Category Archives: Lean

The Mother of Modern Management:

Lilian

Today (May 8, 2016) is Mother’s day.  In today’s post I will be writing about somebody who has been called “the mother of modern management”, and “America’s First Lady of Engineering”, in addition to several additional similar titles.

She was known as “Mother” for several things – “Mother of the Year” (1957), “Mother of Industrial Psychology” (1954), “Mother of Modern Management” and “the greatest woman engineer in the world” (1954). (Source: Digging History)

Many of her concepts and ideas lend really well to the Toyota Production System. I will be looking at Lillian Moller Gilbreth, the wife of Frank Gilbreth. The Gilbreths were famous for the time and motion studies, and were most likely the first successful management consultant couple. Lillian did not study Engineering at school. She had a Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in Literature, and a Doctoral degree in Psychology. Frank Gilbreth did not attend college, although he was admitted to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Gilbreths were considered to be experts in Industrial Engineering.

Humanistic Taylorism:

efficiency

Taylorism was already popular in those days(early 1900’s). Taylorism became popular as “Scientific Management”, and triggered a push for efficiency. Taylorism promised eliminating wasted motions, and “loafing off” by the employees. However, the outcome of Taylorism was to see the operators as machines. They were required to bring only their hands and not their brains to work.

The Gilbreths understood the failure point in Taylorism – the focus is strictly on the efficiency alone and nothing else. They understood that they needed to engage the operators. Lillian’s background in Psychology helped in this regard. They began to understand that the focus should be on motion rather than time, and they started concentrating on “fatigue”. Lillian worked with her husband to organize the work so that it was easier for the operators to do their work. She asked for input from the operators to identify the best way to do the job. Lillian also had a background as a teacher. She adapted teaching techniques so that the operators were able to learn better and understand the “why” and the “how”. She championed for the “human element”. In my opinion, she pioneered the “humanistic Taylorism” well before Toyota.

Visual Management:

Simple-kanban-board-

 

One Variant of Personal Kanban Image Source: WIkipedia

Lillian was a firm believer in Visual Management. She made work visible at home. You can find the undercurrents of “Personal Kanban” in a speech she gave to National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs in New York. Personal Kanban has gained traction in recent years as a way to implement the ideas of flow, limited work-in-process and visual management for projects.

We considered our time too valuable to be devoted to actual labor in the home. We were executives. So we worked out a plan for the running of our house, adopting charts and a maintenance and follow-up system as is used in factories. When one of the children took a bath or brushed his teeth he made a cross on a chart. Household tasks were divided between the children. We had three rows of hooks, one marked “Jobs to be done,” one marked “Jobs being done” and a third marked” Jobs completed” with tags which were moved from hook to hook to indicate the progress of the task. (Source: 1930 Speech by Lillian Gilbreth to National Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs in New York)

Workplace Organization:

The Gilbreths pushed for “one best way” to do a job. They believed that workplace organization would improve the flow of the process. Lillian taught the idea of being “motion-minded” – being aware of the motions that you use while doing your job at work or even in a kitchen. The Gilbreths were very confident in their process that they promised a reduction of 33% in work motions in any industry.

kitchen

Lillian became popular with her analysis of the layout of kitchen during her work at General Electric as an Industrial Engineer. As part of her research, she interviewed over 4000 women and gathered data on proper heights for stoves, sinks and other kitchen appliances. She also identified the best layout to reduce the number of steps taken. She introduced the idea of the “Work Triangle”. In an efficiently planned kitchen, the perimeter of the triangle formed by stove, sink, and refrigerator should be no greater than 26 feet, with a typical distance of 5.5 feet between appliances. The kitchen was laid out in different patterns like “L”, “C” or “U” to better aid the homemaker (Lillian preferred the term “homemaker” to “housewife”). Lillian also introduced the idea of using a roller cart in the kitchen. All the improvements she proposed were tested out in 1931 Better Homes Manual. For the study, a strawberry shortcake was made in the old-style kitchen and in the new-style kitchen. The results were outstanding. The number of operations was reduced from 97 to 64, and the number of steps taken was reduced from 281 to 45, much better than the 33% reduction claim.

Final Words:

Lillian Gilbreth is now perhaps popular for her work in reinventing the modern kitchen or as the mother in the “Cheaper by the Dozen” movies. However, she was much more beyond that. She was an inventor. Her inventions include the foot-pedal trash can and shelves inside refrigerator doors. She faced lot of adversities due to her gender. Lillian authored “The Psychology of Management” in 1914. Her publisher insisted that her name be printed as “L. M. Gilbreth” to hide the fact that the book is written by a woman. Frank died suddenly due to a heart attack at the age of 56. Several of the Gilbreth’s clients canceled their contracts due to their lack of faith in her. Even though “L. M. Gilbreth” was invited to several Engineering clubs to give a talk, she was denied entry when they found out that “L. M. Gilbreth” was a woman.

Lillian Glbreth has earned her own place in the world of Industrial Engineering and Lean. She was recognized by President Hoover to join the Emergency Committee for Unemployment. She designed and created the successful “Share the Work” program to create new jobs. She was a consultant to several companies and the Federal Government. She was the first woman to be elected into the National Academy of Engineering, and she was member number 1 at the Society of Woman Engineers. Lillian Gilbreth passed away in 1972 at the age of 94.

 I will finish this off with an interesting anecdote from the Gilbreths to show the way they thought. Soon after getting married during their honeymoon, Frank asked Lillian to produce a list of qualifications she was bringing into their “partnership”. (Source: Digging History)

Perhaps Lillian Gilbreth’s other great accomplishment was raising her family which included 12 children while making modern advancements in her field. To all the mothers out there – I wish you a happy Mother’s day.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Visibilization: Crime Fighting, Magic and Mieruka.

