?"

The search for causes of Flight 5191's crash (Letters to the Editor)

Follow up to the Lexington crash and more contributing factors. I think part of the lesson here is 1) lack of proactive problem solving and 2) a combination of MANY factors must go wrong for a plane to crash.

"Was it too expensive to have had a person drive out in a pickup with a large illuminated "X" to mark the runway? They have done so since the crash.

Was it too expensive to have had another air traffic controller in the tower to assist the one who appeared to have had his hands full? The FAA says it's going to add one.

Is it too expensive for Comair to install a device that tells you you're on the wrong runway. It would cost $18,000 per plane. That works out to $367.35 per life that was lost."

Here is a picture of the "X" that blocked the runway AFTER the crash. That's a fine example of REACTIVE problem solving.

Note how some of the letters to the editor talk about how we need to stop blaming people (the pilot) and stop the witchhunt. I saw on CNN this morning that there was only ONE air traffic controller working at the time, when they should have have TWO. And he was tired after working extra shifts. So many factors contributed here, how do you determine the root cause? Lots of "Why's" to ask for each of these contributing causes.

I'm driving from Kankakee IL to Oxford OH this morning (GO CATS!), which is far less safe than flying, ironically enough. It's a matter of convenience to drive -- you can't exactly fly between those cities.

Denso Growing

Denso, a Toyota supplier, is one of the few automotive suppliers in the US that's growing. Why? One, of course, is that they're very tied to Toyota, who is growing. That's always nice. But they are also winning business from the Big 3. They are winning that business not because of cost cutting but because of innovation. Bringing new ideas and new technologies to a market is the best way to win new business, not just offering stuff cheaper than the next guy.

Part of the analysis in this article included comments as to why they are able to innovate included comments from some Plante and Moran analyst. He said that Denso could innovate because they could pour profits into development because they are tied to Toyota's growth. This misses most of the story. Being tied to Toyota means they also practice the Toyota approach to their business. They deeply understand their current state. They constantly pursue adding value and eliminating waste. They always reflect and learn on both success and failure. It's not just that they have lots of money; it's what they do with that money that counts.

Definitions on lean focus too much on waste elimination. But adding value is more than just stripping waste away from the value you are ALREADY adding, it is about finding NEW ways to add value, whether that is technology development, new ideas, features or whatever. At the end of the day, it is about understanding and serving your customers' needs.

CNN Needs Errorproofing!

CNN sorry for Bush speech gaffe | Entertainment | Entertainment News | Reuters.com

Here is a funny one I coudn't help mentioning:

CNN apologized Tuesday after an open mike transmitted an anchor's bathroom conversation with another woman live over the network as it was carrying President Bush's speech in New Orleans.

If I had a microphone, I'd be sure to take it OFF before going to the bathroom.

But some in the TV business said Tuesday that CNN should have had a system of checks and balances in place to make sure anchor's mikes are off when they're not on the air.

"It's a cardinal rule," one executive said.

Like I said, instead of "turned off," make sure the microphone is physically "off" of you first, eh?

From a Blog Reader

By Tom Bloomer, Austin TX

(Mark's note: This is a submission from a blog reader, thought I would try an experiment here. If you have an essay or story to submit, please email me using the link on the left hand side of the page).

For any organization to function efficiently and to continue to show optimum growth, the organization must implement and maintain some type of continuous improvement program, some type of organizational standard and a true quality management initiative.

For years we have heard of and practiced the different philosophies. The TQM's, the ISO's, lean manufacturing, TPS, six sigma, the list can go on and on. The objective is the same. To continually improve your product, service, work environment, and ultimately, your bottom line, while reducing the costs it takes to produce. This sounds like common sense to most people. How an organization gets there is a matter of debate that can go on for hours.

I have worked in a few different organizations that have embarked on these tasks. I have been there from day 1 and worked through the troubles, went to the training seminars, classes and meetings that go along with it. Most of the time it seems to be the same hurdles that end up popping up and often stop an initiative in its tracks. (The main hurdle being the lack of management support, even though management swears they are contributing)

I will write about my vision of a true system, through my experiences. I will mention a lot of things like 5S, Lean, Six Sigma, Procedures, and Data Collection. I will not go into how to do these things as that would be a complete book by itself. It is best to get training on each one of these tasks individually.

First of all, the organization almost always starts off with a bang (before they fizzle out after a few months). They get everyone pumped up and motivated with the kickoff meeting (most of the time it is but it should always be off site to minimize interruptions). A President, Chairman, or some VP holds the meeting, and promises everyone that top management is behind the group. All and any resources needed to be successful are promised. It is stressed that this newest initiative is IT, and we are going to do IT, and nothing else will take precedent over IT.

This is very important. There has to be a kick off meeting, it has to be offsite. The group must include your most open minded, intelligent, and persuasive team members. During this meeting, the chair or the person holding the meeting must spell out every detail of the organizations plan. It will be his / her goal to get these team members on board and buy in to this new way of thinking, this culture change.

During this meeting, roll out the game plan. Answer these questions. How will we get organized? Hopefully through a 5S program. I have found 5S to be very beneficial in getting an entity organized.

Are our key members trained in management systems and what will do to further their training? Turn your organization into a learning organization. This is another crucial first step. Get members and employees to classes, hold classes onsite, organize reading groups. People naturally feel better about themselves if they are learning new things. They gain the self confidence needed to get out their and pass on the knowledge to others. At one company, we developed an education committee. We offered and encouraged classes to our employees that included work related and non work related topics. We taught everything from blueprint reading to cooking. We taught industrial math to auto mechanics. We started building up these employees that were going to be so important in the coming months and years. This helped us retain employees and showed them we as a company cared about their well being. I remember sitting in a class one day with the operators along with a VP. I think it was a Spanish class. It was being taught by one of our hourly employees. We also built a small library onsite. We subscribed to newspapers and magazines that these employees could read on break and lunch. Computer terminals were setup fro the employees to use during breaks and lunch.
Of course with this, you need to get your people to management systems training. Six Sigma, Lean Manufacturing, ISO, whatever classes, get the people to them and trained.

