Kaizen Teian First. Kaizen Event Last.

It may have been Ohno that espoused "manual" kaizen first, before he encouraged his workers to tackle "machine" kaizen. In other words, he wanted his people to build up this skills of his people with simple things before they tackled more advanced problems.

The same advice can be adapted for leaders who are tempted to jump into their first Kaizen Event. My advice: BEWARE! A cautious approach is required especially when you put others interests in jeopardy. Notice I said, “others interests”. This could mean responsiveness to orders, cost sensitivity, safety or just plain ol’ good will.

I suggest to you that the (in)famous kaizen event often puts leaders into the very undesirable situation that is often difficult to overcome: likely failure.

Kaizen events have been so over-hyped based on short term results that their lack of lasting success is rarely considered as a deterrent to conducting one. Assuming you have few logistic, personnel and resource issues to deal with, here is the number one problem that you may encounter:

Forcing a Solution

As leaders we are supposed to develop people. The goal is NOT how many kaizen events we lead in the fiscal year. A common problem in kaizen events is encountered sometime around the middle of the week, or the, "Pit of Despair". The situation on Tuesday or Wednesday is that a solution is not visible to the team. Sometimes, a breakthrough is made and the team emerges from the Valley of Death, exhausted by trying to meet the "five-days-and-four-nights-deadline", somewhat incredulous of results and often not wanting to participate in a kaizen event for many weeks to come. If this has happened to you, you are half lucky and half successful. At least the team came up with a solution you accepted. 

The alternative path from the Pit of Despair is one that the team CANNOT navigate on their own. Here is where leaders may or may not have a predetermined solution in mind, or has an opinion of what the solution should or shouldn't be and the team members disagree or can't see it as a viable solution. In any combination of these scenarios, the leader resorts to being a manager and imposes his will on the team. In effect, he squashes their creativity, their intelligence, their will and self-esteem. Why do we do this? Sometimes we put our people into a situation where we feel we must impose our will because:

• we have chartered (committed our reputation as a leader) to conduct a kaizen event and promised to solve a problem, and/or,

• we feel our teams mistakes will jeopardize others' interests, including our own as stated previously.

In either scenario, we have failed as leaders.

In both instances, we have bitten off more than we can chew. And we have also probably done a poor job of planning and pre-work with the team members so that the problem and solution is not understood and worked out by the team prior to the event. The kaizen event and its outcomes should be preplanned, BY THE TEAM, prior to kickoff. Where will your people get the skills to do such a thing?

An alternative approach is to put your people in small, local, situations (e.g., workcell, cubicles, workstations, etc.) where they can make safe mistakes while honing there standardization, problem solving and collaborative skills with like minded people. In these situations they will realize many successes. As their kaizen skill increases as an individual, you can then pull those skilled, developed people together as a collaborative team to make safe, large improvements in a kaizen event that have been well thought out using the PDCA cycle – a skill that can only be honed first as individuals under your tutelage.

Kaizen Teian first. Kaizen Event last.

Further Reading:

Books about Kaizen Teian (employee involvement/idea/kaizen systems):

Kaizen Teian 1

Kaizen Teian 2

Improvement Engine (formerly, Kaizen Teian 3)

40 Years, 20 Million Ideas: The Toyota Suggestion System

The Amazing Oversight (from the seventies, collection of articles from management leaders)

Read about kaizen events some other time.

Gandhi gets Lean

There is more to life than increasing its speed.
Mohandas Gandhi

The same is true for manufacturing. Especially when we think about batching and consumption based replenishment (kanban/pull). Many managers, supervisors and leads will resist reductions in batch size on the premise that the change will reduce their production rates, thereby increasing costs and missing shipments.

In my experience, the complete opposite is true. Here is one example. During my Job Methods training, I had to pick a production problem to practice on. A current production problem was easily found where the line was unable to make their daily order requirements. A quick Q&A led us to a station where the product was batched in groups of five and subsequent operations were processed one, or more, at a time. By modifying the fixture we were able to balance the line so that a "make-one-take-one" situation was adopted by the line. Initial results, by reducing the batch from five down to one, was a "trebling" of production. Trebling. That's a good word.

