Suggested Change to Job Instruction Sessions - Training Matrix

Posting has been extremely tough in 2010...my new job is all consuming and trying to balance the demanding workload with the most important priority, family, has put TWI Service and Blog way down on the list of priorities. Nevertheless, I feel that I should share my experiences with TWI with my fellow management practitioners. To that end, I will continue to try and post at least once per month from this point forward. 

Last month, I wrote about reversing the sequence of your kaizen effort: kaizen teian first, kaizen events last. That post was inspired by the experience I've had over the past ten years with kaizen events and what I call the mainstream formula for lean implementation: go kaizen event crazy. However, over time I found that coaching one-on-one, standards development and encouraging people to make small kaizens (kaizen teian) within their control is FAR more effective and LASTING than most kaizen events sponsored by coercive management and well funded with high priced consultants.

This month is similar with my TWI experience: switch the session sequence. I have a suggestion for TWI trainers and practitioners: start with session three which deals with the time table, or, in modern terms - a training matrix.

First of all, creating a time table is part of the planning phase of Job Instruction Training. In fact, it is Step I of preparation of training: by asking questions about our production needs with training in mind, we come up with a plan. What changes require training? What training will address the change or problem? Who needs to be trained? When will I train them? Basic questions like this help us figure out a plan. 

In a standard Job Instruction session, you will go through an introduction to JI and then in session two, be introduced to the Job Breakdown sheet, which is Step 2 of preparing to instruct. In session three, only then are we introduced to the training matrix and its purpose.

The danger in introducing Step Two (Job Breakdown Sheet) before Step One (Training Matrix) is that people get really excited about writing the Job Breakdown sheets and subsequently, lose focus on the problem, which is preventing problems through training. It is only through the Training Matrix that we are challenged to consider changes in personnel, production, design, equipment, materials, orders, standards, etc. 

In simple terms, by introducing Job Breakdowns before the Training Matrix, we are encouraging people to skip a step in the Job Instruction PDCA cycle. The illustration below may make this more clear:

Strange, no? We jump to last half of the process first, not unlike many lean practitioners today jumping feet first into a kaizen event, with little understanding of the problem beforehand. Why then, are the sessions rearranged all out of order? The main reason is the selling point. Nobody gets jazzed up about making a training matrix. But they do get excited when they see the JI demonstration and begin to breakdown their own jobs and see how well the training can work. 

Lesson Learned? The sequence the sessions isn't the priority, but just remember, the sessions are for you to practice ALL of the steps of instruction, not just breakdown sheets. So, please don't forget the Training Matrix. And remember that it is a planning tool that is aimed at your problems that can be solved through training.

The Pig Pile on Toyota

O.k., I didn't sleep well and this article annoyed me. So bear with me...the media machine is rumbling, stumbling and bumbling along...from Smartplanet, another clone article piles on lean manufacturing principles, or as they claim -lack there of, as the problem behind the gas pedal recall. They can say this at Smartplanet because they practice lean principles there and can project there lean experience over the Toyota company experience and pinpoint the problem in a 750 word article. They have knowledge.

Step up to the feeding trough and have some slops...

Is anybody going to do some insightful work on this story that doesn't blame:

-global business
-a management approach
-an organizational culture
-American employees for not being Japanese employees

Is anybody going to discuss sound principles that may have been overlooked, like testing, engineering, etc., things that have NOTHING to do with lean manufacturing? Or is the answer as simple as that claimed in this article: Japanese managers couldn't pass on their wisdom by "word of mouth?" Enough of the mystical Toyota bullshit, lets get down to the nuts and bolts of real problem solving - because while we are blathering on about management principles, Toyota stepped up and ate a whole pig trough of humble pie before the world and recalled over 9 million vehicles...do we seriously believe they aren't looking under every stone, but only focusing on their lean manufacturing philosophy?

'Leanability' - TWI Guest Blogger: Sean Jordan

TWI Blog reader and friend, Sean Jordan, weighs in on lean failure rates and how to judge the 'lean-ability' of an organization:

“How do we judge failure?” Well, I am thinking that judging failure means that we failed to achieve a standard. Hmm, what is the standard for Lean? [I love IW’s Lean survey from March, 2008. As I think out loud, do the survey respondents really understand what their Lean initiative was supposed to achieve?)