What steps will we take to achieve our goal? Spell out exactly what you want to accomplish. Reduce costs, write procedures, improve safety, and improve downtime through TPM. Holding Root Cause sessions. Improve the bottom line. Make lots of money. Continually improve your process.

How will we measure our performance?

This is very important. Everything you do needs to be measured. You have to be able to statically track all efforts. I won't go way deep into this as it is better explained through six sigma. A good book for all to have is SIX SIGMA FOR DUMMIES.

How do we get everyone working as a team?

Another very important matter and one that needs to be dealt with aggressively. All players need to be on board. There can be zero negativity. Everyone has to trust each other. We hired a specialist at this at one company I worked at. I remember sitting in a large conference room and discussing personal issues with everyone on our team. I remember us all having to go out dancing together. This involved people from plants in two different states meeting in a central location. We played softball, we went bowling. We stayed in hotels together. We became one. It worked. People who do not want to support the change or who fail do any part, must be dealt with accordingly. Fire them. Again these team building exercises must include the heads of sate, if you will.

Do we have procedures?

If you don't have written procedures or process maps, then get them written. Build quality circles to work on them. Get input from the floor, from the operators. Build the basics through flowcharts then go back and edit them until you have real written procedures for everything from hiring people, to firing people and everything in between. Taking inventory, ordering items, data collection, operation procedures for specific tasks on the floor. Everything needs to be defined, mapped, charted, and put into procedures. The procedures should be written very simple so anyone can understand. Test them by taking an employee from another part of your company, have them complete a task he / she knows nothing about, just by following the procedures.

At the meeting setup sub teams. Maybe your teams could be:
Safety, Maintenance or TPM, Education, Fiscal Responsibility, Procedure Writing Teams. Specific Process Improvement Teams. Hand out action items for the next meeting such as: Collect Data on a specific process in the factory.

After you have your sub teams, setup meetings with them and have them formulate a game plan on what items they are going to attack first. How are they going to measure their success? Statistics remember.

Meet weekly. Meet, Meet. Do not let team members miss meetings. Stay on top of it. Presidents, VP's, Plant Managers need to get involved. ATTEND BY CONFERENCE CALL IF YOU HAVE TO. Keep it going. Keep employees motivated. Keep them trained. Continuous improvement means continuously improving your employees and operators as well as your process.

Remember these:
1: Whatever system your organization chooses to implement, search out and take advantage of any training pertaining to it.
2: Do not let it slip away. When an organization fails on one of these endeavors, the organization will find itself worse off than when they started as employees will lose confidence in management.
3: Become a learning organization. Read Deming, Juran and all the other Gurus. They all have something to offer. They all spent many hours on their philosophies.
4: Start out with 5S. If you can't implement and maintain 5S, you will defienently fail at the others.
5: Procedures for everything.
6: Strive to continuously improve not only your process but your employees as well.
7: Think SYSTEMS. You must have a system. Engage in systems thinking.
8: Give the employees / operators attention, it will pay off.
9: Every one of your key members should have read THE GOAL.
10: Presidents and VP's must actively participate. Show support.
11: Build Teams
12: Stomp out negativity
13: Build leadership. Leadership has greater rewards than managing.
14: Use the 14 leadership traits: Justice, Judgment, Decisiveness, Integrity, Dependability, Tact, Initiative, Enthusiasm, Bearing, Unselfishness, Courage, Knowledge, Loyalty, and Endurance.
15: Measure.

Tactics of Lean Innovation

We will be bringing a new class around the country, at least to 4 cities. If you have learned that a lean transformation strategy takes more than a little training and kaizen, you may want to see The Tactics of Lean Innovation.

The programs will be run by either myself or Andy Carlino. We will be visit the cities of Cincinatti, Denver, El Paso and Dallas in October. You can find more information here: Tactics of Lean Innovation

"Follow My Lean" Contest

Society of Manufacturing Engineers

Would you like to win a free cycle through the SME/AME/Shingo Lean Certification? Click on the link above.

During the promotion, a selected individual will become a featured Lean Certification candidate and embody the attributes of the program: engagement, knowledge sharing, and recognition. And that person could be you!

If you are interested in being a pioneer in showcasing your pursuit of the new Lean Certification credential, just complete an easy entry form. You could be on your way to earning not just a valuable credential, but also the following:

• FREE Lean Certification Review Program(s)
• FREE Lean Certification exam(s)
• FREE Lean Certification book package(s)
• FREE Lean video
• FREE attendance at AME's 2006 annual conference
• Other attendance vouchers worth up to $2,500
• It's a package with a total potential value above $10,000!

This is an opportunity for extensive industry engagement for the winner, along with positive exposure for his/her company.

"I know what this is about!!"

I ran into my first real “nasty” person in the healthcare world back a few months back. I still have my scars from working on lean and improvement activities in the factory world, the nasty looks and the negative attitudes that people give you when they think you are there personally to take away their job or to tell them what to do.