But this came with pain and resistance. Immediately, supervisors of the line declared that they were faster welders on five units rather than one. It was only through a Job Methods analysis that I was able to demonstrate to them that the batches of five were actually causing downtime and delays that were virtually eliminated by a single piece fixture scheme. Once we made it through this mental obstacle, the supervisors were more readily and open to seeing that no matter how many they could make in a cycle, the subsequent operation could only make one to their five. Once this was realized on all three shifts, the changes were sustained.

This is one of the many paradoxes (paradoxen?) of lean...by slowing down, we speed up. I want Gandhi on my management team.

Fives on the Mind

Five is your new favorite number. Add a Y, S or N after the five. Trust me on this.

Lets start with the five whys (5Y). Do I need to elaborate on the importance of this? Read the section of Toyota Way Field book on causal chain and then go use it. And please don't stop at five just because it is five.

How about the five esses (5S)? The 5S' embody the very simple basics of workplace organization, improvement and building self discipline.

But don't start with either of these, they will come soon enough. You need to start with the Five Needs of every leader (5N).

What are the 5N?

The 5N can be separated into two basic needs: knowledge needs and skill needs. The knowledge needs can be parsed again into:

1. Knowledge of the Work
2. Knowledge of Responsibilities

Leaders must acquire this knowledge. By acquiring this knowledge, leaders can earn respect, grasp the situation more easily when problems do arise and can take prudent steps that are aligned with the organizations culture.

I mention these first needs because I have recently taken on a new role as Director of Quality in a manufacturing company. To say that I need to acquire these two packets of knowledge is the understatement of the New Year. But acquire them I must. The next question is then, what to do with the knowledge that I acquire over time?

Experienced leaders know that they have three other needs:

1. Skill of Instruction
2. Skill of Improving Methods
3. Skill of Leading

In the TWI approach, the skill of instruction is learned through Job Instruction. In my new role, I've asked people in the genba to train me in the job in order to better understand the work and problems that they encounter (knowledge need). Since I've been practicing Job Instruction for several years now, I can also evaluate the company's training effectiveness, its efficiency and other strengths and gaps. Interestingly, there is a direct tie between the 5N and 5S. In Job Instruction, we learn about the "Get Ready" steps of instruction. Two of the steps are to determine if everything is available for work: 1) machines, materials, tools, etc., and 2) is the workplace organized the way the person is expected to maintain it - even during work. Sounds like 5S to me!

Next is the skill of improving methods. It is said that Ohno wasn't satisfied with Job Methods when it was introduced to Japan in the 1950's but that he retained the "questioning method" that was learned in the program. You may be surprised that another "five" reveals itself in Job Methods: 5W1H. Perhaps this odd five-plus-one is best expressed in Rudyard Kiplings' poem:

I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.

O.k., there is a sixth wheel here! But, the answers to 'how' often lead to many improvements. The Job Methods questioning method of 5W1H will bring the leader to many systemic improvements. It is the 5Y questioning method, however, that can allow deep insight - in probably the simplest manner ever devised - to millions of workplace problems today. Incidentally, there is a definite order to the questioning method in Job Methods, it starts with a simple question: "What is the purpose?" and then is followed by a relentless stream of why's until the questioner is satisfied. This gets people thinking about elimination (not needed if purpose is irrelevant) rather than streamlining waste and jumping to false conclusions.

Interestingly enough, the many little jobs I'm learning through Job Instruction can be snapped together like legos and eventually build up into a bigger process that can be analyzed and improved through Job Methods. In other words, as we learn the TWI job skills first, we begin to see how the five needs begin to work together with the five whys and the five esses...

With the skill of leading, learned through Job Relations, leaders aim to maintain and improve cooperation and workplace relations. This is done through the lens of improving problems of production, quality, cost and morale. It is not a stretch to see how improving workplace instruction, methods, organization and increasing problem solving skills can tackle all four problems listed. Where does Job Relations come into the picture? There are a few ways. First, by acquiring the knowledge of responsibilities we are better equipped to lead and maintain good relations. Second, when we talk about stabilizing the process through better instruction of standards, improving methods, machines, materials and environment - what we are really doing is changing the culture of the organization. Job Relations helps the leader help others through the change.

Do we need a huge toolbox to operate daily? Sure, there are a lot of nifty tools out there, but if everybody had a case of the fives - whoa, look out! Yep, I've got a bad case of the fives - and thank goodness there isn't a cure!

Exact isn't Always Right

My oldest son is taking Algebra I this year. He had a good question yesterday: "Dad, why does the book only ask us to use 3.14 instead of pi?" I replied with a quizzical look, thinking to myself, "aren't they the same thing?"