Visibilization: Crime Fighting, Magic and Mieruka:

mieruka_main

“Mieruka” is one of the concepts that Toyota coined as part of the Toyota Production System. Mieruka has been translated as “Visualization” or “Visual Controls”. “Miru” or “Mieru” in Japanese is a verb associated with “to see”. The “-ka” suffix is explained as “-ization” in Ryoji Ihara’s book “Toyota’s Assembly Line”. My understanding is that the “-ka” stands for “kanri” which means “control” or “management”. Thus, Mieruka means “Visual Management” or “Visual Control”. In the book “Toyota’s Assembly Line”, the translator Hugh Clarke puts up a strong case that Mieruka should mean “Visibilization”. His logical point is that the concept of Mieruka is all about making problems/waste visible. This idea is explained below in the graphic.

mieruka

In the “Toyota’s Assembly Line” book, there is an anecdote about the machinery used on the production floor. It was typical to have steel guards in place for safety purposes. Toyota replaced these guards with clear plastic shields. The steel covers hid the machine so that any small problem with the machine was not immediately visible. The new clear covers on the machine allowed the workers to see the internal structure of the machine as part of Mieruka.

The term “visualization” can be misleading as it is a common theme in any self-help book. The term visualization does not transcribe well. However, the term “visibilization” indicates that you are making something visible.

Mieruka is the process of translating live information into visible information so that both problems and kaizen opportunities are identified immediately. The first thing that might come into mind about Mieruka is 5S. 5S is the lean tool for workplace organization so that everything has a place and everything is identified. This increases efficiency since the operator does not have to search for tools and he knows where everything belongs. However, the main intent of 5S is not workplace organization. The main intent is to make problems visible immediately.

Other examples of Mieruka include kanban, daily production boards and the andon cord. Mieruka can create a pull system where resources are applied as the problem arises.

Mieruka and Magic:

I have a strong interest in magic. As I was thinking about Mieruka I came to the realization that Mieruka is the opposite of magic. In magic, the magician is trying to hide something through misdirection. He pretends to transfer a coin to the other hand and pretends that he is holding a coin when he is not holding a coin.

In Mieruka, the lean leader is trying to make problems obvious through visibilization. He wants to make the problem visible to everyone as it happens. A really good example is the andon cord. The andon cord is on the assembly line, and the operator pulls on the andon cord when he faces a problem that he cannot fix in the allotted amount of time. The andon cord lights up with a buzzer sound sometimes, bringing the problem to everybody’s attention. The supervisor or the lead sees the problem and comes to the aid of the operator.

magic

The Crime Fighting Orange Balls:

karaboru

I recently read about “bohan yo kara boru”, translated from Japanese as “anticrime color balls”. These are plastic clear balls filled with bright orange paint. The trend in Japan is to keep these at banks and convenience stores. In case of a robbery, the store clerk can throw the ball on the floor causing the paint to splash all over the floor to a 10 meter radius. This paint would get on the clothes and “mark” the robber, aiding the police in identifying the perpetrator when he is on the run. In one case, the robber left a trail of paint foot prints! They can also throw the ball at the getaway vehicle to mark it for the police. Apparently, the idea came about when tollbooth attendants were resorting to throwing raw eggs at vehicles that did not pay the toll. The idea of using paint caught on and led to the invention of bohan yo kara boru. The “kara boru” part stands for “color ball”. The balls are kept in plain sight and behind the counter for everybody to see. It is also publicized that the store carries the color balls. This Mieruka aids in fighting crime.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was The Best Kind of Kaizen.

Karaboru Image Source: http://www.sobify.com/japans-anti-crime-orange-balls/

The Best Kind of Kaizen:

dumpling

I have been writing about kaizen a lot recently. It is a simple idea – change for the better. Generally, kaizen stands for small incremental improvements. In today’s post I am going to look at what is the best kind of kaizen.

The Twist in the Dumpling:

A few posts back, I talked about the order for kaizen. In that post, I talked about the idea of Equipment kaizen or Setsubi kaizen. To introduce the concept of the best kind of kaizen I will share a story from Masayasu Tanaka, dealing with Equipment kaizen. He tells of a plant that manufactured steam dumplings (manju in Japanese). They were trying to automate the entire process of making steamed dumplings. The last step of the dumplings was to make a twist on top of the dumpling. All the previous steps were easily automated, however the twisting of the top stumped them. The directive of automating the entire process came directly from the President of the company. The twisting of the top however threw a curveball at the Engineers. They worked on it for many days and sleepless nights. Finally, they were triumphant in creating a machine that could indeed twist the top of the dumpling. Everybody was very happy, and they cheered the smart Engineers for their hard work.

In the midst of all the celebration, someone asked, “Why is there a twist on the dumpling anyways?”

Silence fell across the floor. Nobody could answer the question. The Engineers involved did not know the answer. Finally, with enough asking around, the answer was that the twist indicated the dumpling had meat inside. It was simply an indication of the meat content. The same result could had been achieved with a dent or cut on the top or a different wrapper. (Source: Kaizen Teian 2)

The best kind of kaizen is eliminating the task altogether. Our first focus should be to understand the purpose of the task, and then seeing if we can eliminate it altogether.

The best kind of kaizen is eliminating the task altogether.