I never had my tires slashed in the factory world, but I had some people who were downright hostile to me when they heard I was probably one of those stopwatch-and-clipboard-toting Industrial Engineers they had learned to hate. I was the type of guy the UAW rep would call a “diaper wearing college brat”, until they got to know me and the lean approach. I could usually win people over, at least personally. They knew I was there to help them, that was something I was able to demonstrate and prove out. Getting nagging maintenance or safety items fixed for them, after they had complained for months with no response. That kind of thing wins people over.

I know the idea of “lean” sounds scary (“lean and mean”) and it sometimes, regrettably, leads to layoffs. I understand the history of how mass production management works in the factory world and how people tend to be scared of consultants. It’s fully understandable.

Now doing lean in healthcare has been different. Sure, hospital management practices many of the same ineffective methods as the mass production factory world does (reliance on reports and metrics rather than going to the “gemba”, rewarding fire fighting or blaming instead of root cause problem solving, etc.).

But, in most cases, I’ve been incredibly positively surprised by my reception by the “front line” people in the hospital world, such as nurses and medical technologists. For one, they are all incredibly oriented around fixing things for the patients (and lean healthcare really helps patients in terms of improving quality and reducing waiting time). Secondly, job security is typically pretty good for the front line people because A) healthcare is growing and B) there’s a shortage of qualified nurses and techs. Hospital management I’ve worked with has always been great about communicating that lean is not about cutting heads and they’re committed to not using lean for that. And people seem to believe them. Usually.

So, I was at a major urban public hospital. Management understood that lean is not about cutting heads and they tried to communicate all of the right messages via memos and team meetings before I arrived for the lean assessment. But, there are scars. I was warned that, ten years earlier, a more traditional (and unfortunate) efficiency consultant was brought it and it was just a head-cutting exercise (think the movie “Office Space”).

On my third day on site, I ran across a woman who probably lived through that earlier non-lean downsizing debacle. She practically growled at me, “I know what this is about.” I said, “You probably have the wrong impression of what lean is.” She said, “It’s about time studies.” I said, “lean isn’t about pushing people to work faster or to do more than they can, it’s about eliminating waste and making life easier for people.” Her face showed her skepticism and loathing of me as a consultant. “Well I don’t like people in my face, so go stand over there. I’m going to dinner.”

I know not to take it personally. The scars she had (from the previous consultants) are understandable. I know the people like that are a challenge for a lean project. I enjoy winning over people like that, once you can build some trust. It doesn’t mean that meeting them is pleasant at all.

How do you handle and react to situations and people like that in your lean efforts? Is it different being an “outside” consultant versus someone working on lean as an employee?

"Buy American" Interview with Roger Simmermaker, Part 1

It took a while, but here is Part 1 of my interview with Roger Simmermaker, author of the book "How to Buy American."

Roger Simmermaker is the author of "How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer Patriotism." He also writes "Buy American Mention of the Week" articles for his website at www.howtobuyamerican.com and is a member of the Machinists Union and National Writers Union. Roger has been a frequent guest on CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC and has been quoted in the USA Today, Wall Street Journal and US News & World Report.

Q: Why is it important to buy American?

Buying U.S.-made, or Made in USA, will always be important to the prosperity of our country and ourselves. But what's of equal, if not greater, importance to me, is taking that concept and going one step further with it. By that I mean, yes, do buy "Made in USA" but also buy from American-owned companies.

Why is this important? Because the taxes American workers and American-owned companies pay into our country go towards many important benefits for the American people. Over 75% of all federal spending goes towards Social Security, Medicare, Education, national defense, homeland security, highways, parks, farm subsidies and interest on the national debt.

Simply put, American-owned companies pay about three times as many taxes compared to foreign-owned companies. And since I work for a major defense contractor and my wages are paid for by tax dollars, it comes down to respect for my own paycheck. This applies not just to tax money going towards our national defense, but also towards teachers' salaries, firefighters, policeman, librarians and any other employee whose wages are paid by tax dollars.

Q: What prompted you to write your book and to take on this crusade? What is your background working in the manufacturing world?

I became interested in politics when Ross Perot came on the scene in 1992. In 1994, I went shopping for apparel one day and made a conscious decision to buy something made in America. I had so much trouble doing it, I decided to write a book about buying American, and the first edition I wrote in 1996 is a result of that experience. The second edition was printed in 2002 and the third edition will be available next year.

Today, only about 3% of the apparel sold in the U.S. is actually made here. But the point to keep in mind is that as long as we know how to locate and buy from that 3%, we can still buy American. So awareness is the key, and making consumers aware of how they can still buy American is what my book “How Americans Can Buy American” and website www.howtobuyamerican.com is all about. Everything I wear every day is made in the USA because I know how to find that 3% and I am committed to letting the consumer know as well. If I can do it, anybody can, usually without any extra cost or inconvenience. And I never shop at Wal-Mart.

My background is not in manufacturing. I have an Associates Degree in Electronics Engineering Technology.

Q: Is there a generational gap in regards to buying American? Do younger Americans even think about the distinction as we’ve become accustomed to products coming from overseas?

I think younger buyers are less aware of the negative effects of free trade and outsourcing on our economy than the older generation. But then again, I wasn’t so aware either when I was fresh out of college. But it’s important to communicate to the younger generation that workers in foreign countries don’t pay taxes to America. Only American workers do. And the fewer taxes we pay into the U.S. Treasury, the less funds that will be available for student loans, grants, and scholarships. So it affects young people as well, even if they aren’t in manufacturing.

Q: It seems much more difficult these days to define what is an “American car,” between GM products built in Canada , Ford products built in Mexico , and a Toyota built in Kentucky . Where do you stand on buying cars from American companies versus those made by American workers?