He read my thoughts and said, "if I used the calculator, my answer would be more correct, or more precise, right?"

Ahhh...significant digits. That awful, misused concept that makes me think that with more context, my answer is more correct than yours. Or, my son was trying to trick me into using his calculator for math homework. Nice try, son, but no deal.

A = PI(r)^2

So, my area with radius r = 2 is 12.56

His area with radius r = 2 is 12.566370614359172953850573533118, at least according to the Microsoft Windows calculator! Can you set sig digs on this thing?

As we drove away from the soccer field, I tried to explain to him how sometimes the exact answer isn't necessarily the right answer, especially in engineering and manufacturing where just because something was designed a certain way doesn't necessarily mean it can be built that way. Of course, he didn't buy it one bit which has me a bit worried that he will be a (the horror!) a desk engineer or even worse, an industrial engineer! :) I'M JOKING!

So, my next idea to convince him of this concept is to have him build something to a print. Or maybe I'll bring a flashlight home and have him try to assemble it within a theoretical cost accounting generated cycle time limit and then brow beat him for not meeting the cycle time! He might understand then!

Just remember the concept of significant digits when you are breathing down somebody's neck with a stopwatch out in the genba: exact isn't always right!

Does Lean Stifle Creativity?

It is possible that the TWI Job Methods program had some influence in the concepts used in Kaizen Teian (creative suggestion) idea systems in Japan, most notably the questioning method. Despite the success of idea systems in Japan, numerous experts claim that monetary rewards are a must in the U.S. if we are to hope for any creativity to come out of our people. Most people I have mentioned suggestion systems to recoil in disgust or horror: "To expensive!" or "Waste of time!" are the knee jerk responses, if not conventional wisdom when it comes to the topic.

I know of two companies in the U.S., outside of Toyota that have implemented over 50,000 improvement ideas in a one year period. Cash incentives for each idea do not exist in the program. How then, do they defy the experts? Is this level of activity only for the short term? Maybe so. In the meantime, here are some thoughts on the matter...

When we coerce people into doing things, we often get the opposite result of what we desire. People intrinsically don't resent criticism and they don't resist change. But in the real world, they often do because the criticism doesn't come from within; it comes from an external source, usually their supervisor. This is what stubborn, resistant "cavemen" really mean when they say "you are doing Lean TO me, not WITH me." By the way, cavemen is a name given to people resistant to Lean improvements. "Enlightened" professionals use this term in jest during Lean training - slapping people in the face - under the guise of a "fun" PowerPoint presentation. How arrogant can we be? Do we know everything? How does this follow the principle, Respect for People?

I believe doing Lean TO people is what really stifles their creativity. People will lock up like a mule keep their great ideas to themselves. "Why should I provide a good idea, even if it benefits me, only to be criticized again and again? Is this what we have to look forward to with Lean? This isn't worth the grief and trouble." People will find the easiest path to happiness and avoiding criticism helps a person get there sooner, even if avoiding criticism is not in their best interest. What is the cost of avoiding criticism? In the case of suggestion systems and coercion, this is why cash incentives do not matter.

There is proof of this. In the real world, people change vehicles, clothes, appliances, homes, schools, work, citizenship, learn languages, change careers, education, read new genres, write, blog, invent, build new things and in general are demanding new changes from industry, friends, politicians, family and neighbors at ALL TIMES. In fact, people will pay hard earned cash for small changes, or even go into staggering debt for a life altering change. Yet, we think we have to pay them to come up with good ideas.

People do NOT resist change in their real lives, they seek it out even though the result may be sometimes slow to realize. It is us as managers that don't recognize this paradox in our artificial work world. To paint the human race with a broad stroke as unchanging, stubborn "cement-heads" (another derogatory term I've seen in Lean training slides...SLAP!) is not helpful for a continuous improvement paradigm. In fact, everyday as managers, we take people out of their real world and put them into an artificial world of work that, if done that way in the household, wouldn't make sense on so many different levels. And when they don't conform to this nonsensical world, they are punished. When we think about it, we have probably learned more about "lean" from life and work experience then from work and lean consultants. Why then should we expect people to comply to our artificial rules about creativity, improvement and standardization, when all we do is criticize only what they know?

