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 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

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?

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