When I evaluate ‘Lean-ability’, I want to know about the popular 4 P’s in your organization: Philosophy, People, Problem Solving, and Process. If you can improve (at any pace) to solve problems AND sustain the advances, then you are being successful. Organizations are different, so the pace of change should be set accordingly. With good leadership, a strong Hoshin can be set to achieve a balance of Safety, Quality, Cost, Delivery, Value and Teamwork.

The blog post about the next 3 M’s of Lean are linked to the Lean Failure rate post. Judging the failure of Lean means breaking the Myth. Perhaps SME, AME, NIST MEP, and others should go on the attack about breaking the Myth? Perhaps one popular topic floating around the Lean world that should be banned is “The Next Generation of ….(sorry, I started to throw up in my mouth a little bit) “The Next Generation of Lean.” Here’s an idea, let everyone know that implementing the 4 P’s is hard and can appear boring. Yet is rather effective and fun if done properly. Recently Toyota learned about getting away from its steadfast philosophy.

Finally, I myself am trying to reduce using the word Lean. The myth and assumptions about Lean are so vast that the work itself is a distraction from starting an effective conversation. After working with hundreds of companies, I found mentioning the word ‘Lean’ creates unneeded drama as compared to mentioning ‘let‘s solve some problems and get better.’ Sometimes, when someone calls me the ‘Lean Guy,’ chills go down my spine and everyone looks at me like I’m the lawyer on television at 3 a.m.

Cheers! Let go solve more problems!

www.graspthesituation.com

Working in the Standard Work Cycle

While on the shop floor I was looking at a scrap trend chart on a QCDS board, a look alike in David Mann’s book – Creating a Lean Culture. I was curious why the trend line seemed to have certain patterns to it, so I asked the team leader some simple questions:

Q: “Hi Mindy, what do you use this sheet for?”
A: “I don’t really use it so much. We are just responsible for filling it out.”

Q: “O.k., can I ask you what do you make of these numbers on here?”
A: “Well that basically tracks scrap that we throw away – and it really only happens in one place on the line.”

Q: “Can you show me where that happens?”
A: “Sure, right over here. See, if this part isn’t aligned correctly, we usually have to rework it. The ones we can’t rework are scrap, that is what we record on the scrap sheet.”

Q: “Why is it that the part is not aligned correctly? Can you show me how this could happen?”
A: “Yes, see how I can do it this way, or this way? Both ways give us a problem.”

Q: “Does everyone know this?”
A: “Well, most everyone figures it out after a couple of tries. It is pretty obvious.”

Q: “Right, but you have a lot of turnover because of temporary labor and demand, correct?”
A: “Yeah, it seems like I’m always retraining people.”

Q: “Do you prefer that they learn this problem during training, or on their own.”
A: “Well, I’d like to show them during the training, but the Job Breakdown Sheet needs to be updated. See? (pulls out the sheet from training book) The key points aren’t clear and the reason why we do this could be clarified as well. I just wing it and explain it as best I can.”

Q: “If your training were better, do you think any other problems could be worked out?”
A: “Actually, this part of the job is one of the slowest because it does require the person to do the alignment. There are guides in place, but if the guides get worn out, as they sometimes do – then it takes a little longer to do the job. So, people are waiting and it is sometimes hard for this person to keep up. I’ve even noticed that we make more mistakes when we try to keep up.”

Q: “Would it be helpful if we figured out what the right key points are here and improved this JBS?”
A: “Yes, let’s do that.”

A simple conversation. The key points to this type of follow up are:

1. Go and See the actual situation.


2. Get the Facts by using a questioning attitude not a judgmental one.


3. Grasp the situation by focusing your questions on the process.


4. Set your expectations. Offer any help you can but make sure the person who owns the process (NOT you) is making the actual improvements.


5. Follow up. Ensure that follow-up training and any adjustments are made standard: in this case, a change was made to the JBS and all people had to be “re-trained” in the process. In reality, for those that know how to do the job, they simply reviewed the changes and the team leader monitors for standardization.\

Last lesson learned: don’t copy things out of a book unless you are actually going to use them. Not to sound too critical, but a lot of resources have been spent updating a trend chart nobody uses. If it doesn’t serve an immediate purpose towards solving problems in the workplace, it is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Note: Many of you are reading this thinking...why didn't you just mistake proof the alignment of the part? Or is the part needed altogether? Good questions. In the past, I would have jumped directly to this action as well. How do you think this would affect the thoughts and behaviors of the team leader and her people working in the area?

