Hi !
In my experience, there is a big difference between LEAN - the theory & good figures and LEAN - the real situation.
My opinion is that the solution isn't to take a model and force it over some situation - and, from all the companies I've meet, this is the lean approach. We belive that we have lean, toyota way, kaizen - but in fact we have only models applied without an analysis.
First, let me direct you to a post I made last year (broken link removed), which refers the reader to an article by Drew Dillon.
I also posted an even earlier one here which may also have some relevence: (broken link removed)
The first problem is the desire for instant results and/or gratification. The problem with this is that those who are concerned with instant results are failing to understand the larger picture, and so fail to create something sustainable. Just as a tree doesn't grow overnight, neither can a "system" be developed and turned into an organization's culture overnight.
You see, TPS (Toyota Production System) is derived from a set of principles. The trick is make those principles become an ingrained part of the organization's culture. Yet what you all too often hear and read about is that "Lean" is just a set of tools.
Here's a recent example of the benefits of beign diligent about this effort. Middle of last year, we were affected by the economic downturn like the majority of companies out there to the tune of having our annual sales drop by over 12% from the previous year. Yet, because of our activities in reducing inventory levels, driving waste out of the processes, managing our resources (we didn't do layoffs, but we did utilize furloughs), material sourcing activities, increased quality/throughput, etc.; yet our EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) increased by double-digits along with our Cash Flow.
4 relevant & common examples:
1. it's said to be JIT with the supplied materials for production - but for Toyota is JIT because they have the supplier factory near their factory - for us is 1 continent away !
The problem here is that many people read some books and articles and screamed, "That's for me. We must do that." And so they dictated to their supplier that the supplier would hold lots of stock and ship to them as they demanded. Never mind that the only thing that happened was material being shifted from one location in the supply chain to another. Even APICS (The Association for Operations Management) still gets this concept wrong in some of their training material. You see, JIT isn't something that you do; JIT is something that occurs because of a whole lot of other things you
HAVE done which then allows JIT to happen. Putting it more plainly, it is a result.
Focus on the concept, and not on the distance.
2. Let's implement a line and make U-shape assmelby line - but we have a plant with 2 WRHs - one for incoming, one for delivery - so, here, the lean approach would have been an I-shape line - but no, "U-shape is lean !"
There are benefits to a U-shaped workcell, but again, anyone espousing a single method just isn't understanding the underlying principles.
3. "People are the most important resource of the company !" (you will find this mention in every management university, training, MBA, etc.) - in NONE of the companies I've worked with the situation isn't like that ! And this comming from the shareholdres & managers down. And here I mean the real situation, the one beyod the beautiful presentations and power points.
That's a management and/or personality issue, plain and simple. In the case of public companies, I believe it is driven by poor metrics and the focus on the need to create ever rising dividends and/or stock prices. Then again, when a CEO/CFO are being measured by that yardstick, that is what they will focus on.
Another thing is: Who sais we must take some other's models and apply them to us ? (And I don't mean this in a "patriotic" way.) Sometimes we must think ourselfes at some models and, if what we use is ergonomic and works with excellent results, why change ?
True, in fact if people could just bolt on TPS today to their company, all you would have is a bunch of Toyota's. Nobody better, and likely nobody worse...today. But for a company where the concept of continuous improvement is truly ingrained and people are allowed to work towards that goal, those companies will again seperate themselves from the rest of the pack.
Wayne
But, seriously I have stated this before and until I see it being put to use more often, I'll continue to say it. "Quality" is NOT a department!!! If you have a "quality" department you should be making inroads to eliminating it. Not to say that there shouldn't be someone on hand responsible for "quality", but that individual should be in the company as a trainer and facilitator for quality. The (for lack of another term, we'll call the individual the Quality Manager) Quality Manager should be the one who provides training on the use of quality tools to every employee, as well as being available to aid in the selection and facilitation in the use of these tools. Making every employee responsible for the quality of product or service provided (and providing them with the tools to perform this function) would help to eliminate the us -Vs- them games that are discussed in these last couple of posts.