Final Words:

I had written about How Do I Do Kaizen previously. The steps for kaizen have roots in the Problem Solving manual from Training Within Industry. This is called as the ECRS process. These are to be followed in the order shown below.

  • Eliminate Unnecessary Tasks: The ultimate improvement is eliminating a task altogether. The What and Why questions help us with this.
  • Combine the Steps: What are the steps that need to be done in a series? Are there any steps that can be done in parallel? The Where, When and Who questions help us with combining steps to eliminate waste. Additionally, combining also reduces the number of discrete steps in the process.
  • Rearrange the Steps: Sometimes changing the sequence also allows us to take away waste from the process. The Where, When and Who questions help us with this. Can we do the current step# 3 before Step# 1? Is there any logic to the current sequence of steps? Can we rearrange to create a better sequence?
  • Simplify: Is there any task that can be simplified to make the whole process faster and better? Does the operator spend a lot of time trying to sort things or fumble with things? Can we ultimately simplify all the steps?

I will finish off with a story I read on Snopes that begs us to first understand the purpose of anything you are trying to improve.

A more frightened than injured young Seabee electrician was brought into the hospital suffering from electrical burns. Shortly afterward his instructor, a chief electrician, arrived. “Why on earth didn’t you turn off the main power switch before you tried to splice the wires?” asked the chief.
“I wanted to save time, chief, and I’ve seen you stand on one leg, grab the wires and splice without turning off the power.”
“My God, kid,” exclaimed the chief. “Didn’t you know I have a wooden leg?”

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Time and TPS.

Time and TPS:

tardis

I am intrigued by the concept of time. I am a big Doctor Who fan, and I quite enjoy the time paradoxes presented in the Whovian universe. In today’s post, I am exploring the theme of time, and some quotations by Henry Ford, Shigeo Shingo and Taiichi Ohno.

Henry Ford:

Taiichi Ohno, the father of Toyota Production System, has said that if Henry Ford was still alive, he would have eventually created a production system similar to Toyota. Ford has written about the concept of time in his 1926 book, Today and Tomorrow.

“The easiest of all wastes, and the hardest to correct, is the waste of time.”

Ford’s point was that time waste is different from material waste. Material can usually be reworked. However time wasted cannot be salvaged. Ford thought of time as human energy.

Shigeo Shingo:

Shingo was probably one of the best Industrial Engineers in the world. He studied Frederick Taylor and the Gilbreths, and was heavily influenced by them. One of the most cryptic things I read from Shingo was the quotation below;

“Time is the shadow of motion”.

Shingo attributed this to the Gilbreths. Shingo explained this statement better in his 1988 book, “Non-Stock Production”. His point is that time can be explained in terms of motion, as in “it takes a long time to do this” or “it can be done faster”. He urges the lean leaders to understand the “structure” of motion, and understand the most efficient way to do motion. Shingo advises us to understand what it means when a task takes a long time and not complain about the duration. We should instead look at the motions that make the task take longer. As Shingo says;

“It may be necessary to restructure the task to which the motions are tailored”.

The translator may not have intended the pun behind “tailored”/”Taylored”. Toyota uses time and motion studies as the basis for creating standard work.

Taiichi Ohno:

The most common expression attributed to Taiichi Ohno regarding time is;

“All we are doing is looking at the time line, from the moment the customer gives us an order to the point when we collect the cash. And we are reducing the time line by reducing the non-value adding wastes.”

Ohno is often described as a mean and tough sensei. He is also said to have been hard on the supervisors asking to produce more with less people. Ohno has talked a lot about “Respect for Humanity” and the need for ensuring that the operator is engaged in only value added activities. I am going to look at another saying by Ohno.

“Valueless motions are equal to ‘shortening one’s life.’”

Ohno had a way with words and he could explain his ideas beautifully. Not engaging the operator in value added activities, and not allowing him to improve his process is not being respectful. Ohno has also said that motion does not equate to working. Ohno stated it the best.

Final Words:

One of the two pillars of TPS is Just-in-Time. The idea behind this is to produce the right parts in the right amount, and at the right time.  I will finish this off with a story about Just-in-Time from Masaaki Sato’s book, “The Toyota Leaders”. The term Just-in-Time was coined by Kiichiro Toyoda, the founder of Toyota Motor Corporation.

Kiichiro went on a trip to England with some relatives to visit several cotton production facilities and textile factories. He was going to the Platt plant by himself to receive training. He arrived at Saint Pancras station to catch the Manchester-bound train. Unfortunately, by the time he arrived, the train had already left the station. He had an out-of-date train schedule.

“If a train leaves on time, then you miss your train even if you are only a minute late. Now I have to wait for a few hours until the next train comes”, he said to himself.

Kiichiro was taken aback by this incident and he kept on thinking about it to find a way to apply this to plant operations. He then came up with the idea of Just-in-Time. He did not coin the phrase in Japanese, but in English (perhaps as a reminder to himself of the incident in England).

He explained Just-in-Time to his employees as follows;

“I will bet everyone here has missed a train before. If a train leaves on time, you will miss it even if you are just a second late, let alone an entire minute. ‘Just-in-Time’ does not refer only to being on time. It means ‘supplying the right parts at the right time and in the right amount’”.

Always keep on learning…

If you enjoyed this post, you can read more here.

In case you missed it, my last post was The Order for Kaizen.

