CREATING OPERATIONAL STANDARDS

by Chip Chapados

IS: A standard is a documented agreed upon way of completing a task.

Maasaki Imai, (1997) often called the “Father of Continuous Improvement,” identifies two key standard types in business:
Management Standards are those used to define how people behave culturally in a company, to include: administrative procedures, personnel policies, job descriptions, etc. Imai makes the point that if management standards do not exist, operational standards are hard, if not impossible to create and sustain.
Operational standards are those used to define how a person does a job to satisfy customer demand. Defining how a person does a job involves meeting three criteria:
A clear description of the desired result
A clear description of the necessary equipment, tools, materials,
information that needs to be present to successfully complete a job
A clear description of the steps to be followed in order to successfully
complete a job

DOES: Operational Standards helps to assure:
That a job will be successfully completed
The desired result can be consistently and repeatedly achieved
The result will be achieved in a predictable manner and time
The safest and easiest way to do a work task is described needed knowledge and
skills are preserved there is an objective way for measuring performance
The cause and effect of actions taken to complete a job are described
can be further studied to achieve improvements in the operation
Has a basis for identifying training objectives and needs
Has a good basis for designing job training
Has a way for auditing work performance, diagnose problems, and identify
improvement opportunities
Has as few errors as possible and as little variability as possible.

HOW:

HOW TO USE STANDARDS TO STABILIZE WORK RESULTS:THE SDSA PROCESS

SDSA: Standardize, Do, Study, Act
Standardize: Standard is described
Do: Do the work to the standard
Study: Determine that the work is done to the standard and make sure that the work does what is intended and make any needed revisions
Act to implement the standard

Make the description of standard available
Train People
Provide proper support
Normalize the standard (the standard is the new norm).

STANDARDS CHECK STEPS
Every time an abnormality occurs in an existing process
1. Did it happen because we did not have a standard?
2. Did it happen because the standard was not followed?
3. Did it happen because the standard was not adequate?
4. Only AFTER work performance meets 1 -3 do you have a foundation for
further operational improvement

TWI JOB IMPROVEMENT METHODS

STEP 1: Break Down the Job
List all the details of the job exactly as done by the present method
Be sure details include:
Material Handling
Machine Work
Hand Work

STEP 2: Question Every Detail
Use these types of questions
Why is it necessary?
What is the purpose?
Where should it be done?
Who is best qualified to do it?
How should it be done (the “best way” to do it)
Also question the
Material
Machines and Equipment
Tools
Production Design
Layout
Workplace
Safety
Paperwork
Housekeeping

STEP 3: Develop the new method
Eliminate unnecessary details
Combine details when practical
Rearrange for better sequence
Simplify all necessary details
Make the work easier and safer
Preposition materials, tools, equipment, and information in the
immediate work area
Let both hands do useful work
Work out your ideas with others
Write up your proposed new method

STEP 4: Apply the New Method
Sell your proposal to your boss.
Sell the new method to the operators.
Get final approval of all concerned with
safety
quality
quantity
cost
Put new method to work. Use it until a better way is developed.
Give credit where credit is due.

VISUAL WORKMANSHIP STANDARDS

IS: Clearly written and illustrated descriptions of what material should look like after every step where it is modified, and what the final product needs to look like.

DOES: Establishes product standards that help people understand how the
material is transformed into the final product and how to make or modify the product correctly the first time quickly, cost effectively and safely.

HOW:
1. Analyze the process and identify every step where material is modified.
2. For each step, determine and take a picture of what the material should look
like if the step is done correctly.
3. Identify all possible process mistakes: Make a list all the ways in which the step could be done wrong and what the material would look like for each potential process mistake.
4. Take pictures (video, digital camera etc.) to identify the right and wrong way to do each step.
5. Provide a written description for the visuals made for when the process step is done right.
6. Provide a written description to of what the mistake was for the visuals that show process mistakes (What the mistake was, e.g. “Line thick and uneven.”)
7. Provide a written description of what was done wrong for the visuals that show process mistakes. (How the mistake was made, e.g. “Uneven temperature,
wrong welding material.”)
8. Get feedback from people in the work area.
9. Determine a standard format for each workmanship standard. (Layout).
10. Determine how to make the Standards available to the operators at each station.
11. Develop the Standard.
12. Make the Standards Available.

