Page 189 - How To Implement Lean Manufacturing
P. 189

Sustaining the Gains    167


                    An Example of the Implementation of Transparency
                    For example, in a high-speed electrical manufacturing plant with multiple lines operat-
                    ing at 6.65-second cycle times, it was hard to tell, except after several hours of operation,
                    if the lines were producing to the plan. Even once we got a grasp on the production, if
                    there were problems, we didn’t have any idea where the problems might be, so JIT (Just
                    In Time) problem solving was something that wasn’t possible.
                       In addition, the technicians, line leader, and area supervisors were always busy. They
                    were always correcting something; however, the stories of what was done and why they
                    were done were filled with generalities and terms like “It was not operating quite
                    right.”
                       These are clear signs of a number of things. Let me point out three:
                        •  Fortunately, the workers, as well as the management, were both motivated and
                           engaged. They were trying to do the right things and they were doing work that
                           resembled their job description.
                        •  Unfortunately, they were doing many wrong things.
                        •  Yet more unfortunately, even when they did the right things, there was
                           inadequate feedback of information to confirm that something positive had
                           been done.
                       At this time, the relevant information to assess the production rate, which was read-
                    ily available on the floor, included andons, rejected product segregated into  collection
                    bins and production boards that covered a full day’s operation.
                       The andons had no recording, only warning features. Hence, they were not useful
                    for problem solving unless we were right there when they were activated or cleared.
                    The scrap data was sorted and recorded hourly, but actual scrap was very low and not
                    a factor in low production.
                       The production boards had hourly and cumulative production goals with actual
                    production numbers entered at the top of each hour. These goals were calculated based
                    on the hourly goal of 600 units per hour, taking into account lunch and rest breaks.
                    There were 21.5 available hours per day, so the daily production goal was 12,900 units.
                    This hourly goal was met nearly 50 percent of the time, but the daily goal was met
                    less than 3 percent of the time. A review of the last month’s data showed production of
                    9,330 units/day, or 434 units per hour: a full 27 percent below goal.
                       As part of their management system, there was a daily production meeting on the
                    floor, run by the line supervisor. It lasted about 15 minutes and had a good agenda, but
                    when the production shortage was discussed, which was a topic nearly every day, the
                    answers were—well, amazing is the best word I could use. First, they were very gen-
                    eral, and in almost every case where a specific problem was discussed, it was decreed
                    to be solved. Unfortunately, these same problems would reappear later, and it did not
                    seem odd to anyone that, although these problems had already been solved, they still
                    reappeared. Quite frankly, during this part of the meeting everyone was on “autopilot.”
                    It was apparent they had accepted these “amazing” explanations for so long that they
                    sort of believed them themselves. Yet day after day the production remained below
                    goal and they were forced into working seven days per week to meet a plan for five
                    days. In this case we can conclude that the production data were inadequate—
                    there was no “transparency” of the production data. We could neither understand if
                    we were on plan, nor could we solve problems when we did understand them.
   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194