Utah Open Source Planet

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» Maintain Forward Tension

One principle in Wing Chun is the maintaining of forward tension. To explain, I’ll draw the distinction between Tension and Energy and show how this principle in Wing Chun can be applied to Change Management.

Tension is a type of Energy

A Wing Chun maxim goes as follows:

soft and relaxed strength will put your opponent in jeopardy

That maxim means that forward tension is not necessarily using force, or forcing through a barrier or “pushing through”. But, there is soft force, or tension, such that when a gap presents itself, then the hand or arm shoots forward like a spring. The “shooting forward” is not done with force, but is an unleashing of potential energy.

Using that definition, then, Forward Tension is much different than the overly-used business term “Breakthrough.” In the context of Forward Tension, the notion of “breakthrough” is ridiculous, because it connotes a forcing of oneself or of one’s ideas. Forcing anything only invites resistance and rebellion, not conversion.

So, in sum, tension is really potential energy and when a gap presents itself, that potential energy becomes kinetic energy. Forward Tension works with the current context in such a way that does not invite rebellion or resistance or eventual back-biting. It is open, but straightforward.

Application to Change Management

Don’t force things on people. The most humane approach to change management is to treat those involved in the change as human beings; this means having a dialogue — listen, speak, listen some more, argue a little, and steadily deposit goodwill.

As much as I like love data, I also fully understand that data does not soften hearts or change people’s minds: true change happens when people feel heard, have given their opinion, are willing to try something new, and are part of the change. The challenge in change management is largely an emotional one; a psychological one; a relational one.

Hold The Tension

Without forcing or pushing of people, maintaining the tension encourages discussion, debate, and invites people to inquire and become curious about the topic of change. That is the key: behave in such a way that it invites people to learn, argue, debate, and eventually try it out.

Tension in Wing Chun

The video below shows Sifu Grados in Chi Sao (Sticky Hands). This sensitivity exercise demonstrates the principle of holding the tension and visually explains the principle of transformation of potential energy to kinetic energy very well.

NOTE: none of the movements are rehearsed. What is taught and practiced are the principles and how those principles are applied during Chi Sao depends on the situation.

Articles on Ethnography and Design:

Articles on Leadership:

Articles on Queueing Theory:

Articles on Operations, lean and six sigma:

by psabilla at 7:36 AM under 5s , a3 report , bullwhip effect , business , change management , click-to-ship , complexity , customer obsession , customer service , design thinking , drum-buffer-rope , dynamic systems , efficiency , ethnography , featuritis , gemba , genchi genbutsu , general , heijunka , ishikawa , it at toyota , kanban , leadership , lean , lean consumption maps , metrics , muda , obeya , operations , pareto principle , poka-yoke , process measures , productivity , quality , root cause analysis , six sigma , statistical process control , strategy , supply chain , takt time , the beer distribution game , theory of constraints , the profit tree , the visual factory , toyota , variation , visual management , waste , wing chun , zero defects (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» Fast Food Congestion

Every system has constraints — sometimes several — minor bottlenecks and major bottlenecks. What makes managing constraints even more challenging is that bottlenecks move: up-and-down the process paths.

I saw this phenomenon recently during a visit to a fast food restaurant, which I discuss in this post — but, my application of the Theory of Constraints, Lean Manufacturing, and Six Sigma as applied to a Restaurant can be applied to any Dynamic System.

One of the key lessons in The Theory of Constraints is that the contraint or the bottleneck determines the throughput for the entire system. This means, then, that if we optimize and improve a non-bottleneck, then those efforts have almost zero impact on the overall throughput of the system. It is only when we improve and optimize the contraint that we will see improvement in the throughput of the entire system.

Every system has a constraint — that is neither good nor bad — but just a fact of dynamic systems. Once you’ve identified the constraints in your system, then the next step is to manage it.

I was able to obtain some empirical volume data for a Burger King. The data below is taken from one Burger King restaurant. I imagine the numbers would be significantly different if we were to average the volume by geography, restaurant size, or by other factors. Now, consider the following process map for a typical Burger King:

Click on the image for a larger view.

For this restaurant, over the course of an average month, Burger King produces 34227 sandwiches. This means, then, that for an average hour, Burger King produces 198 sandwiches per hour during normal hours.

But, on Friday and at 12:00PM, Burger King experiences higher-than-normal volume and so we add a “Peak Multiplier” of 18% and 17.9% to arrive at 256 sandwiches during Peak Hours. The “Peak Multiplier” is not completely arbitrary, but a quasi-educated guess at the volume increase during those hours. In both cases of Fridays and Lunch Hours, we add a ~20% multiplier.