VISUAL WORK INSTRUCTIONS

IS: Clearly written and illustrated step-by-step descriptions of how to perform all the operations of a given process.

DOES: Establishes clear standards that help people understand how to transform the raw material into the final product and how to do it correctly the first time, quickly, cost effectively and safely.

HOW:
1. Analyze the process and identify all tools and every step where material is modified.
2. For each step determine all the tools and tooling needed for modifying the material.
3. Take a picture of each tool and tooling needed at each station.
4. For each step, determine all the actions (including tool setup) that take
place to modify the material.
5. Do a brief written description for each step in the order it occurs in the
process.
6. Take a picture or draw the key steps within the process when the step in done
correctly.
7. Provide a written description of the key step performed correctly.
8. Identify all possible mistakes for these key steps.
9. Take a picture or make a drawing to identify the wrong way for each key step.
10. Provide a written description for the visuals that show process mistakes.
(What the mistake was).
11. Provide a written description of what was done wrong for the visuals that
show process mistakes. (How the mistake was made).
12. Review the Work Instructions with people in the work area and integrate
their feedback.
13. Determine a standard format for each Work Instruction. (Layout).
14. Determine how to make the Work Instructions available to the operator at
each station.
15. Make the final Work Instructions.
16. Make the Work Instructions Available by posting them at the work station
where visual and easily reached.

Website: toyotaproductionsystemus.com
1172 Warren Road Eden, Vermont 05652 Tel: 802-782-3498

Creating a Suggestion System as Part of a Continuous Improvement Initiative

CREATING A SUGGESTION PROGRAM AS PART OF A CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE

                               James Chapados, Kerry Desmond, and Christiana Schlett

Today, it is understood that achieving greater and more sustained levels of operational excellence is the result of embracing core principles of a continuous improvement culture. Operational excellence is the result of successfully adapting to the changes that continually occur in and around an organization. One continuous improvement strategy, the worker suggestion program, is often recommended to help companies tap into the unrealized potential of their workforce.

SUCCESSFUL SUGGESTION SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

Recent research on the effectiveness of continuous improvement initiatives has found that most companies’ efforts have limited success (Schonberger 2011) Why? Often it is because their leaders fail to commit to the principles necessary to create a resilient company in today’s volatile marketplace. These principles – focusing on the customer by adding value to products or services, creating a team-based culture, and using a rational, fact-based system for making change (continuous improvement) – provide the framework for ongoing organizational success. Instead of focusing on these principles, companies often mistakenly focus on using a tool box of techniques that others have created as a part of their journey. These tools, often taken from lean manufacturing or Six Sigma tool kits, can provide powerful results when properly applied. But unless they are part of a principles-based commitment to culture change, their impact will be limited in both scope and duration (Schonburger 2008).

As a method for productivity improvement or culture change, employee suggestion program success has been less than stellar. Research by Chart Your Course International (2009) of U.S. companies using suggestion systems found the following:

• The majority of companies have a significant disconnect between workers and managers. Only 41% believe their senior management supports new ideas.

• Most employees never see their senior managers, or if they do they find them inaccessible. Only 37% of employees think senior management tries to be accessible to employees.

• 60% of employees think their organization’s employee suggestion program does not exist or is ineffective.

Suggestion programs must be integrated into the fabric of worker development and support. The better the fabric reflects key principles of continuous improvement, the more effective the program will be. Senior Managers in  an organization can and should weave this corporate fabric (Gutter, 2012).

A successful suggestion system starts with a culture committed to building collaboration, teamwork and worker empowerment by focusing people on continuous improvement (Bodek, 2010 and Liker & Franz,2011). A company challenged in any of these three areas will have implementation problems.

Organizational collaboration exists when most tasks are designed to share responsibility and accountability between traditional divisions of authority and traditional levels of hierarchy. A dynamic structure is necessary for a suggestion system to be effective. Many suggestions will be cross-functional and their implementation will often involve people at different levels of organizational responsibility. Having to navigate suggestions through a traditional organizational structure complicates implementation. Traditional organizations that have been successful have had someone at a high level with cross-functional management responsibility leading the program (Liker and Meier 2007.Clorox Corporation has established a World Class Operations Group responsible for continuous improvement across all product groups. A part of its mission is worker empowerment.