This is why the TWI skills are so important. They provide a simple (better) framework for common sense workplace improvement and coaching, learning, advising, teaching - NOT criticizing and telling. In fact, I would dare say that constructive criticism is implicitly discouraged with TWI J-skills. Instead, the name of the game here is fact-based coaching for self-discovery and self-improvement. Leaders teach others improvement and standardization skills, so people can self-assess, self-criticize and self-improve. We don't tell people how to do their job. We only guide them in finding the best way to improve it and standardize it on their own. This is where the fuel for real creativity comes from, self-realization and ongoing, immediate needs. The only compulsory agreement between a person and their leader is that they try as best they can at what the leader is teaching them.

Example: Cleaning the kids room. We could say: "Your room is a pig stye, no? Go clean your room or you lose TV time tonight!" Or we could go to the area itself and ask, "Why are there toys all over the floor?" The answer may be, "I don't have room for all of my toys," or "My room isn't big enough!", perhaps one honest child will say, "I don't want to, it is too much work!"

As a parent leader, I can ask what my son can do about it. "Do you have toys that you don't use?" This may lead to some better self-discovery for my son that leads to creative solutions like donating the unused toys to other kids who would like to play with them or holding a yard sale so he can save some money. (likely to buy more toys, uggh.) The point is this: the easy way is the short-term-results-oriented-command-and-control-git-R-done method. The harder, long term problem solving method is the way of coaching and leading.

What do leaders really need to teach others without telling them what to do? Direct observation of problems as they occur in the workplace is the first thing to teach and fortunately this concept is built into all TWI J-skills. "What do you see here? Why do you think this happened? Can you look into this and find out more about it? Can I follow up with you about this on Friday?" The second thing leaders can teach is that ONLY a questioning attitude, NOT a telling attitude, is what will lead people to continuously create waste-free standardization. The third is that people must base their improvements on facts, not opinion. What you feel is one thing, what improves the situation is a whole other matter, let's stick to the facts so your solution will work for the long term. This third thing forces us to be really good at the fourth thing: follow-up. Why? Because as everybody already knows, things change...a problem is never really static. What you thought was the problem today is something else tomorrow. We need to follow up with two things as the situation changes: a) get a commitment from someone that they will try their best to work out the problems and b) be reliable and always be there to ask how you can help them.

That's just a few things, but these simple concepts, if only used by all workplace leaders, can go along way towards getting nearly 50K creative improvements realized in your company.

2009 TWI Summit Keynote Address Now Available

Patrick Graupp's Keynote Address is available through the TWI Summit - To Japan and Back: Insights on My TWI Journey

Hear Pat’s insights on TWI in Japan and learn how his early experiences as a trainer there shaped his passion for TWI. After working with TWI in Japan for many years, Pat returned to the U.S. and became a pioneer in reintroducing TWI in the U.S. The lessons he learned along the way will enlighten experienced practitioners and TWI beginners alike.

SPECIAL APPEARANCE: Patrick's mentor in Japan, Mr. Kazuhiko Shibuya, will address the Summit with Patrick translating to English. Mr. Shibuya learned TWI in the early 1960s from the first Japanese Masters! Don't miss your chance to hear this historically significant event that ties together TWI's past with today!

Keynote Address Available Here

TWI Summit 2009

There is still time to sign up for the 2009 TWI Summit! Looks like TWI is spreading into many diverse industries: apparrel, healthcare, construction, shipbuilding, semiconductor are just a start!

Darcy Montgomery and Stacy Kerkhof will present a Reebok case study. Mark Graban, author of Lean Hospitals, will discuss TWI in healthcare. Intel and IBM will present their case studies, by James Hyder and Jeff Maling, respectively. Jeff has been at the frontlines of repatriating TWI thinking back into U.S. industry, for several years now and is a member of SME Chapter #204. Jeff and I have spent way too much time pouring through the "new" concepts presented in books he has dug out of the past, even as far back as 1915 where the first "pull vs. push" system was described in detail.

And there are more breakout sessions than ever. Don Dinero will conduct a Job Methods breakout session and David Meyer is back with Tracey Richardson to demonstrate Problem Solving as a companion to TWI. Hal Macomber will also hold a breakout session on "Quick N' Easy" kaizen, where Hal has adapted J-session thinking to daily continuous improvement. I think this will be one of the most intriguing as Quick N' Easy is the logical conclusion of Job Methods training. One problem with Job Methods training is that it doesn't reach down far enough in to the organization, nor does it often go high enough. This is a common problem with Lean programs in the U.S. and Quick N' Easy kaizen is a way to get EVERYONE involved.