Now, let’s take a look at the process map above. We see the Assembly Step producing 200 sandwiches an hour. We consider the Assembly to be the constraint in the system. The upstream processes produces more than 200, but when we arrive at the Assembly, the capacity of that step is lower than its upstream processes. So, the maximum throughput of the entire system above is 200 sandwiches per hour.

Under normal hours, the constraint functions reasonably well. Since normal hour demand is 198 sandwiches per normal hour, the Assembly Step can produce at least at that amount — but, it’s cutting it close. Under peak volume, the constraint is not able to fulfill demand.

How To Manage a Constraint

Under normal hours, it appears that the Assembly Step can produce at expected demand. But, there are several things that could put burden on the constraint and cause it to producing less than capacity. Here are some of those items:

Rework: Having to Re-Assemble sandwiches adds undue burden on the system and exaggerates the effects of the constraint, leading to a potentially higher-than normal work-in-process, or build-up.
Set-up & Changeover: If all the parts aren’t immediately available in the Assembly step, then it could lead the operator to slow down which could lead to build-up and higher-than-normal work-in-process.

It’s easy enough to see that the Assembly Step needs some help. Here are several things Burger King — or any system with constraints — can do to better manage the natural constraints that are in every system:

Eliminate Defects at the Constraint: This means that all waste is eliminated or reduced at the constraint.
Have the Quality Steps in Front of Constraint: In support of the first bullet, make sure that the parts entering the Assembly step are free of defects.
Support the Constraint: Add labor to the constraint or more lines, if that is prudent.
Appropriately use Buffers: Systems with Constraints exhibit a feast/famine phenomena. To avoid having too much coming into the constraint or too little coming into the constraint, have a buffer of parts large enough that the constraint stays appropriately busy. Put another way, reduce the variation in front of the constraint as much as is possible. A Drum-Buffer-Rope system might be appropriate for some systems.
Evaluate the overall system: How much of the steps in the system are really value-add to the customer? What is the process-cycle effeciency of the process?

Conclusion

All systems have constraints. Identify what they are, quantify the effects, then manage it. The above Burger King example shows how this can — with some effort — be done. What are the constraints in your systems? What can you do to better manage those constraints?

+++++

Articles on Ethnography and Design:

Articles on Leadership:

Please articles on Queueing Theory below:

Articles on Operations, lean and six sigma, please visit the links below:

Advertisement: compnay formation by Jordans

by psabilla at 5:40 PM under 5s , a3 report , bottlenecks , bullwhip effect , business , complexity , drum-buffer-rope , dynamic systems , efficiency , gemba , genchi genbutsu , heijunka , ishikawa , it at toyota , kanban , lean , lean consumption maps , lean manufacturing , metrics , muda , obeya , operations , pareto principle , process measures , productivity , quality , root cause analysis , six sigma , supply chain , takt time , theory of constraints , the visual factory , toyota , variation , waste (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» Necessary but Insufficient

motorola in big trouble Motorola (MOT), the inventor of Six Sigma, is in big trouble. Even though it invented Six Sigma, this is a clear example that shows how Lean or Six Sigma are not a cure-all for corporate woes, but that good leadership and a winning strategy are key in a competitive world — Lean or Six Sigma is necessary, but not sufficient.

The Art of Exclusion

Michael Porter (Porter’s Five Forces) argues — I believe correctly –, in his seminal work, What is Strategy, that Operational Excellence is necessary but not sufficient. What is needed — even still and always — is a winning strategy. In his article, he argues that the essence of strategy consist of two related propositions:

strategy is engaging in activities that are different than the competition
strategy is engaging in activities that are similar than the competition, but perform better than the competition

Regarding (1), Porter argues that, regarding (1), the firm must choose a position — one that sets the firm apart from its competitors; a position that makes the firm and its products or services uniquely and competitively different and leads to a sustainable and profitable competitive advantage. Porter then claims that an important aspect of strategy is deciding what NOT to do — the art of exclusion.

Regarding (2), a firm will undoubtedly engage in activities that are similar than the competition. For example, take a traditional internet retailer — a firm in that space will usually have a front-end store and a fulfillment back-end. To set the firm apart on similar activities from its competitors requires that the firm perform those activities better — with better quality, lower costs, with better service, and deliver quicker than the competition.

Deploying a Lean or Six Sigma culture within your firm is essentially an activity borne from (2) — but it is not a panacea; by itself, a culture of Operational Excellence will find itself lacking in a hyper-competitive world.

Necessary but Insufficient

While Motorola might remain one of the hallmarks of Operational Excellence, it has, over the years, essentially failed to engage in activities that are uniquely and competitively different than the competition. Speaking as an outsider, it appears that Motorola has continued to run an efficient business, producing products and services with few defects and delivering on-time, but products and services in a market that has changed to demand less and less of Motorola products, in favor of competitors products, such as the Apple (AAPL) iPhone.