An American car should be defined as any car produced by an American company, regardless of the point of manufacture. We have to look beyond just the location of the assembly plant and consider issues like domestic parts content and investment. For instance, General Motors alone has 82 major plants in the United States according to the Detroit News. Ford has over 30. Toyota has eight, Honda has eight and Nissan has eight. Ford averages a domestic parts-content of 87.5%. GM averages 79.5%. Popular American media darling Toyota comes in at 42.9%, Honda comes in at 52.8% and Nissan at 43.7%. BMW averages only 10.6%, Hyundai (which includes Kia) averages 3.1% and Suzuki 5% according to the Level Field Institute. General Motors has more salaried workers that Toyota has total American workers.

But the general media has been unfair to General Motors in giving Americans the perception that foreign-owned automakers are primarily responsible for America’s prosperity and support of the middle class. The media can’t resist the irony of saying there is a Honda plant in Ohio and a Ford plant in Mexico. When they do, they speak of exceptions rather than the rule. The amount of annual investment by GM and Ford in America – the only companies left in the “American” auto industry since Chrysler is now German owned - is about $12 billion and dwarfs that of any other industry. The truth is the GM and Ford support far more American workers, retirees, their families and dependents that any Japanese company ever dreamed of supporting. Foreign companies aren’t investing in America as mush as they’re using America to invest in themselves. In the long run, foreign investment doesn’t create jobs for Americans – it destroys them since foreign companies use fewer American workers and import more foreign parts on average.

---------------------

Thanks, Roger. I will publist a second part of this interview next week. Provocative statements. What do you think? Click "comments" to participate and I'll invite Roger to respond to any comments or questions you have.

The Machine That Changed the World

By Jamie Flinchbaugh, Lean Learning Center

As posted by LeanBlog.org founder Mark Graban, there is a new website available that focuses on helping individuals who want to guide their own self-learning, called The Lean Library. It includes a comprehensive list of lean books, book reviews, links and lean news. We thought we would add our own perspectives on some of these books, as it is part of the original intent of this blog. The first book we choose to discuss was The Machine That Changed the World, in part because it was the first book that influenced many, many people on the benefits and pursuit of the Toyota Production System and lean.

The Lean Library has a comprehensive review of the book, including all of its strengths and weaknesses. It will help you and others decide if it is the right book for you to read. You can find a link to the book here: The Machine That Changed the World at The Lean Library.

I thought I would start with a story that sticks in my mind as clearly as if it were yesterday. I was at Chrysler at the time. Chrysler was building throughout the manufacturing, purchasing, and finance areas the transformational effort of the Chrysler Operating System. It was widely recognized as the most successful copycat efforts of any of the Big 3 at the time, bringing Chrysler to industrying-leading performance in profitability, although still lagging important sustaining metrics of quality and productivity. I was focusing my efforts at the time on Windsor Assembly Plant where we built the higher end minivans, a true profit-machine for Chrysler at the time. I was walking the floor with one of the industrial engineers who I was asking for help with in my production area which was the lean Learning Laborary (an approach to transformation that we still utilize today). We were walking down the west side of the plant past the first process steps within assembly and he said about The Machine That Changed the World “I think this book was written by the Japanese government. They are hoping we all read it and implement it. Then they will watch as we destroy our companies and they can take over the industry.” I was dumbfounded. He wasn't being sarcastic or dramatic, he really meant it. He thought this was so much the wrong way to go, it had to be a trick. At that moment, I understood for the first time to true magnitude of the hill we had to climb. This was significant for me, because I was honestly assumpting that logic would prevail and education was the biggest hurdle. I knew then that it was more than understand what lean was about - it would require selling, leadership and casualties.

This book got many of the Big 3 and high-level tier suppliers on the lean journey. Lee Iaccoca has asked Denny Pawley (a Lean Leanring Center co-founder) to read the book and report back on what he thought. He was at the time soon-to-be EVP of Manufacturing at Chrysler. He read it during his vacation and shared his thoughts with Iaccoca (and for those who don't know, Iaccoca is not the smiley happy guy you see on TV; he's a ruthless, tough executive). That discussion lead in part to Denny's appointment, coupled with Denny's experience at leading at Mazda (Note: Mazda was no Toyota, but in the late-80's they were a heck of a lot closer than any of the Big 3).

Mark Graban, LeanBlog.org founder, had this to say about his experience with the book:

The first, and only, time that I read The Machine That Changed the World, I was working as a young Industrial Engineer at a General Motors plant. We had a number of internal consultants working at the plant, hired by GM corporate, from companies like Nissan and Yazaki. But, the consultants weren't of much use to our local plant management. There was still much debate about this "Japanese" system, particularly since our consultants were all hired away from Japanese companies. One of them suggested I read The Machine That Changed the World and a few very powerful points came out. For one, the book proved that lean production wasn't strictly a "Japanese" system, it was a Toyota system. The book showed the data that proved that not all Japanese plants were better and not all American plants were bad. The book helped convince me that principles were transferrable. The book helped me to not be influenced by our lean naysayers. For that, I'm thankful, and the book holds a special place in my lean past. I say "past" because I haven't picked up the book in 10 years, nor do I really recommend it to anyone. There are more practical books on lean and TPS these days, but it doesn't mean this is an unimportant book.