As important as the summit is to me, I won't be attending this year. My wife and I had other plans - our fourth son is due on May 21! So, wish us luck and have a great summit. I will see you next year!

New SME Video focused on TWI

SME has produced a TWI video. There is a sample clip at the following link along with a shopping cart.

SME TWI Video

TWI Yahoo Group - Mine the National Archive Data!

Join this Yahoo Group - TWI Collaboration Opportunity!

Mark Warren at Tesla2.com has really outdone himself with the amount of work put into additional TWI research. The materials I have researched and posted at TWI Service came from the National Archives. That was almost two years ago now and it was really only the tip of the iceberg. Mark went back to the archives and dug into the TWI Foundation materials. The TWIF was a non-profit started after the decommission of the ABC government programs. The, "four horsemen" as they were called, directors of the wartime TWI Service founded the non-profit- members-only organization in order to continue the great progress made in industrial human relations and continuous improvement.

I also have posted some material from another consultant (TWI, Inc.) that actually won the Japanese/US contract to bring TWI to the JMA and JITA which last time I checked still offers the J-skill courses today. The most exciting thing about this is that the Japanese specifically had a need for Problem Solving - the result is what you will find at this link. This material comes from the Western Reserve Historical Society at Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio. The U.S. TWI story kind of ends there though, except that Walter Dietz gives us many hints in his self published book "Learning By Doing" in 1970 that described TWI lived well beyond its useful purpose in wartime production. We just never knew if any materials existed. It turns out that about three or four months after I left the archives, somebody donated the private TWIF collection! And that is where Mark picked up the TWI trail - in the rest of the National Archives.

There really isn't enough space in a blog post to say the following: so I will run the risk of....glorifying.....TWI here. My apologies please know my intent isn't to say that TWI is an "answer" for all of our woes. When looking at the breadth and depth of the TWI materials, its origins and the results (most notably, Toyota) we practitioners were quite amazed. I mean, this is good stuff! And those of us using it today are getting fantastic results! But now, as Mark releases this new material that fills in some of the voids in the timeline between 1955 and 1975, the staggering amount of materials that extend the TWI lifespan is overwhelming. But, it is more than just how long it lasted. This was (and still is) a critical piece to the management training puzzle we face today.

Here is the welcome post offered up by Mark at the TWI Group page:


"This group was established to share and discuss TWI programs. The "Files" section has copies of materials that were transcribed from the National Archives collection. These ranges from the Sessions Outlines to Institute Conductor's Manuals to Trainer's Guides to Coaching material to Follow-Through program materials for each 'J' program, plus many materials that were "For TWI Staff Use Only". All of these documents are in MSWord(2002) and can be edited. Feel free to add comments, suggestions and correct typos (please turn on tracking so I can see what was changed) and submit to: Mark.Warren@Tesla2.com - I will periodically update the files with the improvements. This group is also a good place to ask questions and debate the pros and cons of the materials."

Not to mention an awesome Job Economics Manual. Want a different perspective on the economy? Check it out.

I encourage anyone who has an interest in business history, Lean, or if you are looking for a way to better your skills - join the group and continue the journey.

TWI & Kaizen Masters - Not all of us can be a Chuck Norris

In Job Methods, people learn to observe, question, analyze, create and implement improved work methods. It takes time to master this pattern; it requires a lifetime of self-discipline and support. Yet, with Lean, we expect everyone to be a Grand Master after he leaves the four-hour MEP class intro to 5S! O.k. let's get real - you aren't Chuck Norris and neither are your people when it comes to Lean.

Here is an early example of how a Job Methods participant came up with a way to separate bad parts from good:

O.k., o.k., you armchair leansters…you know who you are – right now you are yelling at your monitor: “why make the bad parts at all?! Is the time and money to make the fixture wasted if we can avoid making the bad parts in the first place?” The answer is, of course, YES – that is, IF you know how to prevent the initial error at the time of need. This is where we go wrong with involvement, right? We want the person to be Chuck Norris, coming up with an idea that gives that defect a round house kick to the face so it never shows itself in this factory again! HAI-YA! KAIZEN! And sometimes we want that perfect solution soooo much, that this really good idea would be somehow rejected or put on the back burner.