Suggestions needing more than one person to implement add additional complexity. Teamwork, including the use of a group of people who are properly trained, led and supported, is necessary for a suggestion system to be effective. Two types of teams usually exist in a successful organization (Pascal, 2007). Semi-permanent teams are responsible for day-to-day tasks and the improvement of methods to fulfill those tasks. Temporary teams are created to address a particular challenge or opportunity. Both team types are necessary for a suggestion system to be successful. For those suggestions that do not easily fit into an existing team, a temporary cross functional/hierarchical team can be created to study and implement the suggestion.

Worker empowerment works only in companies where tasks and methods have been clearly defined Liker, 2003). For empowerment to be effective, people need to be properly trained, equipped and supported. Personal initiative must be encouraged within clearly defined boundaries. Lack of clarity or inadequate training, equipment or support makes personal initiative by workers too much of a risk, overly difficult and frustrating. In organizations with effective suggestion programs, workers know when to “just do it” and when they need to submit a suggestion for review and approval.

For example. at one electronics firm, the informal “rules” for just do it were:

• if the improvement didn’t need regulatory approval
• if the cost was under $200.00
• if the improvement impacted others to make sure they were involved in the improvement
• if the improvement didn’t  there was an easy way to go back to the old way

All other suggestions needed to be submitted for approval.

Almost all successful suggestion programs are really suggestion systems where workers experiment and learn how to apply continuous  try out suggestions even though there seems little likelihood improvement will result ()(Liker and Meier, 2006). The effort provides experience and gives leaders an opportunity to teach additional skills in root cause analysis, solution generation, planning and implementation.

An effective suggestion system strengthens workforce commitment for continuous improvement.  Most suggestion systems focus on cost reduction or increased revenue. But these outcomes should be by-products from fulfilling core values and building people’s skills and experience using continuous improvement (Van Dijk and van de Ende, 2002).

Along with improved performance and success, a suggestion system’s purpose is to:

• Better utilize talent of the workers
• Strengthen workforce morale and loyalty
• Increase organizational resilience
• Improve communication
• Improve decision making
• Maintain continuous improvement momentum
• Increase value added activity and decrease non-value added activity.

For a suggestion system to work, the system itself needs to be a standard process with little or no ambiguity. It must be clearly understood and consistently used by everyone.

INSTITUTING A SUGGESTION SYSTEM

The recommended process for creating and implementing a suggestion system follows these steps:

1. Make sure that senior management is committed to creating the suggestion system It needs to understand that a suggestion system is not a panacea, but an important part of other workforce continuous improvement initiatives. Management must understand the costs associated with creating a formal suggestion system, including:

• Design and system management time
• Training costs
• Material development costs
• The costs of tangible incentives and reinforcers.

(Tucker and Singer, 2012)

Managers should understand that payback, in terms of cost savings or increased revenue initially needs to be considered a secondary outcome. Workforce buy-in and empowerment comes first. Implementing a suggestion system usually involves significant change in management attitudes and behavior. Creating a suggestion system involves its designers working to get an accurate appraisal of the current treatment of workers and the workers’ attitudes.

2. Select a sponsor and design team and charter them to begin work. The suggestion system sponsor should be a senior manager who has the trust and respect of the rest of management. The sponsor should be someone familiar with the company’s day-to-day operations. He/she should generally be known by the workforce. The suggestion system design team should be cross-functional and include people from different levels within the company. The team’s charter should state that consensus will be the desired method of decision making. All final design decisions should be reviewed and accepted by the sponsor who will help the team present them to the rest of senior management for review and approval (Giradelli, 2012).