The Need for Leadership

The theme, I see, with most corporate problems, overwhelmingly points to Leadership. The OPPOSITE of long-term thinking, inspiring, visionary, humane, collaborative, reflective, selfless, nurturing, interested, responsible, and mobilizing is what seems to be what most companies elevate to the Chief Executive position.

Emulating Gary Convis

Gary Convis was recently brought in to be the CEO of Dana Corporation (DAN), an $8.7 Billion manufacturer of auto parts. Convis is a 40 year veteran of the auto industry and a former executive at Toyota. Dana Corporation is a struggling giant, currently in bankruptcy. When asked what words of wisdom he has to impart to his new team members at Dana Corporation, he said this:

“manage as if you have no power”

For me, that statement elegantly summarizes the the essence of Leadership — the type of Leadership that is capable of satisfying both (1) and (2) above.

+++++

Articles on Leadership:

Please articles on Queueing Theory below:

Articles on Operations, lean and six sigma, please visit the links below:

image credit

ShareThis

by psabilla at 6:33 AM under 5s , a3 report , apple iphone , business , gemba , genchi genbutsu , heijunka , iphone , ishikawa , it at toyota , just-in-time , kanban , leadership , lean , lean consumption maps , muda , obeya , operations , pareto principle , poka-yoke , process measures , productivity , quality , regression analysis , root cause analysis , six sigma , statistical process control , strategy , supply chain , takt time , theory of constraints , the profit tree , the visual factory , toyota , variation , visual management , waste , zero defects (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» Visual Mismanagement

A few months ago we adopted our baby girl, Mylie. During that hospital experience, I had an encounter with a faucet fraught with featuritis and one that wasn’t humane and, during that same time, I noticed a piece of visual management in the hospital room that wasn’t effective in its intention to provide or share information. This involved a sign in one of the cabinets, where the sign indicated in text the contents of the cabinet. Below is a picture of what I saw:

In the context of the entire cabinet, below is a picture of what a typical user might see:

The taped signage is small, doesn’t distinguish the writing from the wood-colored background very well, and is confusing since there are 3 signs on the same cabinet.

I wonder if the nurses or doctors can easily tell what is in the cabinet? If the more seasoned hospital staff know the contents of the cabinet from experience, then I wonder if new hospital staff could easily tell what was contained in the cabinet? My hypothesis is that new staff would have to open the cabinet in order to see what was contained inside. If that is true, then the intention of the signage fails to meet its promise.

Why Visual Management?

As I indicated in this post regarding Visual Management and teaching kids the principle of work, effective Visual Management can be a control as well as a display:

Visual Management as Control: As a control, effective Visual Management can prevent defects or warn of defects. For example, the noise of metal-to-metal screeching in car brakes is a signal to change your brakes — the machine is warning the human that there is a defect (audible management). Effective Visual Management as Control answers the question: "If I am doing something wrong, how will I know?"
Visual Management as Visual Display: As Visual Display, effective Visual Management can aid in effective information sharing or encourage standardization in processes. For example, a Standard Operating Procedue (Standard Work or SOP) is an instantiation of this principle. An SOP answers the following questions: "Am I doing this right?" and "How do I know that I am doing this right?"

Back to the Hospital

The signage on the hospital cabinet was an attempt at information sharing — sharing with hospital staff the contents of the cabinet. Unfortunately, it wasn’t effective. Below is an example of a simple and effective Visual Management as Display (courtesy of mike):

This is a simple shadow board that displays pictures of the items. As a display, the above is pretty good. But, it misses the point of the principle of display. How? Well, a shadow board is meant to inform the human that an item is missing; which is why a simple outline of the item with text is more effective than the picture of the actual item. Nevertheless, the above is a good attempt and a step better than the hospital cabinet.

Here is an effective and simple example of Visual Management as Display (courtesy of my friend jon miller):

The horizontal stripe across the binders presents a quick and easy way to realize and discover that a binder is missing or a binder is not in the proper sequence. For example, if the top-left binder was on the top-right side, then the user would immediately know that it is is out of place. This simple Visual Management technique supports the principle of informing the user if something is wrong. It’s simple and elegant.

Back to Principles

It’s easy to get caught-up in the language and "tools" of the Toyota Production System, popularized in America as Lean Manufacturing. But, it is about principles, concepts, and how "tools" support those principles. The tools change and are improved, but the principles remain.