Thanks for that history, Mark. I also decided to ask another lean expert, a practitioner from DTE Energy, Shawn Patterson. Shawn helped start the DTE Energy Operating System, the first application of lean in the utility industry that continues on now 8 years later. Shawn was also a former GM-er, and had this to say:

I started at General Motors as a manufacturing engineering two months before The Machine that Changed the World become mandatory reading. Not realizing that at that time mandatory also meant "when you get around to it", I took the assignment quite seriously and read the book over the weekend. I was shocked and somewhat deflated by the contrast between what the book portrayed and what I had seen at GM plants during my short tenure. The gap seemed large as to be hopeless. For me personally though, like many others, the book inspired me to become a lifelong learner of Lean manufacturing. I found the reaction to the book among GM leaders to be startling. During a staff meeting, my engineering director offered his review of the book as, "there are a few interesting points that might make us think a little differently". (A bit of an understatement perhaps) For my peers, at least those that read the book, it was all about how the Japanese culture was different from US manufacturing. As if the gap wasn't big enough, the resounding dismissal of the book was thoroughly depressing. As an additional comment, General Motors has done an amazing job of inculcating many of the concepts from this book over the years. Perhaps the journey started slowly, but I can't help but be impressed with what the company has accomplished.

I consider Shawn not only a friend but an effective lean practitioner. You can read more about Shawn's efforts at DTE Energy by reading the interviews chapter of my book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to Lean: Lessons from the Road.

So what do you think of The Machine That Changed the World? How did it influence you? Please share your comments. And if you haven't read it, please check it out at The Lean Library.

To all lean learners, happy reading!

The System Failed, 49 Killed

USATODAY.com - Error in Comair crash fairly common

As a frequent flyer, this almost makes me physically sick to think about the systemic problems, the combinations of errors, and the multiple human errors that led to this horrible tragedy. Calling errors "Common" seems to point to things that are systemic rather than being individual-driven. Sure, a person (or people) made mistakes. But, we need to account for that in our system design. We really need lean thinking, real problem solving, and less blame. The system needs to be error proofed.

The USA Today headline above is the least "blame-y" of many I saw today. Was it strictly "pilot error?" Some headlines will blame him. Why were the broken runway lights not fixed?

"The planning discussions with air traffic controllers and the flight crew were about a takeoff from runway 22," a 7,000-foot runway suited for jets at Lexington's Blue Grass Airport, National Transportation Safety Board member Debbie Hersman said.

Instead, the Comair jet, bound for Atlanta on Sunday morning, took runway 26. That runway is half as long as runway 22 and was unlit because its runway lights were out of service, Hersman said in a media briefing.

The aviation system failed. Many things went wrong. Many mistakes were made. Why can't we be more proactive and error proof this system? Will we see a headline that says "System Kills 49 Passengers?" Unlikely. Will we just blame a dead man and move on? Why don't aircraft systems warn the pilot that he is literally pointed in the wrong direction? The planes have gyroscopes that can tell their compass position.

Why don't we have ground radar systems (or sensors in the runways) that would warn and flag them "HEY, WRONG RUNWAY???". I read articles that said "it was the pilot's responsibility" to be on the correct runway. I'm all for personal responsibility, but when human lives are at stake, we need SYSTEMS to protect us from human error, well designed systems. We need a high-priority national effort to use FMEA and other proactive problem solving methods NOW. We need to rely on process and "creativity" over spending millions on high-tech solutions (not that high-tech can't play a role). But high-tech takes time (see the slow rollout of ground radar). Process improvement can be immediate if we focus on the right things.

We need to do better.

shmula Lean Software Interview with Mary Poppendieck

Here's the interview Pete Abilla did with Lean/Agile software leader Mary Poppendieck. There are 12 questions in the link above, here is one focused on lean tools we all know (reposted with Pete's permission):

shmula: I’d love to see examples (and/or) suggestions of how to implement the following to software organizations:

1) Kanban, 2) 5S, 3) Visual Workplace, 4) The Big Room (Product Management, Development, QA, etc…) — how to best plan and coordinate between all stakeholders, 5) SMED, 6) 5 Why’s, 7) TPM. This is an Epic-sized question, I know, but I think sharing your knowledge will help all of us tremendously. Thanks so much!

Mary Poppendieck: An epic-sized question indeed! I’ll do just a brief comment on each one, and then refer you to my most recent book, Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash, for more on some of them.

1. Kanban. The Kanban of Software development is the index card. Stories are written on cards, estimated and selected at the iteration planning meeting, posted in the team room, updated when the story is being worked on and when it is done.

2. 5S’s. Apply the 5s’s to the server which stores the code and associated documentation, to desktop environments used by more than one person, and to the code base. We have examples in our new book.

3. Visual Workspace. There are three aspects to a visual workspace – the Kanban card (index card) which tells people what needs to be done, the Andon, or signal that something is wrong (eg. lighting up a red light when the build breaks), and big visible charts which tell everyone how things are going. We also have a section on this in our book.

4. The Big Room, or Obeya. Take a look at the video “21st Century Jet” (KTCS, Seattle) and you will see good examples of the Big Room in action during the development of the Boeing 777 in the 1990’s. This isn’t a new idea, but it certainly is a good one.

5. SMED, or Single Minute Set-up. The time it takes to test and deploy a release is the set-up time of software development. Many companies take so long to test software that releases are very far apart, and every effort is made to stuff as much as possible into each big-batch release. Some companies release to production several times a day (anti-virus software comes to mind) – they have SMED figured out.

6. 5 Why’s. Root Cause Analysis for any problem is a fundamental skill that all teams need to learn. First we have to implement a Stop-the-Line mentality with test-driven development and continuous integration, so that we find and fix most defects instead of putting them on a rework list. Only then can we start using the 5 Why’s to discover the root cause of the remaining problems that occur.

7. TPM or Total Preventative Maintenance. In software development, we call this refactoring. We keep on improving the design of the code base to keep it healthy and prevent it from calcifying and becoming a jungle that can no longer be maintained. Legacy code is code that has not had regular TPM.