3. Understanding how people make suggestions and how those suggestions are received and acted upon is crucial. The effectiveness of the current suggestion system should be evaluated.  It is important to distinguish between what is espoused by people working in the company and what is actually happening. For instance, if there is a strong sense that leadership in the company is not open to improvement ideas, while leaders feel frustrated with the lack of workforce suggestions, then that disconnect and its reasons need to be understood ( (Womack and Jones, 2003)A review of a company’s current suggestion activity should include the:

• Current number of suggestions generated in a week/month by work area
• Sources of those suggestions – floor workers, supervisors, vendors, customers, etc.
• How suggestions are reviewed and how they are approved or disapproved
• Existing processes used for implementing suggestions
• Ratio between suggestions made to suggestions approved to suggestions implemented
• Feedback mechanisms for informing people of suggestions and their status
• Any reward or reinforcement policy and the effectiveness of its execution
• An accurate appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of current suggestion activity.

4. Using one’s understanding of current methods, it is possible to develop a proposed “suggestion tree” (Heathfield, 2008). A suggestion tree describes potential suggestion sources and how they would be submitted. It determines the criteria for execution. The authors strongly recommend that if a suggestion addresses something occurring within an employees’ work area, doesn’t involve any regulatory issues, costs a minimum amount of money and can be done in a short amount of time, then the person and/or team may implement the improvement without approval. However, the results of that improvement should be reviewed.

5. Determine review and approval authority for submitted suggestions. Determine how improvement initiatives are to be evaluated and the results reported. This process to identify who reviews suggestions and who approves them for implementation is based upon:

• Cost savings
• Quality
• Income
• Work improvement
• Morale
• Execution
• Who observes/monitors the progress of implementation.

Suggestions should be approved and results evaluated as close to where they originate as possible. Delays caused by handoffs, multiple levels of approval or the use of committees sap energy and credibility from the whole process. Ideally, the people who proposed the suggestion and those implementing the improvements should report to the rest of the company what the suggestion was, what they did and what happened, citing concrete results and what was learned in the process of implementing the suggestion  (Liker and Franmz, 2011) When possible, the person(s) who proposed the suggestion should participate in its implementation.

6. In order for a suggestion system to work, there needs to be appropriate consequences attached to the suggestions made and initiatives taken, including incentives and reinforcers  (Schonberger, 2000). These consequences should encourage additional suggestions and initiatives. Ideally, a suggestion system should support and strengthen people’s commitments to the core values of continuous improvement:

• Giving value to the customer
• Fact-based decision making for initiating change
• Creation of a team-based culture to assure agility and adaptability.

Selecting and using the right type and mix of incentives and reinforcers are critical to a successful suggestion system.

So what is the difference between an incentive and reinforcer? An incentive is something promised before action occurs. Incentives are the desired things the person will receive by achieving a specified end result. Incentives motivate, but they do not encourage repeat or increased behavior. A reinforcer is a consequence attached to a person’s specific behavior. It is repeated each time, or at some interval, when the behavior occurs. Successful suggestion systems use positive reinforcers, given as immediately as possible after the desired behavior.

Incentives and reinforcers are not mutually exclusive and most effective suggestion systems intentionally overlap incentives and reinforcers  Chapados and Perlinska, 2010). Both can be tangible (something that holds physical value to a person) or intangible (the mental pleasure or satisfaction a person experiences from receiving an incentive or reinforcer).

Companies often use the concept of an “incentives store” where upon achieving, a goal people are able to select from a number of different tangible items.

Reinforcers should be tied to specific behavior that is desired to be repeated or increased and given as immediately as possible to the person demonstrating the behavior. An effective suggestion system has a matrix of incentives and reinforcers enriched by the use of both tangible and intangible rewards(Daniels and Daniels, 2009)

A list of reinforcers and incentives, both tangible and intangible, needs to be generated before the system is tested. How those incentives and reinforcers will be provided and by whom needs to be clearly identified and defined. Inconsistency or confusion in paying out incentives or giving reinforcers would be a major blow to implementation.

7. Determine how suggestions will be encouraged, collected and reviewed. Identify how:

• Suggestions will be encouraged, documented and collected
• The status of a suggestion will be communicated
• Actions and suggestions in the suggestion tree will be evaluated
• Suggestion action items will be assigned and monitored
• Action outcomes will be evaluated.

Designers need to keep in mind that no matter how detailed the planning, mistakes will happen. Initially, confusion will occur as to when people can act on an improvement idea and when it should be submitted for review and approval. Learning when to do which involves training, coaching and practice. Errors in judgment should be used as teachable moments, not criticized or punished.