+++++

Articles on Ethnography and Design:

Please find originally-written articles on Queueing Theory below:

For a few articles on Operations, lean and six sigma, please visit the links below:

The Gemba is the Dojo

Order Pipeline of Events

On Game Theory

Series on Queueing Theory

Applied Regression Analysis

5S

Click-to-Ship Processes

Kanban Sizing and "Pull"

Lean at Krispy Kreme

Theory of Constraints and Camping

Lean for Software Development

Don’t Waste the Customer’s Time

Featuritis and the Focus on the Customer

ShareThis

by psabilla at 10:08 AM under 5s , a3 report , customer obsession , design thinking , ethnography , gemba , genchi genbutsu , heijunka , ishikawa , it at toyota , lean , lean consumption maps , muda , obeya , simplicity principle , six sigma , the visual factory , visual management (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» Burden on People; Burden on Earth

On average, most business processes are inefficient and create an unhealthy amount of waste: once you learn to see the process waste all around — with Lean Thinking as your worldview — you will notice overprocessing, transportation, overproduction, waiting, inventory, motion, and defects. Aside from our processes producing waste, our processes also create burden on our people and also burden on the earth.

A company that I once did some work for was very concerned about the burden it was placing on its people and on the earth. In what follows, I will show that a firm can still be enterprising, care about people, and care about the earth.

As a review, let us first discuss Value, Waste, and the perspective of the customer.

What is a Process?

A process is an systematic activity comprising of smaller activities that culminate in an outcome — service or product. A process can take up time, space, and resources. All processes can be categorized into the following categories: Value-added, Non-value added but necessary, and Non-value added.

From the Customer’s Perspective:

Value-added: This step in the process adds form, function, and value to the end product and for the customer.
Non-Value-Added: This step does not add form, function, or assist in the finished goods manufacturing of the product.
Non-Value-Added-But-Necessary: This step does not add value, but is a necessary step in the final value-added product.

(2) & (3) naturally create waste, of which there are 7 types:

Over-Production: Producing more than is needed, faster than needed or before needed.
Wait-time: Idle time that occurs when co-dependent events are not synchronized.
Transportation: Any material movement that does not directly support immediate production.
Processing: Redundant effort (production or communication) which adds no value to a product or service.
Inventory: Any supply in excess of process or demand requirements.
Motion: Any movement of people which does not contribute added value to the product or service.
Defect: Repair or rework of a product or service to fulfill customer requirements.

It’s important to understand “Value” in terms of the customer. From the customer’s perspective, “Value” could be defined in the form of a question:

Which process steps (and associated costs) do our customers not have to bear?

It’s a revealing question — most companies are glad that they do not have to reveal how their product or service is created, for fear of their inefficient processes and wasteful operations revealed to the customer. This stance is sometimes aptly called "not revealing how the hot dog is made", amicably referring to the unknown contents of the hot dog.

Burden on People; Burden on Earth

It is easy to see how the 7 Wastes above add substantial cost to the firm, reducing it’s margins, and negatively impacting the customer. But, what is less obvious is the burden that inefficient processes have on the earth.

I was on the Supply Chain and Logistics side of this company. This company aimed to reduce usage of packaging and wrapping material through simplifying specifications for packaging and wrapping and by promoting the use of returnable containers or bins. As a result of the efforts of a lot of caring people, this company reduced its volume of packaging by 15% than the previous year. Below is a picture of the results:

What is remarkable is that by lessening the burden on people by reducing the weight, bulk, volume, and material used for packaging, the earth also benefits because there is less CO2 used and less material is required to the same work. What is not highlighted is that safety and ergonomics was also a huge benefit — people now deal with less weight, bulk, and volume, which makes for a safer work environment.

This reduction of material used is a big win for People and for the Earth. What is also important, though less important than People or the Earth, is that costs were reduced by a substantial amount, which increases the gross margins of the firm, making shareholders very happy.

A False Dichotomy

Contrary to popular thought, there is an opportunity to be a good steward of the earth, take care of people, and also be an enterprising capitalist. The example above is a case study that supports that fact.

+++++

Please find originally-written articles on Queueing Theory below:

For a few articles on Operations, lean and six sigma, please visit the links below:

The Gemba is the Dojo

Managing Constraints Under Peak Volumes

Order Pipeline of Events

On Game Theory

Series on Queueing Theory

Applied Regression Analysis

5S

Click-to-Ship Processes

Kanban Sizing and "Pull"

Lean at Krispy Kreme

Theory of Constraints and Camping

Lean for Software Development

Don’t Waste the Customer’s Time

Featuritis and the Focus on the Customer

Share This

by psabilla at 2:38 AM under 5s , amazon , business , gemba , genchi genbutsu , ishikawa , it at toyota , kanban , lean , lean consumption maps , muda , obeya , pareto principle , quality , root cause analysis , simplicity principle , six sigma , supply chain , theory of constraints , the visual factory , toyota , variation , visual management (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» Visual Management and Self-Reliance

One of my primary goals in life is to teach my kids to be eventually good, productive, and self-reliant adults. One area of life-skills that my wife and I are focused on in teaching our children, is teaching them the principle of work: how to work, the value of work, to take ownership over their responsibilities, and to be proud of their accomplishments, and to learn to work as a team and family. One way we are reinforcing the principle of work is through the use of effective Visual Management.