The Order for Kaizen:

kaizen order

In today’s post, I will be talking about Kaizen and specifically the order for kaizen. Kaizen has come to mean “continuous improvement” today. Kaizen originally translates from Japanese as “change for better”. I will be presenting three different views on approaching kaizen. These are;

  • Taiichi Ohno’s view,
  • Shigeo Shingo’s view, and
  • Hiroyuki Hirano’s view

Taiichi Ohno’s View (Semi-Strategic in nature):

Taiichi Ohno is the father of Toyota Production System (TPS). He has stated that there is a proper order for kaizen. These are;

  • Sagyo kaizen (Operations improvement),
  • Setsubi kaizen (Equipment improvement), and
  • Kotei kaizen (Process improvement)

I believe that Ohno wanted to focus on developing the abilities of people first since this is the lowest level where kaizen is possible. As Hirano says, “The starting point of manufacturing is always people.” Any production system should be people oriented. The first step of all kaizen is to raise the awareness of the people. This allows them to view the waste as a lean leader would. This is achieved only through operations kaizen. The operators involved are finding ways to make their work easier with what they have. This has minimal cost impact of all the kaizen. Ohno has also said;

“People with no capacity for improving operations are a problem because they like to buy new machines all the time.”

Ohno has also said;

“First improve operations. If you start out by bringing in the latest machines people with no capacity for improvement simply end up being slaves to the machines.”

The next in line is Equipment kaizen. Ohno challenges us to find new and creative ways of using the current equipment. Ohno advises us;

“You must have the ability to tinker with and improve the machines you already have.”

Ohno recommends buying new equipment when you have made the maximum use of current equipment and when it is no longer possible to increase effectiveness without new equipment. Purchasing new equipment should result in an improvement of quality. Ohno cautions against purchasing costly specialized equipment and advises going for flexible and low cost equipment. Equipment kaizen alone without operation kaizen results in extreme waste. Now the organization can make waste much better, and lot more of it. Machines cannot see waste, and machines cannot improve anything on their own. Machine kaizen alone foster status quo and invites complacency.

The last in line is Process Kaizen. His view was;

“Making things extremely well by turning the process upside down is Process Improvement.”

With process kaizen, you are looking at rearranging equipment or operations, changing layout, or improving the flow by linking processes.

Shigeo Shingo’s View (Tactical in nature):

Shigeo Shingo has provided us four targets for improvement. They are, in the order of priority;

  • Easier,
  • Better,
  • Faster, and
  • Cheaper

I was watching a Paul Akers (FastCap) video on YouTube and I made a connection to what Shingo said. “Easier” is an improvement from the point of the operator. This also means that it is safer for the operator to do. Any improvement activity should be first focused on Safety. “Better” is an improvement activity resulting in an improvement in quality of the operation/product. “Faster” is an improvement activity that increases efficiency. The final level is “cheaper”, and this should be the last target of all improvement activities. The goal of kaizen is not necessarily to first make the process cheaper.

Hiroyuki Hirano’s view (Strategic in Nature):

Hirano has pointed out the following as the normal progression of kaizen;

  • Point kaizen,
  • Line kaizen,
  • Plane kaizen, and
  • Cubic kaizen

“Point kaizen” is very similar to the operations improvement. This is the basic small improvement activity at the operations level. The next level is “line kaizen”. This is where a lot of the point kaizens merge together to result in flow manufacturing, as in an assembly line. Hirano calls this a vertical development. This is akin to selecting a model line and transforming it to make the process flow better. Once we have line kaizen, the next progression is through “plane kaizen”. This is the idea of “yokoten” or horizontal deployment. This is where the ideas and learning from the model line is used to create more model lines across the plant.  Thus this results in horizontal development. The final level is “cubic kaizen” where the development is made across multiple departments and even the supply chain of the enterprise.

My thoughts:

As with any other buzzword, kaizen has come to mean many things. My goal has been to provide a little more structure to the wonderful idea of kaizen. I would encourage the reader to also read my previous post on this topic here (A brief look at kaizen in the light of the Toyota Way). I will finish this off with a great story on Equipment kaizen from Hitoshi Yamada, a student of Ohno from the book Forging a Kaizen Culture (Japanese version 2009):

Yamada was at a large component manufacturer, Stanley Electric’s Tsuruoka plant. They were looking at a machine that assembled extremely small light bulbs. The cost of the machine was $150,000. The machine had two turn tables, and several robot arms. Due to the high cost of the machine, the factory manager felt that he should rely on mass production to make the maximum use of the machine.

Yamada told the manager to study the machine and find areas of wasted movement. And even better- to build a smaller and better machine.

This improvement activity took several weeks of trial and error. The final machine was $5,000 and 1/27th the size of the old machine. Since the machine was much smaller in size, it was also more efficient.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Ohno and the Gemba Walk.

Ohno and the Gemba Walk:

g_walk.png

Taiichi Ohno, the father of the Toyota Production System, was a firm believer in “Gemba Kanri” which translates from Japanese as “workplace management”. Taiichi Ohno and Setsuo Mito wrote a conversation-style book called “Why Not Do It Just-In-Time”. This was translated and released in English as “Just-In-Time For Today and Tomorrow”. Taiichi Ohno talked about the essence of gemba walks in the book. He did not call them gemba walks but he used what was well known at that time; Managing by Walking Around (MBWA) to explain his thoughts on gemba walks.

Gemba Walk:

Gemba is the actual place of action. Gemba Walk is thus a walk to and in the gemba. Ohno clearly explained the purpose of going to the gemba: You go to the gemba to understand and grasp the facts. Ohno said the following;

For the manager wandering around the work place, signs, charts, data and standards that accurately measure current work place conditions are indispensible.