At the beginning of implementation any and all initiatives need to be reinforced. Suggestions can be shaped over time through the use of incentives and reinforcers. No matter how well thought out, the incentive and reinforcement matrix will need to be improved as the system evolves.

8. Everyone involved should be trained on how the suggestion system works (Heathfield, 2008). People need to understand their roles in the system. Individuals have to be trained in the specific tools, knowledge and skills needed to contribute to the system. Employees also need to be taught the necessary verbal, writing, charting and interpersonal relations skills needed to meet their assigned responsibilities.

9. Give the suggestion system a trial run. Inform everyone that their experiences and ideas for improving the system will be solicited during the testing period. Usually three to four months of testing is needed to have enough experience, data and information about the strengths and weaknesses of the system to make needed adjustments. During that time, the people who designed the system and are responsible for its implementation should be responsible for the system’s performance and any improvements that need to be made. They should seek feedback from all involved. Often a suggestion system is tested first in one area and then expanded to others as the identified issues are resolved. As the strengths and weaknesses of the system are identified, seek suggestions for improving the system. Those suggested improvements that would add value to the system should be tested and implemented (Imai, 1997).

10. Confirm the final design. Once the suggestion system is actually functioning, it needs to be reviewed periodically and improvements made. Toyota Motors is an excellent example of making such improvements (Liker and Franz, 2011). In 2009 when Toyota’s cars suffered perceived acceleration problems, the company had to recall 3.2 million cars (later another 2.1 million were recalled). Toyota changed its approach to worker participation and empowerment by redesigning its continuous improvement program to encourage worker suggestions be made and approved by their work teams. Implementation was led by team leaders and supervisors until teams became competent and confident to implement ideas on their own. This approach significantly reduced involvement with the formal suggestion program. Today, suggestions are more likely to be executed immediately by the person or the team that had the idea. Even when an improvement idea needs resources beyond the team, the person with the idea is most often made the leader of the implementation effort. What Toyota is doing is counter to the inclinations of a traditional company. Toyota gives more authority and responsibility to the front-line workers, while a traditional company would try to exert more control by management and supervision.

A suggestion system only works if it is part of an integrated effort to create a continuous improvement culture. Implementing a suggestion system will contribute to the future health and growth of a company, but only if it is tied to a foundation that supports the core values of continuous improvement.

AUTHORS

James Chapados is Principal of Stowe Consulting Company and Senior Fellow at Leadership Performance Initiatives.  His work with companies focuses on productivity improvement and organizational leadership.

Kerry Desmond, formerly a Continuous Improvement Manager at a privately held Drug & Medical Device Manufacturer, is a Project Manager for a Fortune 500 company. He has led and facilitated numerous process improvement and project management teams.

Christiana Schlett, formerly a Continuous Improvement Associate at a privately held Drug & Medical Device Manufacturer, is a Production Planner for a Fortune 500 company. She has a number of process improvement teams, including one that reduced a product family’s cycle time by 30%. She has also led several project teams that designed and implemented a demand driven material requirements planning process.

REFERENCES

Bodek, Norman. 2010. How to Do Kaizen: A New Path to Innovations – Empowering Everyone to Be a Problem Solver. Vancouver, Wash: PCS Press.

Chapados, James and Perlinska, Agnieszka. Team Based Manufacturing. Williston, VT. LPI Press.

Chart Your Course International. 2009. Survey of Workforce Attitudes about Suggestion Systems. Viewed: October 10, 2012.  http://www.chartcourse.com/

Girardelli, Davide, 2012. A Model of High-Performance Suggestion Systems  Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association. June 25, Dresden International Congress Centre, Dresden, Germany. Viewed: October 11, 2012. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p89548_index.html

Guttry,Paul. (2012) “Employee Sggestion Programs that Work.” Harvard Business Review Working Knowledge Newsletter. Viewed: September 14, 2012.        http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/7046.html

Heathfield, Susan. 2008.  “Harness the Power of an Employee Suggestion Program, Beyond the Suggestion Box.”  About.com Guide. Viewed: Oct. 10, 2012.  http://humanresources.about.com/od/quality/a/suggestion_pro.htm

Imai, Masaaki. 1997. Gemba Kaizen. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liker, Jeffry. 2003. The Toyota Way. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liker, Jeffry and David Meier. 2005. The Toyota Way Fieldbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liker, Jeffry and David Meier. 2007. Toyota Talent. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Liker, Jeffry and James Franz. 2001. The Toyota Way to Continuous Improvement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pascal, Dennis. 2007. Lean Production Simplified.  Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.