And let’s face it…even today with all of our technology used in equipment manufacturing, most people simply automate this sorting feature and build it into the machine technology – in short, we standardize waste (judgement inspection) with all of our vision systems, sensors, weight checkers, etc., all we are doing is automating the job of putting a part down a reject chute. We rarely ask how to build in devices that prevent the error in the first place. Yet we expect people to think this way...in the meantime, we leave our peoples’ ideas on the table, preventing us from moving to the next level of quality.

O.k., now the next question: who is more likely to come up with the error proof idea – the person who devised the fixture idea, building on their knowledge of the product and process? Or is it the engineer that is charged with squeezing 1.4% efficiency out of the waste sorting machine? Who is thinking everyday about the root cause of the problem? The person who has to build a machine that sorts the defect faster and more accurately, or the person who ends up dealing with the defects that invariably slip through the machine and make it into the workplace?

A better answer is that EVERYONE should be involved with generating small IDEAS, while opening up the COMMUNICATION channels to SHARE them. Of course we have to provide the right SUPPORT structure to get those ideas into ACTION. This level of involvement is the basic idea behind kaizen teian - or small suggestion systems - an evolutionary step related to Job Methods and Work Simplification programs developed decades ago. But we often lose site of the basic skills in how to generate those innovative ideas and how to support those programs that move us to the next level. Instead, we want to jump to the conclusion - KAIZEN! HAI-YA!- without worrying about the details of how to get there. The problem with this approach is that most people aren't Chuck Norris, well, at least for today.

This is one of the key benefits of the TWI skills: by building confidence in people, we can continue upgrading their problem solving skills as we grow together. Only then, everyone knows the overall current state and knows how to analyze their own situations – making it far easier to genuinely move to the next level and not slip backwards. By mastering one basic skill, we can master the next, eventually so that people are teaching each other through practice.

TWI Roadshow with Don Dinero

Looks like folks in Indiana get a chance to spend some quality face time with a great TWI master, Don Dinero. Many TWI Blog readers know that Don trained me in Job Instruction and Job Methods a few years ago. I've met few people that have a deep understanding about TWI like Don does, he doesn't feel that this is just another Lean training program, but a way to get people to think and behave Lean.

Don takes TWI program standardization to the next level - his TWI J programs are very standardized, but like anything else in this world, a teacher that is passionate about teaching serves his students well and knows how to adapt to different industries and situations while improving the overall program.

Don brings his life and Lean work experiences into the training, so that students can see how easy it is to apply the J-skills accordingly. An optional "deep dive" lunch is on the itinerary as well; this is no surprise as Don can't stop thinking TWI!

If you get a chance to attend this great opportunity, I highly recommend you do so with Don.

Is TWI Relevant Today?

At first I thought I would write a rebuttal article on a collection of criticisms taken over the past few years regarding Job Instruction training methods. Then I thought..."no, that would be the worst article ever."

Rather than make you cry, let’s see if you can make the critics cry uncle!

I have a list. Today’s criticism of Job Instruction is:

“There exists a risk of mechanical (i.e., unconscious) training without comprehension.”

Agree or disagree? Your thoughts on this? Any experience you would like to share on this matter?

Training Within Industry - Five Needs of Every Person

This past week, a fellow TWI zealot, Mark Warren is at the National Archives digging through the original materials. Here is a snippet from our group dialogue based on one of Mark's finds:

Jeff Maling writes: “Many of us have felt the TWI "5 Needs" piece is somewhat ineffective, although we all still do use it. It just doesn't always resonate with people. No disagreements, just silence. We noticed that Toyota's version is 5 Needs of a Leader. This is my preference. I'd say really any employee. Mark came across a TWI Foundation (after war) bulletin from 1946 that uses, in my opinion, better words than the original.

I kinda like the term Five Fields of Need. I think we can refit the Knowledge of Responsibilities and Work into something much more meaningful. This is a step in the right direction. Please think of better ways to get across this message in current terms. Bryan, care to blog on the subject?

Jeff

Thanks for this nugget Jeff. I agree, that there are some reasons behind the five needs that aren’t obvious. Sometimes we need to go back to the original intent of the program to pull out those key points.

Recall that Job Instruction was delivered to over 16,000 manufacturing plants during the war and over 1.7 million people. What do you suppose the most common response was to TWI J-courses in many of these plants?