Ohno emphasized that doing gemba walks without established standards is not worthwhile. Ohno viewed problems as deviations from the standards, and if the standards are not established, you will not know what to look for. The standards (also called as Standard Work) represent the most effective combination of human activity, equipment activity and the product being produced. The standards are visual and convey three vital pieces of information;

  • Takt time – the rhythm of production. This explains how often a part should come out.
  • Work Sequence – this shows the sequence of how operations are to be performed. The sequence is created with input from the operators, and this is the easiest and the current best sequence of steps to perform the operation.
  • Standard WIP (Work in Process) – this is the quantity of product allowed in the work station, and this also includes the part the operator is working on. Any extra parts are an indication of disruptions.

The idea of Managing by Walking Around was put forth by Tom Peters and Nancy Austin. The intent of MBWA was proposed as a “technology for implementing the obvious.” Mr. Peters and Ms. Austin proposed that MBWA would enable figuring out exactly what needs to be done. MBWA would help finding out the information that is not readily available otherwise. From this aspect, gemba walks also have the same goal – to implement the obvious. MBWA did not explain what to look for or how to find out the information where as Ohno clearly laid out the “what” and the “where”.

Ohno advises to post the standards in each production areas that everyone can see at a glance;

  • What type of work place it is,
  • What the production amount is,
  • What the sequence of operations should be.

This (posting standards) is fundamental and the model for visual control.

Ohno brilliantly described that the production plant is simultaneously a free and generous creature, and an insidious and mischievous nuisance. We should be fascinated by the challenges of discovering ways to deal with this entity. Ohno goes on to explain that for a production plant to properly operate, people should assume leadership and bring out the best in the machines and the system. To do so, people must utilize their intelligence and imagination to improve their work environment as well as investigate problems in the production plant. This is the main idea behind Ohno’s teaching for continuously improving the standards. He would scold the supervisors if the standards are not changed frequently.

The gemba walks often open doors to develop the operators. The first step of kaizen is to teach people how to identify and see waste. This is akin to teaching a person to fish rather than giving him fish every day.

Another aspect that Ohno described was something new to me- he explained that everybody has a principal work place (gemba). However, several of us also have multiple sub-workplaces (sub-gembas). He then stated another reason for doing the gemba walks;

To generate new information and trigger the imagination, a critical mind needs different environments.

My thoughts:

The Gemba Walks provides the meeting ground for top-down and bottom-up management systems. The standards make it easier for management from top-down. The employees are also enabled to make bottom-up proposals since they understand the common goal.

The main purposes of the gemba walks are to identify deviations from the standard, and to look for opportunities to change (improve) the standard.

The following are the desirable outcomes of gemba walks.

  • Self development by observing and learning
  • Developing others to observe and learn
  • Process improvement to establish the next standard
  • Harmony (bringing out the best)

The following are things to keep in mind doing gemba walks;

  • Do not immediately show them how to fix a problem
  • Do not have preconceived notions
  • Show respect, do not be an expert
  • Challenge the status quo
  • Always ask questions as “what should be the ideal state (standards) and what is the current state?” Explain problems always as deviations from the standard.

I will finish this off with a neat Ohno story from the book, “Just-In-Time For Today and Tomorrow”;

Setsuo Mito approached Ohno and asked about the origin of his name – Taiichi.

“Your father probably named you hoping that you would become a ‘patient’ child (nin T AIno)”, Mito said.

Ohno simply replied, “My father named me after his job in Dairen, where he worked with ‘firebricks’ (TAIkarenga)”.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Does Lean = the Elimination of Waste?

Does Lean = the Elimination of Waste?

muda

I have been reading several posts about Lean and Six Sigma. The way the two philosophies apparently differentiate is that Lean is all about eliminating waste, and Six Sigma is all about eliminating variation. As with many concepts in Eastern philosophy, things appear simple at first sight, and as we learn more about it, the concept gets deeper and deeper. In today’s post, I will look at the Toyota Production System in the light of “waste”.

Waste (Muda):

The Japanese word for waste is “muda”. Muda literally means no value. Mu = no or lack of, and da = value. The idea that Toyota Production System is based on the principle of eliminating waste was put forth by Taiichi Ohno, the father of Toyota Production System. Ohno identified seven types of wastes as follows;

  • Waste of overproduction
  • Waste of time on hand (waiting)
  • Waste in transportation
  • Waste of processing itself
  • Waste of stock on hand (inventory)
  • Waste of movement
  • Waste of making defective products.

A close review of these wastes shows that many of these wastes are interconnected. If you have inventory, you will also have transportation. Waste of processing can also lead to waste of movement. Waste of overproduction is sometimes called as the mother of all wastes since it can lead to all of the other types of wastes. Several practitioners have identified more types of wastes, of which the most popular is the “under utilization of human talent”.

Let’s Go Deeper:

I do not agree with the generalization that lean is about eliminating waste. Toyota speaks about 3 “Mu”s. They are as follows;

  • Muda = waste
  • Muri = overburden
  • Mura = unevenness

Muda:

Things get complicated when we learn that Toyota uses Muda in 3 different meanings. The Japanese language has several writing systems. Muda has roots in Chinese language. Japanese can write Muda in 3 different writing styles to add particular nuances.

Muda in kanji (based on Chinese scripts) means waste that was created by existing management policies. Muda in hiragana (based on native or naturalized Japanese words) means waste that cannot be eliminated right now. Muda in katakana (based on foreign words or words used with emphasis) means waste that can be eliminated immediately. (Source: Kaizen Express, Toshiko Narusawa and John Shook)

Taiichi Ohno defined the Toyota Production System as follows;

“The fundamental doctrine of Toyota Production System is the total elimination of waste”.