Visual Management has the following purposes:

Visual Management provides instruction
Visual Management conveys information
Visual Management provides immediate feedback
Visual Management quickly exposes abnormalities in a process or work area
Visual Management quickly conveys progress or lack thereof

My wife created a wonderful job chart, which you find below:

This Job Chart is in our kitchen, where there is frequent foot traffic and where our family spends most of our time. There are a few items I’d like to note:

My kid’s ages are (from top-to-bottom): 9,8,7,3,3
The Kid’s Heads: Visually representing each child with their face is much more effective than using their names. The Kid’s Heads are laminated and have Velcro on the back, to facilitate ease-of-job-rotation. This approach is also very environmentally friendly, since the pictures and the board are laminated — there’s no waste.
We have jobs over 6 days — Monday through Saturday and the jobs are fixed, but the heads are rotateable. The younger boys (the twins) rotate with each other at the bottom 2 rows — those jobs are designed for their age and ability. The top-3 rows contain jobs for the older kids and those jobs are designed for their age and ability.
Every Sunday, we rotate the heads for the upcoming week.

Deploying The Program

When my wife and I first met about this during our end-of-the-year meeting, we were quite excited and saw a lot of promise in helping our kids learn the value of work.

Plan:

My wife and I first met together to discuss our goals for the year 2008 and how we could accomplish those goals and the expected outcomes at the end of 2008. We then brainstormed all the jobs that needed to get done in our household on a daily and weekly basis. We, then, categorized the jobs based on age and abilities of our children. For example, we had to be sensitive to the child’s height or the size of their hand and matched the work to their physical and mental abilities.

Do:

We gathered the family together and explained our goals and vision for 2008 as it relates to the principle of work. I explained to the kids how important work is and I also shared my personal stories about the principle of work. I showed encouragement and excitement to the kids and that learning the principle of work will help them "feel big" and not little anymore.
My wife and I explained our expectations and discussed rewards and consequences and also the start-date.
We provided training on some jobs that the kids were not familiar with. This is especially true for my twins, as this is their first foray into a more structured world of chores and work.

Check:

Every night during our family prayer, we discuss how the day went and how their jobs are going.
The 3 older kids have other diversions also like homework, piano, playing the Wii, and hanging out with friends. We want to make sure that they can still do other stuff and not be too burdened by any single item.

Act:

Depending on the findings during our daily discussions, then we adjust. For some kids, they might have to double-up on work the next day so they can do homework. We do not want to Batch work like that, but that is an option until further discussions can be had on whether there might be too much work.

Respect For The Kids

The Job Chart conveys information so that Mom and Dad don’t have to. When Mom or Dad have to convey the information, it usually ends-up as nagging. That approach is irritating, disrespectful, and polarizes people. We want, instead, to teach self-reliance, demonstrate our trust in the kids, and help them grow in their own terms, but with our loving guidance.

How Can This Be Improved?

What we haven’t done yet is to provide Standard Work Cards for each job, showing in text how to do the job and also a picture of what a "good job" looks like. One example might be to show a side-by-side comparison of a dirty toilet next to a clean toilet, with a marker on the clean toilet, indicating to the reader what the ideal finished good should look like.

Can you think of other ways could we improve?

Just So You Know

Yes, I have jobs also. My jobs are usually of the "Ask Mom" variety. This means that I get all the hard work, inconvenient errands, and other random but necessary to-do items. And, yes: my wife is pretty much the best.

+++++

Please find originally-written articles on Queueing Theory below:

For a few articles on Operations, lean and six sigma, please visit the links below:

The Gemba is the Dojo

Managing Constraints Under Peak Volumes

Order Pipeline of Events

On Game Theory

Series on Queueing Theory

Applied Regression Analysis

5S

Click-to-Ship Processes

Kanban Sizing and "Pull"

Lean at Krispy Kreme

Theory of Constraints and Camping

Lean for Software Development

Don’t Waste the Customer’s Time

Featuritis and the Focus on the Customer

Share This

by psabilla at 7:35 AM under 5s , business , family , gemba , genchi genbutsu , general , heijunka , ishikawa , kanban , lean , lean consumption maps , obeya , operations , quality , root cause analysis , six sigma , the visual factory , toyota , variation , visual management , waste (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» I’m Nobody Special, But I’m Speaking Anyway

Yes, my face is on the front cover of the brochure (PDF Download). But, little does the audience know that that picture (I’m the second, from the left, but better viewed in the PDF brochure) was taken while I was sitting on a fake sheep during a family trip to the animal farm at Thanksgiving Point in Utah. I cropped just my face for submission to the event organizers, but the "real" picture is of me, at the insistence of my kids, sitting on a fake sheep.