My last question to readers is this: once I establish the mindset of standardization with this team leader, what do you think my next step will be?

Is Lean a religion?

I've seen quite a few discussion forum posts on the Lean debate being compared to a debate on religion. Either you are a believer or you are not is one argument. The other typical argument is that there is common ground in the middle somewhere. A common criticism of this argument is that lean could be advanced much more quickly and effectively if the zealots would stop viewing lean as a religion. My take is this:

It sounds (and in a way it is) a religious argument because as many people will realize about lean, over time we are talking about a philosophy in leading an organization.

Encarta Dictionary: Philosophy

1) school of thought - a particular system of thought or doctrine

2) guiding or underlying principles - a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge

3) set of beliefs or aims - a precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying a person's practice or conduct.

There are many similarities between traditional manufacturing and lean manufacturing: each requires production control, sales and marketing, engineering, supervision, human resources and accounting. But the philosophy of HOW to do this while respecting people is drastically different; if not polar opposites. For this reason alone, it is not unreasonable to expect severe differences of opinion in how to run business. Because we hang on to our old habits, we fail at understanding the lean philosophy, and this is due to the cultural behaviors so prevalent in the discipline of U.S. management. When we do not understand, we will not try; when we do not try, we will not do it; when we do not do it, we will not understand. In lean, the concept of 'learning by doing' and experiential learning is so highly valued in the gemba.

A couple of the underlying disciplines in Lean/TPS are production engineering and manufacturing engineering. These two disciplines heavily influence the philosophy of TPS. In my experience, I can think of many examples where a manager of a department or company on the "lean journey" either:

a) doesn't understand any of these disciplines (or those which are related)

b) holds the traditional belief of these disciplines that work standards exist to enable command and control management, in other words - hold people accountable (U.S. speak for disciplining them when they do something wrong or make a mistake.)

In other words, in order for lean to be successful, it must be part of how a person conducts themselves as a manager. Traditional manufacturing in terms of production/manufacturing/industrial engineering does not hold the concept of employee involvement in high regard. This is a fundamentally fatal flaw of traditional western management yet is a core philosophical point that underlies lean management, or TPS.

Is my assessment far off the mark?

What is at the heart of Lean?

My google alert for "lean manufacturing" brought the following article to my attention. Please read this quick article about a successful company making low-tech products in the US. I have no reason to doubt that this company is financially successful as a result of their lean efforts.

After reading this article, I was left with the impression that once again, Lean tools are what transformed this company. Stunning improvement numbers reinforce the assumption that automation technology and reconfigured ERP systems that backflush production numbers are the key to this company's success.

My question is this: what is the real success factor in this case? Do these automated machines realize the importance of small lot production? Does the ERP system run the visual (and physical kanban) system prior to backflushing? Does the ERP system go out to the floor to see problems that cause stockouts? Who crosstrained the people to work in the flexible workcells? The ERP system? The machining center? Who learned and performed the value stream mapping and coached people through the 5S principles? How many times can you count the word "person" or "people" in this article? Go back to the link and see if you can find either of these words.

I'm conducting a Job Instruction session this week. During Job Instruction sessions, people tend to conclude that the "emperor has no clothes" when referring to lean tools. What they really mean is that the lean tools are meaningless without understanding. The thing that strikes me as profound about the TWI program are three-fold: 1) PDCA thinking is cloaked in each TWI session, and PDCA is at the heart of EVERY Lean tool, 2) the program is intended to make people of industry better, and 3) TWI founders consciously created a system that was so generalized that it applied to any person in any industry wanting to improve their unique process. The awful irony is that people do not realize that people are the heart of Lean systems.

Perhaps the article referenced above wasn't intended to highlight the importance of people. Perhaps this company is excellent at developing its people to the best of their ability and we just don't know it by reading this article. Perhaps leadership is difficult to describe in less than 750 words. Most companies however, are not excellent at developing their people and focus on the biggest bang for their buck, while never thinking about why developing their people through critical thinking skills will sustain the gains.

PDCA’s Halloween Costume This Year? TWI, of course!