Muri:

Muri literally means “unreasonable” in Japanese. Mu = No or lack of, and Ri = reason. Both muda and muri can be explained in Japanese as a “lack of something” or as “no + something”. Muri also has several nuanced meanings in Japanese. “Muri suru” in Japanese means “to take things too far” or “to overdo”. In TPS, muri refers to overburdening the operator so that it can result in injuries or defective products. This is akin to saying work harder to produce more products while not improving the process. The standard work is often used as a means to tackle muri.

Mura:

Mura is defined as “uneven”. I have not seen mura explained as a “lack of evenness” (Mu + evenness) in Japanese. For example, the unevenness is in how we manufacture products. We should produce products so that we can meet the customers’ demands. From a producer’s standpoint, producing product of one type makes the most sense since it maximizes efficiency. This is akin to the famous Ford quote “as long as it is black”. However, each customer is unique. He may want “red” instead of black. He may want a different model than what you want to make. The unevenness is in how the units are being produced without keeping the end picture in mind. TPS utilizes both kanban and heijunka to level production.

Taiichi Ohno defined the Toyota Production System in light of this as follows;

“The goal of the Toyota Production System is to level the flows or production and goods.”

The 3 Mu’s:

The keen learner can see that muda, muri and mura are closely intertwined. Toyota has even defined muri and mura as two forms of muda!

“Both mura and muri are thought of as types of muda, or waste, and should be eliminated.”

Mikio Kitano, former President of Toyota Motor Manufacturing of North America Inc, has identified the order to approach the 3 Mu’s for a new process. (Muri -> Mura -> Muda)

“First, Muri focuses on the preparation and planning of the process, or what can be avoided proactively. And, then, Mura focuses on implementation and the elimination of fluctuation at the operations level, such as quality and volume. The third — Muda — is discovered after the process is in place and is dealt with reactively. It is seen by variation in output. It is the role of Management to examine the Muda, or waste, in the processes and eliminate the deeper causes by considering the connections to Muri and Mura of the system. The Muda – waste – and Mura – inconsistencies – must be fed back to the Muri, or planning, stage for the next project.

The continuous cycle of self-examination allows for the outcomes to continuously improve. This brings in Management’s responsibility:

  • to provide and improve a flexible system, and
  • to connect the workforce and the customer.”

My thoughts:

As I have already stated, I do not believe in the generalization that TPS or Lean is about the elimination of waste. This makes it a tool based system. TPS is a holistic management system. Once we look deeper at how the “waste” is viewed, we understand that this does not mean just seven types of waste.

There is a counter-intuitive aspect to muri. Taiichi Ohno was famous for asking to produce the same amount of products by utilizing fewer employees. He would say to remove one operator and then try to meet the same production numbers. Would this be not adding muri? My understanding on this is that Ohno was very good at identifying all of the non-value adding activities in the process. He was able to see that the production can be run with fewer operators. He wanted to challenge the supervisor and the operators in kaizen by studying their standard work and improving their process.

I will finish off with a zen story about “mu” that I like a lot. This story is similar to this post in that it appears straightforward at first.

A monk asked Joshu, “Does a dog have the Buddha-nature or not?”

Joshu replied, “Mu.”

In this koan/story, Joshu is breaking the conventional thinking of the monk. In Mahayana Buddhism, the Buddha-nature is present in all beings including humans and dogs. The answer to the monk’s question should have been “yes”. But the monk’s perspective of nature of existence was one-sided and tunnel-visioned. Joshu challenged this and broke the monk’s mold of thinking by saying the answer “no”.

If Ohno was alive today and one were to ask him whether TPS was about eliminating waste, the master might have replied, “Mu”.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Respect for Humanity in the Light of Quality Control (QC).

Respect for Humanity in the Light of Quality Control (QC):

rfp

In my last post, I talked about kaizen in the light of the Toyota Way. In today’s post, we will look at “Respect for People”, the second pillar of the Toyota Way, in the light of Quality Control. I was surprised to find that the theme of “Respect for Humanity” (another name for Respect for People) is a central theme for Quality Control. The Quality Engineer in me smiled happily when I started researching the subject of Respect for Humanity in the light of Quality Control.

The term “Quality Control” or QC does not have the same meaning outside of Japan. The terms Quality Assurance, Quality Control and Quality Management are often used interchangeably. Kaoru Ishikawa, the great Japanese Quality mind, defines QC as;

“To practice in Quality Control is to develop, design, produce and service a quality product which is most economical, most useful, and always satisfactory to the consumer.”

Japan started the QC movement with teachings from Dr. Deming and Juran. QC became the central theme of doing a business through the guidance of Kaoru Ishikawa. Ishikawa interpreted QC as a management system rather than a product control system. He made it about the entire organization. He also played a strong role in developing QC circles. QC circles are small groups of voluntary employees who meet outside of their work schedules to address a known process problem. The scope of QC circles soon included process improvement activities under the term “QC activities”.

Respect for Humanity – an Underlying Theme of QC:

Ishikawa identified the following as the “basic ideas” behind QC circle activities:

  • Contribute to the improvement and development of the enterprise.
  • Respect humanity and build a worthwhile-to-live-in, happy and bright workshop.
  • Exercise human capabilities fully and eventually draw out infinite possibilities.

Ishikawa emphasized this underlying theme in his 1981 book “What is Total Quality Control? The Japanese Way”. The following statements are from the book.