“We are different, that won’t work here!”

The five needs were introduced first to the group of supervisors for this reason: “We Are Different” syndrome (WAD) is a perception. However, TWI faced a big problem in selling their patterned plan to what is undeniably different between 16,000 organizations: 1) technical processes and 2) policies of a company. TWI refers to these as "knowledge needs."

These differences, coupled with our experiences create a perception that what works for one company won’t work for another. This is true in one sense and we are foolish to deny this. A battery manufacturer will have a hard time adopting and adapting to the company policies and technology of a semi conductor manufacturer.

So, for any leader, these two needs are required for success and can only be supplied by the organization itself. As a TWI trainer, you should make a point of stating this and that TWI isn’t aimed at working out policy or technical process problems in the sessions (although it can if used by a manager on the policies she created). In stating this clearly, you may avoid those gripe sessions that are inevitable when your group begins to talk about standardization, training and other management topics, otherwise known as excuses. The conversation can go south on you quickly if you don’t nip this in the bud early. By stating the knowledge needs first you can effectively “take away” the WAD syndrome excuse.

Q. “O.k., Bryan, I don’t have 16,000 plants. I don't even have 2 plants. Why do I need to cover this at all? Nobody responds to this when I work this out on the board during the session? Why even bother?"

A. You may find that this is not appropriate for your local plant. However, what if you did not state this clearly in the beginning?

You would then only focus on the three skill needs. The three skill needs – JI, JM, JR are universal and can be applied anywhere. In other words, these skills are not limited to use in one plant, or is proprietary information. The three J-skills can be applied anywhere. The focus then, by tying these needs to the needs of a supervisor, leader, or any good employee, is to get the participant to focus on how to apply the J-skills to their job.

However, the J-skills cannot stand alone. Behind the Job Breakdown sheet is the technology, the process and safety policy protocols. Behind the Job Methods analysis are the questions regarding staffing levels and customer demand levels. Behind the Job Relations program are the absenteeism policies, the plant culture and etiquette, the approach to HR policies. These cannot be ignored. By drawing the line in the sand, we also implicitly state that we cannot have the knowledge needs without the skill needs, or vice versa. You are also in a way saying that you are not an expert in battery manufacturing, coffee roasting, or painting bicycles, or whatever it is the people in the session do. But you can help them help themselves.

This brings us to some TWI dogma regarding delivery. There are some questions on whether or not you should just read the manual and get on with it, or, use your experience to shed some light on the materials and bring some context into the world of your participants. I opt for the latter. Some trainers out there will simply state the five needs and move on. I’ve done this and you do get yawns and blank stares. This is fine to do; you will still get some results as you move through the sessions. But others will expand on it a bit more, deviating from the manual in the way that I just did. Or did I?

TWI - Job Methods in Air Force News

See the link below for the full story. Air Force continues to press on with continuous improvement.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123112692

TWI Article on ThomasNet

A nice article with direct links to TWI Service manuals. Link to this article here:

http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2008/08/new-attention-on-old-world-war-2-era-training-method-state-of-training-within-industry-twi.html

Lowell Mellen Papers Summary - TWI in Japan

Here is a link to the summary provided by Case Western Reserve Historical Society Library's regarding the Lowell Mellen Papers:

http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=MLO

Lean Kaizen event Questions and Standard Work

Here is a good one experienced this week:

You have to reduce space by 50% for new business. The group decides to create some smaller workcells to achieve this. The current process has multiple batch process steps that feed an assembly work cell - a large accumulator in which subsequent hand assembly processes are performed with the assistance of some smaller mechanical equipment - ok?

The basic direction this group of workers received was that any mechanical batch processing equipment including conveyors, orienting bowls, etc. (in short, anything that costs overhead dollars) was to be eliminated and done by hand. An example of the current process is:

An injection molding machine shoots a part, the part is ejected and conveyed to a rotary bowl orienter, the part goes into an assembly robot, the part is assembled with others and a subassembly is then oriented into the accumulator. The robot is extremely unreliable.

The direction this group received was to eliminate everything except the injection molding machine, and do the rest by hand including moving material.

Assuming that the assembly robot cannot be fixed to work reliably, (hand assembly is currently faster and more reliable than the robot) shouldn't we do everything we can to eliminate movements, transfers, delays, errors in moving material for the operator using the other equipment that is reliable? If the equipment can do the work that is non-value added but required, isn't part of "respect for people" and "jidoka" to make the workers' job easier?