Mark's comments: I'm sure there are great applications of lean methods and lean management to software development efforts, but I think we should be careful about looking to force fit specific lean tools. I think Mary's book title gets it right: From Concept to Cash. That's always the goal of lean and TPS, reducing time to cash. I wouldn't force fit kanban, for example, because Mary's rationale for using kanban doesn't really resonate with me, or it doesn't sound like true kanban. But, I can absolutely see applications of 5S, visual management, etc.

But, the real key, I think is the problem solving methodologies (such as the 5 Why's) and "respect for people", getting the most out of the smart programmers that you've hired. I used to work in a software company and, it was sad, that the coders were the "operators" of the company. They weren't necessarily listened to or respected (outwardly, at least) any more than the operators I worked with back at General Motors. The company I worked for created software for lean manufacturing environments and, ironically enough, we didn't use any lean methods internally in the design or development of our software. Wasted opportunity there.

To be fair to Mary, she does say, in answering another question, that her most recent book does focus on the lean/TPS concept of "respect for people." My criticism above is more toward the question that focused on tools. Mary talked quite a bit, in other answers, that lean software is about:

1. Is the team focused on delivering increments of real value to end customers – and does everyone understand what that really means?
2. Is the team a Whole Team – composed of everyone necessary to deliver value to the ultimate customer?
3. Does the team reliably and repeatedly delivers on its promises?

1000 Posts

Jamie prompted me that we were reaching a milestone on the Lean Blog. This little post here is #1000 since I started this in January 2005. That's about a rate of two posts per day -- articles I've linked to, things I've compained about or lamented, successes and inspirations I've tried to share.

As I mentioned back at the one-year point. I would have never realized how many interesting people I would meet through this blog. Thanks to the many frequent visitors and friends of the blog: posters Luke, Mark E., Jamie, Mike, and Bill. I also appreciate the network of "Lean Bloggers" out there, including Bill, Jon, John, Kevin, Mike, Joe, and now Norm, and the "Lean Podcasters", Ken and Dwight.

I appreciate those who have thanked me for the blog or the podcast. It really has been my pleasure, my attempt to give something back to the lean world that I have learned so much from. In the course of trying to give back, I've learned a ton. If you're a regular reader, you'll realize (I hope) that this blog isn't about me bragging about what I know -- it's about my lean learning journey, trying to understand more about lean and its potential impact on the world around us. I'm honored that so many of you have visited the blog and have shared your stories and comments, joining in the learning.

In the spirit of reflection and continuous improvement, let me know if you have any suggestions for the blog, the podcast, or new ideas for online lean communities and experiences. As people actively working with lean, I hope we can continue to share ideas and to help each other out in our lean journeys. I know some of us might feel "alone" (lean wise) in our workplaces (i've been in that position before, not now thankfully) and the internet can be a good way to find lean colleagues and support that we might not get in person.

LeanBlog Podcast #3 -- Dr. Jeffrey Liker

Here is the third LeanBlog Podcast, featuring Dr. Jeffrey Liker, Professor of Industrial and Operations Engineerring at the University of Michigan. Dr. Liker is very well known in the lean world and is a leader in studying Toyota's own practices and management approaches. More information about Dr. Liker and his books can be found in the show notes, below.

For earlier episodes, visit the main Podcast page, which includes information on how to subscribe via RSS or via Apple iTunes.

You can use the player (use the VCR-type controls) below to listen to a "streaming" version of the podcast (or click here for the streaming audio and RSS subscription). The streaming link is faster for one-time listening (hardly any delay to start listening). Or you can use the download link to put it on your iPod or other MP3 player.

MP3 File (24.75 meg)Right-Click to "Save As" Part 2 of the interview (Podcast #4) can be found here.

LeanBlog Podcast #3 Show Notes and Approximate Timeline

• 1:45 What originally got Liker into studying Toyota -- product development and supplier interaction.
• 3:58 Liker: "What do you see when you go on a tour? You see the factories. The see the factory's cleaner, it's better organized, the workers seem to be working hard an very engaged... so what Americans saw was really on the surface, so what they copied was on he surface."
• 5:06 Are people working on less surfacy issues now? Liker talks about the move toward "lean enterprise."
• 6:08 Back in 2000, Liker was quoted as saying "50% of auto suppliers are talking lean, 2% are actually doing it." How do you think those numbers have changed today?
• 7:18 Liker: "What they've done is used individual tools."
• 8:02 What about companies who claim to "implement" lean in 13 weeks?
• 8:33 Liker discusses how Toyota develops leaders in advance of opening a new plant. How long will it take the new San Antonio plant to become a true lean factory?
• 10:58 Can you pick and choose which of the Toyota Way 14 points that you use?
• 11:08 Liker discusses mixed feelings about "creating your own system," good in theory, but the risk is you just pick and choose isolated practices. The goal really is to become a learning organization.
• 13:18 Liker: "We're not putting in the kanban system to eliminate inventory." Liker discusses the balance between short-term gains and building a lean learning culture
• 16:03 Liker uses the phrase "Genchi Genbutsu" (or "go and see")
• 16:08 Do you sometimes have to drag senior management out to the shopfloor?
• 17:22 Liker discusses how finance-driven companies drive metrics that interfere with lean. How has Toyota worked to set up an accounting system that supports the Toyota Production System?
• 20:28 Are there other Toyota Way Principles that companies struggle with?
• 22:33 Liker uses the phrase "hansei" (or "reflection").
• 24:03 Why Toyota thinks you can't "implement a perfect lean system."

If you have feedback on the podcast, or any questions for me or my guests, you can email me at leanpodcast@gmail.com or you can call and leave a voicemail by calling the "Lean Line" at (817) 776-LEAN (817-776-5326) or contact me via Skype id "mgraban". Please give your location and your first name. Any comments (email or voicemail) might be used in follow ups to the podcast.