I’m speaking at an event, but I’m not boasting

In the grand scheme of things or in the local minutia of our lives, I’m pretty much nobody. Gratefully, though, I am somebody in the eyes of my children and my wife. That is what matters to me. And, when my head gets big, worldly and prideful, for some unfounded reason or other, I’m reminded by my 1-year old and 9-week old, as I change their dirty diapers, of what is really and truly important in life: it’s certainly not notoriety or money, but that I matter to my children and wife, that I’ve nurtured and build relationships with people, and that I am adding value to the world in my own little way.

If you are still reading this post, unannoyed and with dry eyes, let me make an announcement and an invitation:

You are cordially invited to a pretty cool Lean Six Sigma Summit (PDF Brochure Download) to be held on April 28 - May 2, 2008. I’ll be speaking at the event, along with other, much-more distinguished folks, whose names are below:

Richard P. Miller
President and CEO
VIRTUA HEALTH

Lee Cockerell
Former Executive Vice
President of Operations
THE WALT DISNEY WORLD RESORT

Russell W. Ford
President and CEO
PRESTOLITE ELECTRIC INCORPORATED

Craig Long
Vice President, Quality and Six Sigma
MILLIKEN AND COMPANY

Roger Myers
Vice President Process Improvement (GIS)
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION

Nancy Pratt
Senior Vice President, Clinical Effectiveness
SHARP HEALTHCARE

Michael G. Winston
Managing Director and Chief Leadership Officer
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL

Ellen Domb
Founding Editor
THE TRIZ JOURNAL

Debra Levantrosser
Executive Director, Lean/Supply Chain
JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Pete Abilla
Head of Process Improvement for Customer Service, North America
EBAY

Betsi Harris Ehrlich
Director of Six Sigma and Master Black Belt
TYCO INTERNATIONAL

Adam Hjerpe
Senior Director of Quality, Programme Management
UNITED HEALTH GROUP

Gregory Robertson
Director of Six Sigma
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION

Martina Kuhlmeyer
Executive Vice President of Six Sigma
TEXTRON FINANCIAL

Jeff Johnson
Master Black Belt
TEXTRON FINANCIAL

Anthony Orzechowski
Director of R&D Quality Engineering
ABBOTT DIAGNOSTICS

Bruce Bryant
Senior Management Analyst and Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt
DEFENCE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

Brian Geschwindt
Managing Master Black Belt
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS

Nathan Guerdet
Operations Manager
WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL

Praveen Gupta
Six Sigma Author & President
ACCELPER CONSULTING

Alex Bellabarba
Head of Process Improvement for Customer Service, Europe
EBAY

James Warner, P.E
Director Industrial Division
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

Tony Coomer
Vice President of Continuous Improvement
LEAR CORPORATION

Dr Stephen Hoover
Vice President Xerox Research Center
XEROX CORPORATION

Patricia Atkins
Lean Six Sigma Director
SHARP HEALTHCARE

Teresa Hay McMahon
Performance Results Director
STATE OF IOWA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT

Paul Pfeiffenberger
Master Black Belt and Global Continuous
Improvement Manager
AIR PRODUCTS & CHEMICALS

Steven Lesser
Vice President, Supply Chain North America
ORICA

Mike Shuck
Manufacturing Specialist
CHICAGO MANUFACTURING CENTER

Brent Tadsen
Master Black Belt - Lean
GE RAILCAR

Ronnie Pate
Director of Six Sigma Initiatives, Global Supply Chain
CINTAS CORPORATION

Jerry Bussell
Vice President of Global Operations
MEDTRONIC ENT/NT

Dr Michael O’Connor
Director of Global Lean Deployment and Master Black Belt
UNISYS

Richard Lam
Lean Six Sigma Corporate Deployment Leader
BMO FINANCIAL GROUP

James Wasiloff
Master Black Belt and Lead Deployment Advisor, TACOM Life
Cycle Management Command US ARMY

Srisu Subrahmanyam
Vice President, Continuous Improvement
UNITED AIRLINES

Prof. Deborah J. Nightingale
Director
LEAN ADVANCEMENT
INITIATIVE, LAI

Please come. It should be a fun event. There will also be a behind-the-scenes tour of United Airlines and a peek into their Lean Deployment. I’m really looking forward to that.