I would remove the assembly robot (which is slower and less reliable than doing it by hand) and build the hand assembly work cell where the parts are being currently oriented to. This would let the worker focus on building the parts and not moving the parts. It seems to me that standard work routines are going to be hard to create and adhere to if each employee must break into their routines to replenish material that the equipment could be doing for them.

Any thoughts?

Lean Kaizen Teian TWI Survey

A question was posed on a popular lean forum this past week: "why do we have trouble sustaining lean in the U.S.?" Without question, the answers are numerous and all over the board. My basic belief is that any inititative that we want to stick requires a change in habits. But we cannot expect people to change if we don't change our own habits first.

The Kaizen Teian system is probably the most long standing successful program to do that in the factory environment. This blog deals with this topic to a large degree since I feel that everyone should be involved with the change. TWI is the only program I know of that in the past 100 years can be compared to the Kaizen Teian system, and is arguably the precursor the japanese kaizen teian system itself. See my content site with public domain materials and my commentary and judge for yourself.

At any rate, I'm curious what do you think of the modern suggestion system, Kaizen Teian, and how it would work in the United States? See the poll on the front page of the TWI blog and be heard!

Job Methods New Materials Update - TWI Service Website

I'm doing my spring cleaning in the winter! A couple of days ago, I announced the Job Relations materials update. There is also some Job Instruction for Healthcare. Hospitals need as much standardization improvement today as they did during the days of Gilbreth, Mogensen and others recognizing the need for standardization and simplification of healthcare work.

Today, visit the Job Methods page for insight behind Toyota's secrets to Kaizen, TWI! Dig deeper into the development of Job Methods and Kaizen by exploring archival documents retrieved from the U.S. Archives.

Job Instruction - Key Points about Standard Work and Kaizen

People don’t like details. How often have you heard, “I don’t care how you do it, just get it done.” For training, we skip over details so we can get the person working quickly. When it comes to standard work, we focus on filling out the form and getting it posted in the work cell. Unfortunately, standard work can quickly become expensive wall paper if this is the attitude we have towards details.

Fortunately, we can determine how Job Instruction relates to standardized work and methods improvement. What reasons suggest why training someone in the methods used for standard work is so important? Why are we told that standardized work is necessary for a successful continuous improvement program?

There are two major reasons. The first is related to methods improvement. From an industrial engineering viewpoint, there are five basic factors that must be considered when analyzing and improving work:

1) Materials
2) Design of Product
3) Sequence of work
4) Equipment
5) Method

In particular, people get hung up on factor #5 during the JI session: “who cares if Sally does it differently than Betty? They get the same result and nobody gets hurt.” But when we discuss Standard Work, the importance of teaching good methods becomes clear. Remember, in Standard Work there are three basic elements that must be determined:

A. Takt time
B. Work Sequence
C. Standard WIP

Standard work makes an assumption that you have the work area ready, the job is repeatable or patterned, and the volumes are relatively stable. But notice the common link between methods improvement and standard work: work sequence. If we want to adhere to standard work, we must have an established work sequence. An example might be washing dishes. First the material (1) is dirty dishes. Second, the design of product (2) is clean, dry dishes. The sequence of work (3) is clear the table, scrape the dishes, stack the dishes, wash dishes, dry, and put away dishes. The equipment (4) is water, sink, soap, scouring pad, wash cloth, etc. The method (5) is dependent on the person doing the job. The third and fifth factors are where Job Instruction becomes critical for success.

So, if this were an operation that was to make money, we tend to establish time standard associated with the work sequence. The problem of course depends on the person doing the job, whether the area is setup properly, are the methods for each step of the work sequence identical, etc.

This is why Job Instruction is so important, which is the second point of this post. We can establish the work sequence quite easily, but getting people to wash dishes, in step 4 of the job, to the desired specification is the real challenge. People will learn on their own. Should we let them learn poor ergonomics, timing, quality and safety key points on their own? What is the chance of one person adhering to takt time if they learn their own methods? So, if you think standard work is as simple as writing down the work sequence, controlling some WIP levels and establishing a takt time for the pace of work, think again. Remember, “If the person hasn’t learned the instructor hasn’t taught.” The real trick lies in teaching people to do each step of the work sequence using the current best practice.