A Five Step Prescription exists on how to sustain the gains. It is not amazing, but once implemented, it is always effective. It includes:
1. Good work procedures
2. Sound training in the work procedures 3. Simple visual management of the process 4. Hourly and daily process checks by management 5. Routine audits by management
Now let’s look at the prescription, one element at a time.
Good Work Procedures and Standards, Reflective of the Facility Goals
First, we must have good work standards and procedures, including checkoff lists, startup procedures, maintenance procedures, and standard work to name a few. In short, all the procedures necessary to run the business and do it efficiently and effec- tively. There is a lot of good literature on writing good job instructions so I will not belabor this point, except for two points of major concern. The work instructions and standards:
• Must be written in behavioral terms
• Must be auditable
People Trained to the Standards, Including Being Reality Tested on Performance to the Standard
Next, we need to train the employees on these standards and procedures. Again, there is a lot of good material in the literature, so I will not elaborate further except for one point. The training, once completed, must be evaluated using a practical test done at manufacturing conditions. Let us say, for example, we have trained operators to visu- ally inspect parts for attribute characteristics, prior to final packaging of the parts. These operators need to be tested—in this case, with an attribute Gauge R&R study—and it must be done at line conditions, at takt time. Written tests and video training are okay, but in the final analysis the purpose of this training is behavioral modification, and that modification must be tested; there is no substitute for this.
Simple Visual Checks to See if the Standards Are Met…Transparency
At the jobsite, we now need simple visual checks to see if the objectives are being met.
This is a key element of transparency. If the operator is to meet a specific cycle time, how can he tell? Is there a visual readout that shows his performance? If not, how does he know? If routine maintenance needs to be done, can that be audited by the manager walking by?
Routine Management Evaluation, Daily If Not Hourly
In my experience, most companies do the first three steps with some degree of effi- ciency, and here in steps 4 and 5 is where the system to sustain the gains often breaks down. A key element of hoshin-kanri (H-K) planning is daily management review. More and more, I find it less common for even midlevel managers to go to the floor daily.
These trips to the floor are absolutely necessary if continuity is the concern. In today’s rapidly changing world, management must have their thumb on the pulse of the plant; there is no way to get this understanding from the office. It has several names, including management by walking around, or going to the Gemba, but the managers, at all levels, must spend time on the floor, daily, if not hourly.
Managers must be aware of actual operations and operating conditions. Also being on the floor keeps them in touch with the people. It helps the manager evaluate not only what is happening on the floor but helps him evaluate the information he gets from others, which is generally the bulk of his information. And finally it helps the manager learn: about the people, about the process, and about the product. It is a critical part of Deming’s 14 Obligations of Management and Toyota thought it was so important they gave it a name, genchi genbutsu, which means, “go and see for yourself, thoroughly understand the situation.” In fact, to Toyota it is so important that it is Principle 12 of the “Toyota Way,” their guiding document to management. Sometimes the manager may have a specific agenda, sometimes he may just want to observe to see what hap- pens—but there is no substitute for his or her presence.
The most common management practice is to show up on the floor only when there is a problem. Consequently, when the workers see the manager they know that some- thing is amiss. There is nothing like this to create an atmosphere of concern which then evolves into a culture of fear and secrecy. The manager must be on the floor because it is part of his normal job—not only to investigate when things go wrong, but also to investigate when work is going well. He can then tell that the methods to standardize are working.
In addition, I have found the very best at this go to the floor for two other reasons.
Really good managers have an ability to go to the floor and just listen to the rank and file workers and be able to learn about the process—directly from the horse’s mouth. It is the “How is it going? And then saying nothing more, simply listening skill” that only a few managers possess. Another technique that pays high dividends is to have on your calendar the birthdates, company service dates, and wedding anniversaries of all your employees. These provide reminders to go visit the workers on a more personal basis.
Then the manager cannot only get to know these people better, he can stop by and discuss their first day at work, for example. This type of touch needs to be sincere, but if it is not your style, don’t do it, you will only come across as phony and, hence, gain nothing. However, if it is your style, it pays huge dividends. In the future, these people will be far more willing to “tell it like it is” rather than the “what I think you want to hear” mode so common in most plants.