+++++

Please find originally-written articles on Queueing Theory below:

For a few articles on Operations, lean and six sigma, please visit the links below:

The Gemba is the Dojo

Managing Constraints Under Peak Volumes

Order Pipeline of Events

On Game Theory

Series on Queueing Theory

Applied Regression Analysis

5S

Click-to-Ship Processes

Kanban Sizing and "Pull"

Lean at Krispy Kreme

Theory of Constraints and Camping

Lean for Software Development

Don’t Waste the Customer’s Time

Featuritis and the Focus on the Customer

Share This

by psabilla at 5:27 AM under 5s , business , costs , gemba , genchi genbutsu , heijunka , ishikawa , it at toyota , kanban , lean , lean consumption maps , metrics , muda , obeya , operations , pareto principle , quality , root cause analysis , six sigma , statistical process control , supply chain , theory of constraints , toyota , variation , waste (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» Takt Time and Dumber-by-the-Minute

I remember a very humbling experience of thinking that I knew how to solve problems and being shown just the opposite by an hourly associate. That was during my internship while I was in graduate school; I was haughty, boasting that I came from a top university and demonstrating in my thoughts and body language other prideful nonsense. I’ve learned that you can learn something from anybody. I’d like to think that I’ve become wiser since then and have changed my behavior to reflect that experience.

That particular experience involved a scheduling activity of auto parts being received, followed by a "stowe" process, where these auto parts would then be placed in storage bins. I sat back and observed from some time and even participated in the actual stowing of the material in the warehouse. My aim was to improve that particular process and regulate the stowing activity with the drumbeat of the receive activity.

Since I was a prideful graduate student, I decided to pull out my discrete event simulation and operations research toolbag — you know, stuff that is clinically interesting, but sometimes not useful — only to be taught by a few hourly associates a simple and elegant way to level the work of receive-to-stow: Takt Time.

Takt Time

Takt Time is the maximum allowable time in order to meet demand; Takt Time is the pace by which product is produced and must fall within the Takt Time or set equal to the Takt time; if not, then there will be customer demand that might go unfulfilled.

Takt Time is defined as the following:

Takt Time = (Net Available Production Time / Required Output Rate)

The Process

I do not have a picture for you, so please bear with the verbal explanation. For this process, we are dealing with a supply parts distribution center that stores material for cars. There are several receive-runs from tier-2+ suppliers to this warehouse where the parts are consolidated and stored.

This warehouse is divided into zones. The parts arrive in a bin on the receive dock, and the bins are then placed on a manual conveyor belt to a staging area. We have labor (people) that take these bins, place them on carts, and walk to the respective zone to offload the bin. Then the associate team member returns to pick up another bin.

Here is the question: how frequently should we tell the tier-2 suppliers to make a part drop-off? And, how much material should they plan on delivering for each run? Other questions: If you are a tier-2 supplier, at what point does it make economic sense to ship a less-than-truckload (LTL)? What about quantity-discount discussion?

All good questions, but I won’t consider most of them for this post. I want to localize our discussion on "How frequent should the tier-2 suppliers make a run to this center?"

Pull

Assume that the end-to-end system is a clean Pull from the customer all the way down the supply chain using a series of simple but elegant Kanban cards. Also further assume that the information flow downstream and material flow upstream has no defects or rework. We are only dealing with the question of regulating the pace between Stowe-and-Receive.

Takt Time can answer this question: Assume we have 1 person that works 6 productive hours. Let’s also assume that in order to meet upstream demand (parts-to-manufacturing plant) is known and stable and is 150 bins per 6 hour day. Given this, we have arrived at a Takt Time — how much maximum time can be alloted per Stowe.

Takt Time = [(6 hours * 60 minutes) / (150 Bins)]
Takt Time Per Run = 2.4 Minutes

This means that for each operator, she has at most 2.4 minutes to receive-walk-stowe and then return for the next run. Each run would represent a Cycle — hence, the term Cycle Time.

Improving Takt Time

We don’t really improve Takt Time, per se. We can reduce the Cycle Time and the content of the work involved in that Cycle, such as reducing or eliminating waste and non-value added steps, thereby influencing the Takt Time, or overall beat of the line. Specifically, we can do the following:

Reduce Variation
Reduce Idle Time
Reduce set-up time
Reduce or eliminate waste
Better manage constraints

To have a shorter Takt Time, improvements must be made on Cycle Time — that is, each cycle has to become shorter, which in turn would result in an improved Takt Time. It’s important to note that, in proper nomenclature, you cannot improve Takt Time — Takt Time is-what-it-is; a fact. It is Cycle Time that can be improved, which is a component of Takt Time.

Back to the Beginning

Back to the question of how to regulate Receive-to-Stowe: the aggregate Takt Time of all [(stowers * productive hours * 60 minutes) / Customer Demand]. The Customer in this case is the nearby manufacturing plant that meets the upstream demand of the customer, manifested in orders from auto dealers.