Schonberger, Richard. 2011.  “ASP, The Art and Science of Practice: Taking the Measure of Lean: Efficiency and Effectiveness.” Interfaces 41(2): 182-193. Viewed: Oct. 10, 2012. http://interfaces.journal.informs.org/content/41/2/182.abstract

Schonberger, Richard.2008. World Class Manufacturing. New York: Free Press.

Schonberger, Richard. 2000. “The Human Side of Lean.” Target 4: 54-59. Viewed: October 10, 2011. http://www.ame.org/sites/default/files/documents/09-25-04Insights_HR_Lean.pdf

Schuring, Roel W. 2001. “Reinventing Suggestion Systems for Continuous Improvement.” International Journal of Technology Management 22(44): 359-372. Viewed: October 10, 2011. http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/7v2ewtnn69h2tyhc/

Tucker, L &^ Singer, S. (2012) ‘Key Drivers of Successful Implementation of an    Employee Suggestion-Driven Improvement Program.” Harvard Business Review     Working Knowledge Newsletter. Viewed: August 13,2012.

Van Dijk, Christian and Jan van de Ende. 2002. “Suggestion Systems, Transferring Employee Creativity into Practicable Ideas.” R&D Management 32(5): 387-395. Viewed: October 10, 2012.  http://inderscience.metapress.com/content/7v2ewtnn69h2tyhc/

Womack, James and Daniel Jones. 2003. Lean Thinking. 2nd ed. New York: Free Press.

Little’s Law and Measuring Productivity

LITTLE’S LAW AND MEASURING PRODUCTIVITY

Chip Chapados

 John D.C. Little developed what we call Little’s Law to describe the predictability of movement inside a queue. In manufacturing operations the law is usually described to show the relationship between the amount of WIP, cycle time, and throughput. The law is usually stated as:

T =  WIP / CT

Throughput = WIP divided by Cycle Time

DEFINITIONS:

WIP – Work In Process: The amount of material in the process of being worked on but has not yet become a saleable product.

Throughput (sometimes called Total Operation Cycle Time): The amount of time it takes for an item to be made from beginning its processing to its completion.

Cycle Time – The amount of time it takes to do one specific operation.

For example:  In a cable manufacturer

 If the WIP was 3600 cables and the cycle time was 6 minutes then throughput would be 600 minutes or 10 hours, meaning it would take 10 hours for the last cable of the 3600 to be completed.

These calculations demonstrate the relationship of these variables at any moment in time on the production floor. The same calculations can be done by taking the average of the variables over time to give you an provide an average description of these variables over time.

The most important thing about Little’s Law is that it doesn’t matter what happens once work enters the queue. There could be more than one work station, or more than one path the work can travel, but the average outcomes remain the same. Little’s Law is the cornerstone understanding how things flow through queues.

SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT LITTLE’S LAW CAN TELL US:

1. Little’s Law can be a tool to help understand the time and material relationships associated with operations. Little’s Law can be used as a snapshot in time or it can be used to study the average performance of an operation over time. It can also be used to measure changes in performance.

2. If you know any of the two variables, it allows you to calculate the third

Throughput = WIP divided by cycle time

or

WIP = Throughput times cycle time

or

Cycle Time = WIP divided by Throughput

For example:  If we look at a circuit board manufacturer and we know that the plant’s throughput is 45 days and its Cycle time is 10 minutes, or 6 per  hour, or 60 boards a day, then we can figure out the amount of WIP in the manufacturing queue:

45 * 60 = 2700 boards in WIP

If we look at a manufacturer of control panels and we know that they work 1  shift.  The plant’s throughput is 16 days and that its WIP in the manufacturing  queue is 400 control panels:

400 /16 = 25 panels a day or 3 hours and 71/2 minutes of cycle time

3. Little’s Law demonstrates how too much or too little WIP slows throughput. It provides the foundation for recognizing the optimal limits to WIP. If there is too little WIP then all available work stations are not being used and Throughput slows. If there is more WIP than work stations available then WIP collects in queues on the production floor and Throughput slows.