  • Not about Taylorism: “The Taylor method does not recognize the hidden abilities workers possess. It ignores humanity and treats workers like machines.”
  • Respect for Humanity: “The fundamental principle of successful management is to allow subordinates to make full use of their ability.”
  • Respect for Humanity: “The term humanity implies autonomy and spontaneity… People have their own wills, and do things voluntarily without being told by others. They use their heads and are always thinking. Management based on humanity is a system of management that lets the unlimited potential of human beings blossom.”
  • Professionalism: “In the United States and Western Europe, great emphasis is placed on professionalism and specialization… People possess far greater abilities than professionalism is willing to give credit for.”
  • Respect for Humanity: “It is a management system in which all employees participate, from the top down and from the bottom up, and humanity is fully respected.”

My Thoughts:

The two principles of “Respect for Humanity” in the Toyota Way are;

  • Respect, and
  • Teamwork

From the surface, this appears to be all about niceties and “lip service”. Toyota says that making product is achieved through developing people. The process of developing people is thus made into a value-adding activity. Respect for Humanity is when you ensure that the work done is only value-adding. Asking an operator to engage in wasteful activities is not engaging in Respect for Humanity. As John Shook put it – “Don’t waste the operator’s time and effort.”

Engaging in Respect for Humanity is engaging the operator in improving his process through developing him. Interestingly, Respect for Humanity is a two-way street. The operator should be looking at his process and improving it. He should also engage in developing people around him as well. Respect for Humanity is a nice mixture of self-development and mutual-development. It is about creating mutual understanding and mutual responsibility. Toyota calls their production system a “Thinking Production System” because they heavily involve people. Toyota garners their ideas from everyone, from the floor to the corner office.

My personal view is that “Respect for People” is akin to making soup. Hot, hearty and delicious soup is made with many ingredients. It takes energy. It needs participation from all the ingredients. It takes time. It is cooked slow and steady. Any of the ingredients by itself does not taste good. Soup is about the perfect mixture of all the ingredients. The end product is great and no one ingredient stands out. The individual succeeds when the team succeeds. The team grows when the individual grows.

I will finish this post with an old story about soup and participation – The Story of Stone Soup. I have one of the several versions below:

A weary, poor traveler arrived in a small village. He had no food or money and had not eaten in days. The one thing he did have was a cooking pot that he used on those rare occasions when he had something to cook.

The villagers were not willing to give him any food. They complained that they do not have any food at all to share, and that they were hungry themselves. He built a small cooking fire, placed his pot on it, and poured in some water. When a few villagers asked what he was doing, he replied that he was making Stone Soup which was an ancient tasty recipe passed down to him from his ancestors. He then dropped in a smooth, round stone he had in his pocket into the pot.

As the soup warmed, the traveler told the villagers stories of his travels and the exciting things he’d seen. He tasted his soup and said it was coming along nicely, but a bit of salt would bring out the flavor. One curious villager went into her home and returned with some salt for the soup.

A few more villagers walking by stopped to see what was going on when they heard the traveler speaking. The traveler told more stories and said that a couple carrots or onion would be a nice addition to the already delicious soup. So, another villager figured he could give a few carrots and retrieved them from his cellar.

This continued on with the traveler casually asking for onions, seasoning, a bit of meat, celery, potatoes to bring out the full potential of the soup.

Finally, the soup was ready and the traveler shared the delicious soup with everybody. The villagers did not have anything to eat on their own, but when they combined everything they had, they all enjoyed a delicious meal.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was A Brief Look at Kaizen in the Light of the Toyota Way.

A Brief Look at Kaizen in the Light of the Toyota Way:

chie to kaizen

I have talked many times in this blog about the “Toyota Way 2001”. The Toyota Way was an embodiment of Toyota’s management philosophy and values that were passed on to its employees as implicit knowledge. Due to rapid global expansion, Toyota Management decided to write down this implicit knowledge into a booklet – Toyota Way 2001, in order to help expand their production system properly across the globe.

The Toyota Way has two pillars – “Continuous Improvement” and “Respect for People”. The “Continuous Improvement” pillar stands on three principles:

  • Challenge
  • Kaizen
  • Genchi Genbutsu

IMG_1282

All is good up to this point. “Kaizen” is often translated as “Continuous Improvement”. I saw this as a linguistic “chicken or egg situation”: How can kaizen be one of the three principles of “Continuous Improvement” when kaizen itself is “continuous improvement”? Why was the pillar not named simply as “Kaizen”?

Michel Baudin has written about it here. He has shown that the pillar is actually termed “Chie to Kaizen” in the Japanese version of Toyota Way 2001. “Chie to Kaizen” is translated as “Wisdom and Continuous Improvement”. I encourage the readers to check out Michel’s blog post.

Kaizen in Japanese is not translated literally as “continuous improvement”. The literal meaning is “change for better”. The Japanese word kaizen is derived from the Chinese word gaishan. They both mean “to improve”. Kaizen is written as 改善 in both Chinese and Japanese. This is because Japanese language uses a lot of characters adopted from Chinese language called Kanji. Apparently, to distinguish between “kaizen – improvement” and “kaizen – continuous improvement”, several Japanese writers have started using “カイゼン”, which reads the same. “カイゼン” is written in Katakana script, one of several writing components in the Japanese language, besides Kanji. Katakana is generally used for words imported from foreign languages. Thus when you translate the word “カイゼン” into English through Google Translator, you will find that the word translates to “Kaizen” in English. I am assuming that Kaizen in English means “Continuous Improvement.” 🙂

Kaizen

Wisdom/Intelligence and Continuous Improvement:

The only source where the pillar is not called as “Continuous Improvement” in English by a Toyota personnel that I could find, was “The Toyota Way in Sales and Marketing” by Yoshio Ishizaka. In this book, the first pillar is called as “Intelligence and Kaizen”. In my eyes, this is a better phrasing for the pillar. Ishizaka explains this pillar as follows;

Intelligence and Kaizen describes an attitude in which you are never satisfied with the current condition and continuously develop innovative ideas yielding higher added values.