So, we see Pull all the way from the customer downstream to the atomic component parts.

Dumber-by-the-Minute = Wisdom

The hourly associate that showed this to me and explained, in a very down-to-earth and human way, helped me to "see" the world in a different way. She helped me to better understand my local concern and how that is truly an important part of the overall story for this business; that experience helped me to gain some wisdom, withhold judgment, helped me to understand that my education from a fancy school really doesn’t mean much, and that experience was the catalyst of my Lean Journey, which I’ve been on now for 8 years. I’m still quite young in both age and in experience, but am so thankful for humbling and growing experiences.

Share This

by psabilla at 9:59 PM under 5s , business , drum-buffer-rope , gemba , genchi genbutsu , heijunka , ishikawa , it at toyota , kanban , lean , lean consumption maps , muda , obeya , operations , pareto principle , six sigma , takt time , theory of constraints , toyota , variation , waste (Comments)

Peter Abilla
no nic
shmula

» The Hidden Factory: Would the Customer Pay for That?

The Hidden Factory is a term that refers to activities in an operation or standard operating procedure (SOP). A few examples of Hidden Factories are workarounds, rework, or any of the 7 wastes, which I will describe below. Most organizations have some form of a Hidden Factory and being able to "see" these hidden factories in an organization requires learning to see what waste is and understanding that waste in any operation — service or manufacturing — can be a substantial drain on the bottom line, top line, on employee morale, shareholders and, most importantly, the customer.

In fact, one very important litmus test for an activity is this: "If the customer knew the details of process x, would she be willing to pay for it?" In other words, suppose substantial rework was required to manufacture a widget and that rework cost was baked-into the cost of 1 unit of a widget, would the customer be willing to pay for the firm’s defects? Would the customer be willing to pay for the firm’s internal inefficiencies?

What is a Process?

A process is an systematic activity comprising of smaller activities that culminate in an outcome — service or product. A process can take up time, space, and resources. All processes can be categorized into the following categories: Value-added, Non-value added but necessary, and Non-value added.

From the Customer’s Perspective:

Value-added: This step in the process adds form, function, and value to the end product and for the customer.
Non-Value-Added: This step does not add form, function, or assist in the finished goods manufacturing of the product.
Non-Value-Added-But-Necessary: This step does not add value, but is a necessary step in the final value-added product.

(2) & (3) naturally create waste, of which there are 7 types:

Over-Production: Producing more than is needed, faster than needed or before needed.
Wait-time: Idle time that occurs when co-dependent events are not synchronized.
Transportation: Any material movement that does not directly support immediate production.
Processing: Redundant effort (production or communication) which adds no value to a product or service.
Inventory: Any supply in excess of process or demand requirements.
Motion: Any movement of people which does not contribute added value to the product or service.
Defect: Repair or rework of a product or service to fulfill customer requirements.

It’s important to understand “Value” in terms of the customer. From the customer’s perspective, “Value” could be defined in the form of a question:

Which process steps (and associated costs) do our customers not have to bear?

It’s a revealing question — most companies are glad that they do not have to reveal how their product or service is created, for fear of their inefficient processes and wasteful operations revealed to the customer. This stance is sometimes aptly called "not revealing how the hot dog is made", amicably referring to the unknown contents of the hot dog.

Process Cycle Efficiency

There is a metric that helps to identify how much of a process is actually value-added. It requires a few things:

Map the process.
Identify the Value-added steps, non-value added steps, and the non-value added but necessary steps.
Stratify your map according to the items in #2
Add a time dimension to the process steps.

Once you have completed steps (1) - (4), then you can simply calculate how much is actually value-added, as a percentage. The time for the entire process — end-to-end — is called a cycle time. To identify the Process Cycle Efficiency, you just divide the value-added time by the cycle time for the process.

Process Cycle Efficiency = (Value-added Time / Cycle Time)

For example, take the hypothetical process below:

process cycle efficiency, lean consumption maps

The process above has a cycle time of 860 seconds. So, the Process Cycle Efficiency could then be calculated by doing the following:

Process Cycle Efficiency = 182 / 860 = .21, or 21%

In other words, only 21% of the process above is considered value-added to the customer. Put another way, the customer might be bearing more than 75% of the cost associated with the waste above. Knowing this, the firm should aim to increase the Process Cycle Efficiency of the process by eliminating or reducing the waste.

Data like this can help the firm increase their value-added percent to the customer by eliminating or reducing the waste in their process. Doing this would put the customer first and allow the firm to "get their house in order." I consider the above excercise to be simple, yet incredibly helpful for the firm to make sure that they provide maximum value to the customer; it’s a fudiciary duty to the customer.

Think about your processes? How much is really value-added to the customer?

+++++

Please find originally-written articles on Queueing Theory below: