tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.comments2009-11-05T06:29:08.602-05:00Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07884296189231369533noreply@blogger.comBlogger135125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-20960183979473004622009-11-04T13:02:29.319-05:002009-11-04T13:02:29.319-05:00First, I think it&#39;s great that you&#39;re quoting Skinner. He&#39;s not as well known as he should be. Onto your post...<br /><br />We&#39;re all handed a deck of cards, it&#39;s what we do with it that matters. Everyone should improve their capabilities, every day. <br /><br />We&#39;ve found that most lean experts have tons of knowledge of lean, but don&#39;t know how to get it across to everyone else. They believe other people are the problem, but it&#39;s really them. They lack the leadership skills to make the change happen. That&#39;s why we created a course called Leading Lean. There is a big difference between being a lean expert and being a lean change agent. <br /><br />Ultimately there is no such thing as organizational change. Organizations don&#39;t change. People change. The organization is just the net result of the people in it. <br /><br />Jamie Flinchbaugh<br />www.jamieflinchbaugh.comJamie Flinchbaughhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16714555426822621398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-74383327607788997332009-10-10T17:08:40.285-04:002009-10-10T17:08:40.285-04:00Dears All Leaners,<br /><br />I think that evolutions, best practices, History cases, and certificated value added using and praticing Lean Manufacturing is so clear for everybody. Anyway, Philosophy and actions flow often only into the downstream (Blue collars group), and They live the real value. What is happening with Upstream, our managers, how do they live effects of Lean Actions ? Combine often of savings, but, the value, what thing there is moreover or behind savings for them.<br />How do managers promote the better blue collar ?<br />Once managers have gained from downstream value added, How will they continue with Kaizen. I would like to say you that when coworkers understand that managers do not increase confidence or do not knock on blue collars live, we can say that Lean is death.<br />Implement Lean activities is often used followed big problems caused by managers. They should be change after receiving first savings as result of blue collar&#39;s effort.<br />ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-43916470310243271412009-10-04T10:17:59.064-04:002009-10-04T10:17:59.064-04:00Hi<br /><br />I like this post very much. It help me to solve some my work under my director’s requirements.<br /><br />Apart from that, below article also is the same meaning<br /><br /><a href="http://qualitymanagement.hrvinet.com/category/5s/5s-audit/" rel="nofollow">5S audit</a><br /><br />Tks again and nice keep posting<br />Rgsjohnthep2009http://www.blogger.com/profile/09407750111691150671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-42152289996949269562009-09-28T19:24:55.194-04:002009-09-28T19:24:55.194-04:00Hey Bryan: Thanks for following up with this topic. <br />I agree that there is a lot of thought and meaning beyond the materials we can read today. The more I teach others about JI and observe JI in practice, the more I realize how powerful it is. JI goes way beyond just teaching others job skills, and can be the basis for teaching others how to problem solve and improve. My conviction is that it can and should be a supervisor’s primary tool for developing their people. Lean has helped us tremendously, but change is still hard, even after six years. We do try to understand standard work, using takt time to determine how to staff the cells each day. We build our cells to maintain a common work sequence (as best we can with the many customizations and specials we do). We use standard WIP at hand off points between operators who need to flex up and down the line to maintain balanced flow based on the product mix we are running. We can however do a lot better, and effective training, I believe is a large part that is missing. <br />I think where I’ve fallen down a little implementing JI is in understanding the need to really plan and get management’s visibility when we’re not meeting plan. We’ve done this for production metrics and for important projects, but not for training. We’ve made some recent corrections in this area, and I think we’ll be showing improvement. I’ve also realized the value of follow up by “the boss.” I think I read somewhere in the JI follow up material that it was better to have a supervisor’s boss following up with the progress of planning and training rather than some other manager in charge of training. This is certainly the case. Unless it’s important to the supervisors’ boss, it doesn’t automatically become important to the supervisor, no matter how useful or valuable the JI training might be. Another area that’s a challenge for us is that our supervisors are not our process experts. In implementing JI, I’ve had to teach JI to supervisors, support staff and operators and have them work together to see that breakdowns, training and our certification process are completed. This has had mixed results and we have taken a look at this and made some improvements there as well.<br />I think the technique you describe, getting people that do a job together to break it down and discuss it, can be valuable for us. I wasn’t clear, is this something you do the as part of the first 10 hr. JI class or as a follow up? The one pushback I know I’ll get will be the time it takes to hold such as session. But for a specific need, I can see how it would be much more effective than 5 whys or brainstorming ideas.<br />The future state standardize/PDCA cycle I’ve seen a while ago, but haven’t really thought much about how it should look for us. Probably some opportunity is there as well. I know for one thing, we need to continue to understand and reduce variation in our processes so we can document them in the detail of a combination sheet, rather than a simple SW diagram. Perhaps we’re getting to a point where Job Methods would help?<br />Thank-you for your help and insight in understanding the connection between JI and standard work. Although we may not be a model of (or even really good at, depending on you’re perspective) standard work, you are certainly welcome to visit any time. Using Job Instruction to help supervisors improve themselves and their people has become a priority of mine and a key part of our business strategy. A good set of eyes with an outside perspective is always welcome.<br />Dan A.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05278940045655712666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-88835113632212049192009-09-08T10:36:46.997-04:002009-09-08T10:36:46.997-04:00I recently worked a temp job that believed that training could be accomplished by using nothing more that a typed five page instruction sheet of computer language to train someone to do a very detailed, complicated process for engineering company that involved using emails and an engineering prospectis. They expected no errors to be made. They trained me for two days and left me alone and were furious because I did make errors in their process. I had never before worked in a manufacturing environment and did not know the language, any of the process, or anything about engineering. They were so sure their training instructions were so perfect that no one could fail. They forgot to realize they were reading them with trained eyes only. To someone with untrained eyes, they left out a tremendous amount of information.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-8764288456773555202009-09-04T10:34:40.837-04:002009-09-04T10:34:40.837-04:00I am a little curious about the poll question. My thought is that I want to solve a problem, thus I use PDCA to check results. People, process, product and any other type of development are activities to get the desired results. I have seen development/improvement projects fail to yield results.<br /><br />Results are the &#39;end of the pipe&#39; measurement that varify if you were doing the right things. I couldn&#39;t answer the survey by picking one over the other. Development/improvements and results are tied together.Sean Jordannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-3466877002753350012009-09-01T17:20:53.812-04:002009-09-01T17:20:53.812-04:00Very suprised People Development did not show up for consultants. Yes, consultants want results and process improvement, but it is best done through people development. Peter Block&#39;s &quot;Flawless Consulting&quot; even states a consultant&#39;s ultimate goal is to transfer knowledge.Brian Buckhttp://improvewithme.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-36607656501222640692009-08-21T10:06:23.915-04:002009-08-21T10:06:23.915-04:00I had an observation this week that gave me another perspective about why I like the JBS and JI...Some employees were using their JBS to train a new employee this week. The situation was far from perfect: The training was spur of the moment; the trainers were not able to prepare, were very rusty and struggled to perform proper JI technique; there was a language barrier; and the work load was higher than normal for all team members.<br /><br /> Despite all of this, the trainer and trainee still were able to follow standard work. The work place has always been relatively organized (aka 5S), so preparing the workplace was not an issue. And the trainer remembered to provide follow up and support. <br /><br />So even with a less than optimal execution of JI, the JBS and a well organized area still performed better than the previous training methods in the area. Perhaps a bad day of JI is better than a good day of &#39;follow joe&#39; ?Sean Jordannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-41987775212210480452009-08-18T09:26:41.015-04:002009-08-18T09:26:41.015-04:00We continue to see successful continuous improvement due to top-down support for lean initiatives. I like John Kotter&#39;s reference to the importance of leaders instead of managers when implementing change. One can lead, follow, or manage the status quo. All are needed but I agree that leaders must lead to make lean successful in empowering a work force to implement change.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-47790272827287698612009-08-13T15:59:34.107-04:002009-08-13T15:59:34.107-04:00Hi Darrint,<br /><br />I&#39;m just another guy trying to figure this stuff out!<br /><br />I wonder if Ohno wasn&#39;t refering to supervisors and managers when he was talking about cement heads. Although I don&#39;t disagree with him, does that mean I think he is right in doing so?<br /><br />Look...in Japan, I&#39;m told that it is perfectly normal to be &#39;shamed&#39; into doing better. But over here, let&#39;s be honest: in the U.S. we ain&#39;t hired for our modesty and humility! When is the last time a manager put on their resume, &quot;...and my humility is second to none!&quot; The shame thing doesn&#39;t fly here, for the most part, but probably creates more resentment.<br /><br />However, a good dose of humility might go a long way in making our management practices better. And it would certainly open up our managers minds to genuinely be interested in what people think about how to tackle a problem.Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07884296189231369533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-54482129813329987752009-08-04T18:07:04.131-04:002009-08-04T18:07:04.131-04:00If cement head was good enough for Taichi Ohno, it&#39;s good enough for me.<br /><br />Who do you think you are anyway?<br /><br />I had a similar exchange with a friend a few days ago. He wrote some fairly strong statements with a little fire in them. I pointed out that he was insulting the people he was trying to persuade and that not helping his cause. He said that he was &quot;okay&quot; with offending, as it spurred people to action. I left it at that.darrinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04037462028265507114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-13906060212570006922009-07-24T13:18:43.595-04:002009-07-24T13:18:43.595-04:00Well said Dr. Pete. It is a culture change. Change is difficult for most people but it is imperative for a business to survive. People need to know they are a valuable part of the whole. I agree that often times, those in management or supervisory roles fail in that aspect. TWI helps reinstate respect for people.<br /> Soniasparhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09703479587893126683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-65113319152250926032009-07-22T06:37:43.755-04:002009-07-22T06:37:43.755-04:00More than your article, I like the picture of <a href="http://www.fusionbposervices.com/" rel="nofollow">call center office</a> you put in the post.Alianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01314651272114750873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-83425858456151034752009-07-13T17:32:33.369-04:002009-07-13T17:32:33.369-04:00I think quality needs to be packaged and sold better.<br /><br />This gives me flashbacks to extreme programming, a now well known software quality program that really gained a lot of haters early in it&#39;s popularization.<br /><br />A lot of teams tried it and most failed. Then they thought XP was stupid. Promoters of the method emphasized that you really had to do all of it for it to succeed. So it went, we tried it, and it failed. And then they&#39;re like, you did it wrong dude. And they&#39;re like, no we didn&#39;t. And then they&#39;re like, oh yeah? Prove it.<br /><br />They&#39;ve since communicated better I think, and have a better success ratio, but I don&#39;t know that for sure.<br /><br />I&#39;m wary, at this point, of any method which responds to this kind of failure with &quot;you did it wrong&quot;.<br /><br />People are not resistant to change. They just need to be sold on benefits. That&#39;s a simple matter of using known and trainable techniques to communicate.<br /><br />I&#39;m a grouchy programmer of 10 years and even I&#39;d be willing to have standard work imposed on me IF I knew I got to be part of a team that was consistently good at doing it&#39;s job.<br /><br />Probably the whole thing has to get renamed. Also the culture of learning the basics from expensive consultants has to go. Also it has to be free. Also free as in teasers on a consultant&#39;s website has to go. Free means the whole thing can be learned from a web page and youtube, mostly youtube. And the whole oh thank you for beating me Sensei thing? That totally doesn&#39;t distract from the value of the thing. Totally keep that.<br /><br />IMHO.darrinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04037462028265507114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-49072771144278681922009-07-09T22:14:03.474-04:002009-07-09T22:14:03.474-04:00Hello Bryan,<br />Like you, most of us engaged in Lean initiatives often think about failure.<br /><br />I&#39;ve been engaged in continuous quality improvement for over 30 years, including a stint with a Fortune 500 healthcare manufacturer. I joined them in the middle of their world-class quality revolution and got great on-the-job training and took every quality course the company offered.<br /><br />Over these 30 years I&#39;ve watched many continuous improvement programs come and go -- they all seemed to fade away. The list includes CQI, TQM, CPI, Reengineering, Deming management method and probably some others I can&#39;t recall.<br /><br />So why did they all fade away? I think you&#39;re right that some of the reason was lack of leadership and self-discipline. But I think the reasons go deeper and there is a connection to TWI.<br /><br />My experience has been that most continuous improvement disciplines ultimately failed to achieve their promised benefits because they do not connect properly to the organization’s people. By this I mean they are typically imposed on people from above until the poor devils succumb. This is the usual modus operandi in organizations and can be characterized as the &quot;default&quot; culture -- the one we inherit rather than the one deliberately installed The default culture -- blame, shame and punishment -- is the usual modus operandi in organizations. It ultimately kills off the flame of continuous improvement.<br /><br />By contrast, the promise of Lean includes &quot;respect for people&quot;. When this is done properly, the organization’s people are first engaged. Then their interest is cultivated – continuously. This includes the kind of one-on-one training embodied in JI. Whether Lean and TWI survive will ultimately depend on whether organizations can alter their default cultures sufficiently to engage and cultivate the interest of their people. Stay tuned. The story is not yet finished.<br />/Dr. PetePeter Patterson MDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-89884190413615058192009-06-30T15:16:46.243-04:002009-06-30T15:16:46.243-04:00What catchy English words would replace takt, kanban, kaizen, teian and kaikaku? Oh, the problems we Leansters are forced to confront!Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07884296189231369533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-92116382164412690772009-06-30T15:14:37.004-04:002009-06-30T15:14:37.004-04:00Blasphemer!!!! :)Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07884296189231369533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-39774882259395296062009-06-30T14:54:13.509-04:002009-06-30T14:54:13.509-04:00While we are avoiding the loaded word &quot;Lean&quot;, let&#39;s all resolve to use the English language for naming concepts.<br /><br />I hearby ban Takt, Kanban, Kaizen, Lean, and most importantly Shitsuke from polite conversation.<br /><br />Lets go solve more problems.darrinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04037462028265507114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-53517624545481734722009-06-30T12:39:10.760-04:002009-06-30T12:39:10.760-04:00Lame, cute.<br /><br />Most &quot;lame&quot; comes from bad journalism. Most journalists work in dying organizations that are paralyzed in their massive waste. Consequently, most journalists can&#39;t see waste, and don&#39;t know what they are looking at when they see a lean organization.darrinthttp://darrint.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-19307199512761875852009-06-30T10:45:53.425-04:002009-06-30T10:45:53.425-04:00Nice post Brian. It&#39;s instructive to study the reasons people don&#39;t get it yet.<br /><br />As a practitioner of one of the applied sciences, I feel a new classification coming on:<br />the components of the LAME (Lean As Misguidedly Executed).<br /><br />COMPONENTS OF LAME:<br /><br />1. Myths.<br /><br />2. Misconceptions.<br /><br />3. Misunderstanding.<br /><br />I&#39;ll bet we could make an entire monograph about LAME :-)<br />/Dr. PetePeter P Patterson, MD MBAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-42093665856080436042009-06-27T13:39:38.624-04:002009-06-27T13:39:38.624-04:00Seems like the 95% number would be hard to support, though I think there have been surveys. And how would you judge failure? What would be the standard? There are a lot of companies who would say they&#39;re succeeding in lean when they&#39;re not--who wants to say they&#39;ve failed? <br /><br />As for the success of &quot;lots of little&quot; over &quot;a few big&quot; take a look at Norman Bodek&#39;s &quot;Idea Generator: quick and easy kaizen.Karen Wilhelmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06463767332463542390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-42614332496543531722009-06-22T06:32:15.444-04:002009-06-22T06:32:15.444-04:00Mark,<br /><br />95% is that infamous &quot;95% of all lean implementations fail&quot; number. And the mainstream approach to lean is to supply a steady stream of Big Kaizen events until the saturation point. What I can say is that for the individual, there is no saturation point when one small kaizen is completed that makes their job easier, safer or better. In these systems, the inclination is to do more because individuals are given real authority to do kaizen. If each and every individual were to do this under a structured system - now we have got something! This is why we should pay more attention to the Kaizen Teian systems where millions of improvements are made every year in a company.Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07884296189231369533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-73943562901946461162009-06-21T15:16:40.003-04:002009-06-21T15:16:40.003-04:00This is a topic I&#39;m very interested in, failure/success rates of kaizen events. Is 95% an anecdotal # that gets thrown around?Mark Grabanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07953086531083611251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-63018560624820113952009-06-05T10:27:07.087-04:002009-06-05T10:27:07.087-04:00Great listing. We obsess over using mechanisms and solving particular problems, versus using issues to routinely develop ownership and capabilityjohn crossanhttp://www.johncrossan.com/the-manufacturing-ownership-blog.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7565671869770103545.post-64515271753125925692009-06-03T14:42:12.245-04:002009-06-03T14:42:12.245-04:00Amazing post and story. I&#39;ve shared this post several colleagues. Great job.Ron Pereirahttp://lssacademy.comnoreply@blogger.com