Routine Management Audits…to Teach the Managers, to Check the System
Again, the H-K planning model includes the concept of management audits. The gen- eral paradigm of audits is to check the system to see if it is working, and most auditors
P
oint of Clarity Managers do not get what they EXPECT, they get what they are willing to INSPECT.are not really happy unless they can find a few things done wrong. It seems to quench their thirst and convince them that they have done a good job. In my experience, nearly all auditors have that desire: to catch people doing things wrong. Those audits are not really helpful, much like the standard itself. On the other hand, the objectives of these Routine Management Audits are much different and are twofold:
• To teach management
• To check the ability of the system to meet the policy
It is my experience that the major opportunity for improvement in manufacturing lies not in improving the people; rather, it lies in improving the systems. Let me say that again, it is my experience that the major opportunity for improvement in manufactur- ing lies not in improving the people; rather, it lies in improving the systems. In fact, in controlled studies we have done, we routinely find that 85 to 90 percent of all variation is system created. More simply said, most of the variation is because people are:
• Using the raw materials they are supplied
• Running the machines they are supplied
• Following the instructions they are supplied
• Working in the environment they are given
Consequently, most of the time, when we wish to make progress and when the analysis of the variation is complete, it is the raw materials, machine operating condi- tions, work instructions, and work environment that must change, not the people. Keep in mind that the selection of raw materials and machines, the writing of work instruc- tions, and the creation of the work environment are all done by management. These four things largely define “the system.” (Recall the definition of variation in Chap. 3: the inevitable differences in the individual outputs of a system.) Unfortunately, and all too often when problems appear, the managers do not have the necessary understanding of vari- ation to respond properly, and all too often they inappropriately focus the attention on the workforce when it is these systems that must change.
The managers, particularly the middle managers, have a lot of emotional invest- ment in these four aspects of the system and do not really want to change them—after all, they created this system. To change this system is then an admission that they had created a defective system. The truth is, no system is free from deficiencies—all can be improved.
All kinds of cultural forces protect the status quo, yet the status quo must change, and frequently the middle managers do not see or do not want to see the changes neces- sary. For this reason and others, I have found that there is no substitute for top manage- ment presence on the production floor. These audits provide just such an opportunity and provide the teaching of the managers and the middle managers as well.
There is a third benefit that is achieved when the managers perform these audits.
Here I do not mean, “make sure these audits get done,” I mean to do them. I mean:
• To review the standard
• To compare the actions to the standard
• To draw conclusions and develop corrective actions
• To follow up that the work was completed
• To document the audit
These audits are, by definition, nondelegable. The benefits are tremendous here. Let me state just a couple, but the list goes on.
• It provides a real-life connection of the manager to the floor and the workers know the manager is committed, not just involved. The managers will be seen as real workers, not just shiny pants looking at spreadsheets in their office.
• It provides an understanding, at the worker level, that their problems are understood by top management, and that they, the workers, are not totally insulated by middle management. The workers can easily see that they have a conduit of communication to the top managers.
Through these audits, system deficiencies can be found and corrected. They com- plete the PDCA cycle for the system. Few companies do management audits, and even fewer have an annual audit policy. This lack of an auditing system—and the lack of management audits in particular—hinders system improvements and is a major imped- iment to sustaining the gains.
Chapter Summary
One of the key foundational issues is the ability to sustain the process gains, once they are achieved. This is a key issue to maximize process gains over time, but strangely enough few companies do this well. The first problem to sustaining the gains is to make sure there is, in place, a system to assure that losses become obvious, when they occur.
The technique used to make the losses obvious is called transparency. The two strongest techniques to sustain the gains, once they are found, are through product and process simplification. Although these are strong techniques, for the typical Lean initiative, they are not practical. The next best method is to standardize through the use of poka- yokes. This is also a very strong technique, but this is also often underutilized. Finally, the most common but least robust technique to sustain the gains is to standardize the process procedure. A Five Step Prescription exists on how to standardize the process.
You will not only find this prescription amazing, but once implemented you will find it to be effective as well. It includes:
1. Good work procedures and standards, reflective of the facility goals
2. Sound training in the work procedures, including being reality tested on performance to the standard
3. Simple visual checks to see if the standards are met—transparency 4. Routine management audits, daily if not hourly
5. Routine audits by management … to teach the managers, to check the system
CHAPTER 11
Cultures
I
n this chapter, we offer a brief introduction into cultures—business cultures in par- ticular. We will just skim the surface, but our objective is to give you enough infor- mation that the complexity and depth of the Toyota culture can be appreciated, as well as the depth of effort needed to truly attain a Lean culture. We also want to explain why a concerted effort into changing the culture can wait for a while—at least until the major foundational issues have been implemented.This chapter was included because the defining aspects of the TPS are its cultural elements. As an extension of that thought, some of the truly unique aspects of the TPS were consciously and painstakingly developed over an extended period of time; hence, they are not easily imitated by others.