Given that Halloween is in only two days away, I thought we could dress up TWI a bit. Many people look at TWI as an OJT training program only, as described through the most successful and universal program Job Instruction Training. This however is only one-quarter of the story from a practical view. There are four distinct programs under the TWI clothing and all programs work to a specific pattern of thinking:

Job Instruction: how to instruct best methods, or as the TWI directors described it: “a concept of training as a way used by the plant management to solve specific production problems which involves people.”

Job Methods: how to improve methods, “a plan to help produce greater quantities of quality products in less time by making the best use of the people, machines and materials that are now available.”

Job Relations: how to lead people, “a plan to help get results through people by maintaining good relations, treating people as individuals and preventing and solving the problems that affect their work.”

Program Development: how to meet a problem through training, “a means by which management tackles their own production problems with a training plan.”

Within each program is a four step method for purposes of standardization and ease of knowledge transfer. It was highly desirable during the war production period to have as many people as possible using these four programs:

TWI’s four step methods are not unlike the PDCA method we are used to seeing today: Plan, Do, Check, Act. This elicits thoughts about the scientific method itself. When brought to light in management discussions, the PDCA analogy is often met with some indifference, as PDCA has a somewhat haughty air about it. PDCA, I’m told, cannot solve all of our problems, nor can everyone think like a scientist, so why should we expect them to do so? The basic resistance to this program is summarized in this response: “We just want good quality, on-time delivery and low cost. Let’s not pretend TWI is the answer, after all, it is far too easy today to assign a biased weight to Lean tools in this age of management fads. We don’t want to go through that again like we did with Lean, do we? Plus, it is a sixty year old program! Aren’t we a bit more sophisticated than that?”

Will TWI suffer the same fate in the information age? Will people see TWI for what it really is: PDCA built into simple skills for every industrial person? I suspect some will, but far too many will not. One thing to consider in this discussion is how the directors of the program saw the TWI program as a grand industrial experiment, and the future they desired for the program as it moved beyond the realm of the government:

“Much technical advance has been made as the result of research in the laboratory. There, scientific problems are isolated and tackled, and solutions are sought. New knowledge and new methods evolve.

In the field of human relations, the workplace is the laboratory. When people work together, the inter-relationships of job and supervisor and worker introduce many variables. The environment and atmosphere of the working conditions cannot be transplanted for experimental purposes. Change one condition and a whole situation is affected. This means then that future progress will depend upon the willingness of industry to carry on development work under its own auspices, and also to share the results with other plants. The experimenting must be done right where the work is done.

There must be, within industry, people interested in and competent to carry on such development work to meet new needs of workers, of management, and of industry. These people inevitably can do much to increase the effectiveness of industry in making its maximum contribution as a vital social institution in our Democracy.”

The TWI Report 1945, Work Ahead

Unconscious Experimentation - The Current State of Training

I'm currently reading Managing Minds, by Charles Allen and Henry Tiemann. Allan wrote the TWI inspiring book, The Instructor, the Man and the Job in the mid-20's. Managing Minds is called a "practical" psychology book and deals not with the direct control of minds, as the title leads one to believe, but rather the indirect control of the mind. Allan and Tiemann argue this is achieved by not knowing "why the mind works in certain ways", but rather by being concerned with "the fact that minds do work in certain ways under certain conditions."

There is much discussion in the book about different forms of instruction. One of the reasons TWI-Job Instruction is so important to many of us in Lean is that we practitioners understand that basic stability comes from standard work, and standard work is borne out of good instruction. One of the questions in JI training is about learning by "trial and error", which good JM trainers want to encourage in controlled environments, but JI trainers abhor since mistakes can develop into bad habits. Allan and Tiemann touch briefly on the problem of allowing trial and error during instruction:

"The experimental method is given the highest educational value because it involves learning by trial and error. It requires initiative, resourcefulness and the use of all the other [instructional] methods. Its high cost practically prevents its frequent use."

What really struck me about this is that lack of good training promotes the experimental methods described. Often, a new hire enters the company, is briefly trained if at all, and then left to their own abilities and resourcefulness. Allan and Tiemann are speaking of controlled, experimental instruction; not unbridled, poorly defined, left unchecked and conducted by trainees on their own. The fact that experimentation is of high cost makes sense: new hires left on their own naturally have more scrap, less production and exhibit a higher potential for injury. Worse, their bad habits developed through unconscious experimentation may or may not be passed onto other new hires. It is no wonder we can't Kaizen on a daily basis in U.S. plants....we have no stability!