Kaizen achieves a better meaning when viewed in the light of Challenge and Genchi Genbutsu. There is a sense of continuity towards improvement with this view. This meaning is more synonymous to “Continuous Improvement”. Let’s look at the other two principles: Challenge and Genchi Genbutsu.

Challenge: The key point here is to challenge the status quo. Do not be satisfied with your current state. There is almost always a better way of doing things. This may push you outside your comfort zones. But that is how you can continuously improve. This principle also encourages us to have a long term vision, and to move towards it at all times. As Toyota puts it “Working at Toyota is also an exercise in long-term thinking.”

Genchi Genbutsu: This is described as “going to the actual source and getting the actual facts” so that you can make the correct decisions. It is looked down upon in Toyota to make decisions based on data (on paper) alone. You have to be at the gemba to understand the problem.

My final words:

I will finish this post with a story I read that has the spirit of “chie to kaizen”.

Once upon a time a very strong woodcutter asked for a job from a timber merchant, and he got it. The pay was really good and so were the work conditions. The woodcutter was determined to do his best.
His boss gave him an axe and showed him the area where he was supposed to work. The first day, the woodcutter cut down 18 trees.

“Congratulations,” the boss said. “Go on that way!” Very motivated for the boss’ words, the woodcutter tried harder the next day, but he could only cut down 15 trees.

The third day he tried even harder, but he could only cut down 10 trees. Day after day he was bringing fewer and fewer trees.
“I must be losing my strength”, the woodcutter thought. He went to the boss and apologized, saying that he could not understand what was going on.

“When was the last time you sharpened your axe?” the boss asked.

“Sharpen? I had no time to sharpen my axe. I have been very busy trying to cut trees”, the woodcutter responded.

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was Don’t be an Expert at the Gemba.

Don’t Be an Expert at the Gemba:

Expert

In today’s post I will be talking about being open-minded at the gemba. I heard a wise saying;

“Minds, like parachutes, only work when open.”

parachute

I am sometimes guilty assuming that I know completely about the matter at hand – that I am an expert. I would be at the gemba and instead of listening to the operator talk, I would be talking to the operator, and trying to find solutions on my own. This type of thinking results in three things;

  • I am not respecting the operator or his expertise by not being open to his suggestions. The operator is truly the expert since he has been doing this, day in and day out.
  • By rushing to solutions, I am wasting the opportunity to develop the operator. By providing the solutions, I am taking away the privilege for the operator to think and come up with solutions.
  • I may not get his buy-in for what I am planning on implementing. Things will go back to the way they were once I leave that area.

Being an “expert” makes one close minded. It puts the blinders on for the person, and prevents them from seeing the whole. There is another side effect to being an “expert”. You become very comfortable at something and will not want to steer away from your comfort zone.

I have been reading books by Bruce Lee, the famed martial artist. Apart from being a great martial artist, Bruce was also a deep thinker. He talked about the great analogy of a cup that is applicable to this post:

“The usefulness of a cup is that it is empty.”

If a cup is not empty, it is not useful. The emptier the cup, the more useful it is!

Ohno and Experts:

Taiichi Ohno used to say that experts are not good for kaizen. “They would just get in the way”, he said. Ohno’s point about this statement is that experts would not be open to going outside their comfort zones, and they would not allow others to speak or be open to their ideas. Kaizen needs for you to be outside of your comfort zones. Comfort zones are the playgrounds for status-quos. This is against the spirit of kaizen.

In Toyota, there is a great concept called “chie”. Chie stands for “wisdom of experience”. If experience equates to expertise, then chie equates to wisdom that comes from experience. Toyota views their production system as a “Thinking Production System”. Toyota’s goal is to increase chie of all their workers so that their thinking leads to improved processes and this ultimately improves Toyota altogether. This type of thinking is against “experts” on the floor. Experience may result in improved efficiency, however this does not equate to improved effectiveness.

Final Words:

This post is more a reminder for me to be open minded at the gemba, and to listen to the operator, and to encourage them to ask questions and come up with solutions. This allows for developing the operator. This also allows you to learn from the operator as well. I will finish off with a short story from Leo Tolstoy about someone who thought he was an expert:

There once were three hermits on a remote island. They were known in the region for performing miracles. They were very simple, and did not know complicated prayers. The only prayer they knew was “We are three, Thou art Thee, have mercy on us.” 

One day the local bishop came to hear about the three hermits and their prayer. He thought to himself that he should pay them a visit so that he can teach them prayers that were “more correct”.

He arrived at the island and taught them the “state of the art” prayers. The three hermits recited the prayers after the bishop. The bishop was quite pleased with himself. He bid them good bye and left. His boat was sailing away from the island. It was getting dark. The bishop looked back at the island, and saw a radiant light slowly approaching the boat from the direction of the island. To his surprise, he saw that the three hermits were holding hands and running towards the boat, over the water.

“Bishop, we have forgotten the prayers you taught us”, they said, and asked him if he would please repeat them.

The bishop shook his head in awe at the miracle he was witnessing. “Dear ones”, he replied humbly, “Please forgive me, and continue to live with your old prayer!”

Always keep on learning…

In case you missed it, my last post was The Opposite of Kaizen.