Here is an amazon.com link to Dr. Liker's books and in particular:

• The Toyota Way
• The Toyota Way Fieldbook (with David Meier)
• The Toyota Product Development System (with James Morgan)
  

Dr. Liker's consulting firm, Optiprise, can be found here.

Labor Woes - Just Not the Kind You Think

by Jamie Flinchbaugh, Lean Learning Center

When people talk about labor, they often focus on unions, disengaged employees and high wages. But there is a much bigger problem facing manufacturers today - a real skills shortage. Industry Week focused on this topic in a special report called Labor Days.

While statistics tell the real story, the important stories are those of individuals. On IW's website, there is an very well-written story of an individual who lost their manufacturing job and struggled to find the kind of work he wanted. Although he complains about working night shift a little too intensely (we all should take a turn at that), it tells the story of frustration for many trying to make their way in the manufacturing workforce. Just last night, my car service driver on my way home from the airport used to work in software development General Motors. When he asked me if I worked in the auto industry and I said "used to" his response was "didn't we all." He told me his story of the glory days of past, now replaced by working two jobs. He wasn't complaining though.

The fundamental problem is this: new workers available for work don't have the skills required by those hiring, and those in the workforce aren't adding skills that fit the changing profile of required work. The result: companies that have to move, and people either unemployed or vastly underemployed. The skills gap is significant. In a company that I'm a partner in, Cobra Motorcycles, we are doing some hiring. Finding machine operators is no problem at all, but finding a true skilled senior machinist is a much harder task.

What's the solution? Well, there is no one solution. But here are some the things that are needed and what we can do.

1. What's needed? Companies need to do more training, and vastly improve the quality of the training provided. Very few, if any, companies OVER-train. The key is getting the training to be job specific or development-specific. Some things are needed by everyone, but most are needed by specific roles. The quality of training must be improved. Too often, we focus training on what is easy to measure, meaning hours or the ability to pass a quiz. We don't emphasize high-quality training and high-quality measurements, such as the demonstration of applying what was learned. I do see many corporate training centers and it is amazing how many courses are clearly taking the easy route, meaning the hours are kept to a minimum, the depth of engagement is painless, and the testing is a simple quiz at the end. We must fight for value-added training, meaning training that makes a difference. Training that creates no change is WASTE!

2. We need better local manufacturing training and skills improvement. These might be community colleges or tech centers, but here again the breadth, depth and quality of training must improve significantly. Two major things must happen. First, manufacturers must get more engaged. They must provide not just financial support but knowledge support and input. Don't just figure it out yourself, figure it out in partnership with these resources. They need a supply of knowledge and content to provide the right training, and a great deal of feedback on what is actually needed by manufacturers. These groups also often get financial support from local, state and federal resources. This is greatly needed, and campaigning your government for support of manufacturing is needed. Unfortunately, most lobbying efforts from manufacturing seem to focus more on international trade issues, including protectionism, instead of training the workforce that we have.

3. Lastly, continue improving your own skills. The above measures just makes it easier. But each individual must take RESPONSIBILITY for their own fate. This means finding a way to continue your own learning and skill building, no matter what your level is.

This problem can be solved, but it won't be with the amount of focus it currently gets. We must raise the bar, and raise the skills, if manufacturing is going to have the kind of future that we all want, and expect.

Toyota to Go Slower for Quality

WSJ.com - Toyota May Delay New Models To Address Rising Quality Issues

I haven't found a free version of this article yet. Here is another article with a brief summary and a blog posting that references the article. The Gemba Pantarei blog also chimed in with an interesting take on public problem solving.

"According to senior executives and engineers familiar with the move, the company is considering adding as much as three to six more months to projects that normally call for roughly two to three years of development lead time, in order to stem the growing tide of quality problems."

Why is Toyota going to slow down product development, you might ask?

"Though not final, a move to slow product cycles would mark a step back from an aggressive strategy for global expansion set in motion in the mid-1990s by then-President Hiroshi Okuda.

The strategy called for engineers to pump out more vehicles to fuel the company's growth around the world. Product-development bosses kept engineers on tight launch schedules. Toyota also began relying more heavily on computer-aided design tools to radically compress vehicle-development times by skipping steps such as making physical prototypes to test components.

Using these high-tech tools, Toyota cut new-model development time to as short as about two years -- compared with three or four years in the past. According to officials at the Toyota product-development and engineering center in Ann Arbor, Mich., virtual-engineering tools have helped the company slash the number of prototypes it builds per project to fewer than 20 from 60.

But the new approach, which allowed its main advocate Yoshio Shirai, a senior managing director, to gain a seat on Toyota's board, is now suspected of contributing to the recent rash of embarrassing quality glitches.

Additionally, Toyota executives and engineers say, some mistakes are happening because computer-aided engineering tools have limitations that allow potential design flaws to slip through. Others point to increased use of parts designed by outside suppliers like Delphi Corp. that aren't part of the traditional circle of Toyota partners in Japan."

It sounds like Toyota was over-aggressive in the reliance upon computer-aided design tools that allowed problems to slip through the system.

But, Toyota is trying a new approach, one that might remind you of Preventative Maintenance (or Total Productive Maintenance) methodologies used in the factory:

"Toyota also is accelerating an application of what it describes as "preventive engineering" -- an approach the auto maker has been implementing since the late 1990s to forecast problem areas based on engineering knowledge accumulated over the years and using extra caution in designing those areas.