4. Little’s Lae demonstrates how “one piece flow” results in optimal throughput. The ideal level of  Throughput is what is known as “One Piece Flow.” One Piece Flow happens when on the production floor no more than one item is being worked and no items are waiting in queues to be worked on at any given time. This means that as one piece is finished another is begun to be worked on.  For One Piece Flow to be optimal the following conditions need to be met:

Same cycle time at each work station

Work can be handed off between work stations with no traveling

Zero defects

All work stations manned at the same times

All equipment same OEE and in same time windows

Material for work at each workstation available

5. Demonstrates that “batch and store” produces worst case throughput.

Make all subassemblies ahead of time and store slows throughput

Finished goods inventory slows dock to dock throughput

6. Provides critical metrics that can help measure operational performance.

Throughput is a critical operational measure that tells the speed if the production process

WIP tells the amount of raw materials tied up in the production process and allows you to calculate the cost of materials in production and then holding costs of the material in WIP.

Cycle time tells the time it takes to make any one item which provides information that can be used for deciding what improvements should be made on the production floor.

7. Little’s Law provides a way of testing the effectiveness of different production system designs. It can also be used to measure improvement initiatives by determining if Throughput is improved and by how much.

EIGHT WASTES (MUDA) OF INFORMATION

THE EIGHT MUDAS AND INFORMATION

Chip Chapados

Many of us have now been conditioned to think about Muda (waste) on the production floor, but few realize that this paradigm can be applied to other aspects of the business; for example Information.  Below are some examples of Information Muda . This isn’t a complete list, but rather an invitation to reflect on the relevance and ease of information collection, synthesis, and use in your organization.

OVERPRODUCTION – TOO MUCH INFORMATION COLLECTED/PRODUCED: (i.e. measuring too many things, measuring too frequently, creating too many reports)

TRAVEL- TOO MANY INFORMATION PROCESSING HANDOFFS: (i.e. one person collects, another analyzes, another reports, and a fourth files the report)

EXCESS INVENTORY- TOO MUCH INFORMATION AVAILABLE OR STORED: (i.e. measuring  too many variables at once, too many “KPI’s,” data and reports kept long after their usefulness, unnecessary tracking of material items)

EXCESS MOVEMENT- POOR INFORMATION COLLECTION/POOR ANALYSIS: (i.e. badly designed forms, unnecessary manual calculation, poor location of paperwork, unnecessary manual recording such as paper recording of data that might be recorded by a machine’s Programmable Logic Controller interface)

UNDERUTILIZED WORKFORCE – WORKERS NOT PARTICIPATING IN CREATING AND USING INFORMATION: (i.e. data collected by supervisors, reviewed by managers, not directly reported to floor, or reported in manner not useful for floor continuous improvement activity, data not used by workforce in daily work)

MISTAKES/DEFECTS – WRONG, INACCURATE, INCOMPLETE INFORMATION: (i.e. measuring the wrong thing, failing to analyze the data the right way, failing to properly understand and use the data, inaccurate measurement tools such as gauges, sensors, wrong or obsolete documentation such as wrong print or wrong document revision, incomplete forms, wrong or contaminated samples, improper training)

WAITING – WAITING TO GET NEEDED INFORMATION – DELAYS: (i.e. waiting for scheduled report, waiting for scheduled meeting, waiting for scheduled visit, waiting for scheduled processing, waiting for scheduled time, waiting for signoff, waiting for permission)

OVER-PROCESSING – TOO MUCH ANALYSIS: (i.e. overly complicated statistical tool, badly conducted discussion, wrong people interpreting data, too many levels of people involved, overly complicated laboratory tests/procedures, unclear process, excessive time spent analyzing data, lack of timeline)

DELAYS/LOST – INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE WHEN NEEDED: i.e. caused by any and all of the above plus: person needed unavailable, forms unavailable, tools missing, equipment  breakdown, software glitch, person forgot, person too busy, no pencil, person not informed of need; data collected, stored, and forgotten)