The approach is based on the idea that most components of today's cars are proven technologies, and that most problems occur when, for example, engineers combine two or more parts to create a component system. Toyota engineers focus most of their attention on those "interface" areas to predict problems that might develop."

New methods and continuous improvement are needed. Let's hope this starts to turn the Toyota quality ship back in the right direction. What are your thoughts on this?

Tour a Lean Hospital with AME

AME - The Association For Manufacturing Excellence

Looks like a great event that AME is running up in Seattle.

Virginia Mason has a great reputation as one of the leaders in the lean healthcare world.

Here are some articles about them:

• From the IHI: Virginia Mason Medical Center Implements Lean Management Principles to Drive Out Waste
  
  
• To make its processes “lean,” this hospital took a page from the Japanese car industry
  
  
• Toyota gives Virginia Mason docs a lesson in lean
  
  
• Lean and healthy

If you're a manufacturer, don't think you can't learn from healthcare. Touring a hospital would certainly stretch your view of lean. Many hospitals are really embracing the cultural and problem-solving aspects of lean, something that is universal. If healthcare can learn from manufacturing, then certainly manufacturing can learn from healthcare.

Six Sigma is more popular than Lean

Google Trends: lean manufacturing, six sigma

More fun with "Google Trends." Six Sigma (red line) is a much more popular search term in Google than Lean Manufacdturing (blue line). It looks like about a 7:1 ratio. That surprises me. Does that surprise you? Click the link above for a larger version of the chart and the Google site where you can try terms of your own.

Shingo Recognizes Lean Bombs

Sandia's neutron generator production wins Shingo Prize - New Mexico Business Weekly:

I'm surprised that the U.S. government would spent time and energy trying to win a Shingo Prize. I don't doubt their lean efforts, don't get me wrong.

Sandia produces neutron generators in support of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Lab officials say the production center has applied lean manufacturing concepts over the past five years that have led to a 67 percent increase in capacity, a 55 percent reduction in inventory, and a 75 percent decrease in cycle times -- all while taking on three new assignments with no increases in budget or staff.

I think we're all glad that the nuclear weapons are a "stockpile." We'd rather have them be the "waste of inventory" rather than being used. Necessary to have, but good to not use them.

Do you think the Sandia management applied for it as a way of recognizing their employees' efforts? Something to be proud of and recognized for? That's what might make sense to me.

Two Sides to Every Story

Lean Blog: Companies Use Lean to Offset Cost Increases

I posted last year about an Industry Week article about a company called Esselte.

It sounded like a nice success story, a case where they were offsetting lower market prices (that their customers were willing to pay) with lower internal costs. It sounded like they were doing it through lean methods.

But now, a year later, I got a comment from a disgruntled sounding observer:

"Esselte does not raise price's because they get rid of long term employee's and hire Manpower workers instead. The long term worker's that are left had their pay cut drastic. A lot of Manpower worker's are making more than they are! Management's attitude is they couldn't care less about all the year's you have spent working for the company."

OUCH. That's not lean at all.

Esselte said, last year, something different. They didn't credit lower employee wages:

"With Esselte's previous lean work, combined with Brooks' plan, he says pricing hasn't been an issue so far, noting that he hopes to be able to mitigate more of the material costs with increased efficiencies.

We've organized ourselves, we're building things through a one-piece flow, we're using pull systems within our factory to our suppliers. We've freed up capacity in people and space, we've reduced our inventory in the factory and from our suppliers so WIP is down and the raw material is down, so we're freeing up a lot so space and freeing up capacity."

So it makes you wonder. Which is true? Both? Neither?

It *is* quite possible that the company is eliminating waste (through 5S and one-piece flow) while ALSO not respecting employees (getting rid of them for cheaper temps). The two pillars of TPS: 1) elimination of waste and 2) respect for people. It's sometimes hard for companies to copy both. Sometimes, they just copy "elimination of waste." That's not the best long-term lean approach, doing that.

You have to value and respect people, because that's where kaizen and continuous improvement ideas come from.

What do you see out there in the lean world? Are companies struggling with "respect for people?"

It's Not the Formula that Matters

Kanban Calculation at Lean Sigma Supply Chain

The "Lean Sigma Supply Chain" blog has a post about the multiple variations of kanban formulas, the blogger writes:

"How can something so simple have so many variations. No wonder this tool has had so many failures."

I doubt many kanban systems have failed because somebody had the wrong formula. I've used different formulas in different settings, based partly on the data that were available (or not available). It's not important if you calculate "I need 14.2 kanban containers" versus 14.32853. Kanban is not about having precise calculations.

If you have exact usage data for a part in the computer system, that's one source of kanban data (but the data might be wrong, so be careful about that). You can also use a survey of different users for a part, asking them "how much do you use on a typical day?" or "what's the most you might use in a given day?"

But having that initial kanban sizing calculation is just the first step. There are many ways that a kanban system can fail, most aren't related to the formula you used. Kanban will fail if:

• There are no visual controls in place to indicate how the kanban system is performing (i.e., are cards being sent at the right time, are we stocking out, are we over-ordering?)
  
• There is no standard process to make sure kanban cards or containers are being circulated properly, put in the right place, etc. (i.e., has everyone been trained?)
  
• There is no management oversight to make sure standard work is being followed (i.e., does management formally audit the kanban system?)
  
• There is no system for periodic review, for continuous improvement (or kaizen) of the kanban system (i.e., does the kanban system degrade due to lost cards or demand changes?)
  

It's not important that you have the most precise kanban calculation ever. It's important that you have a kanban system that works. Any thoughts? Have you struggled with any of the four points above? Do you use very quantitative data-driven kanban calculations or use estimates of part usage that you tweak over time?