As I sit and write this I have my laptop set up in a basement cafe located deep inside Casa Loma (www.casaloma.org). For those of you who don’t know, this magnificent mansion is “...the former estate of Sir Henry Mill Pellatt, a prominent Toronto financier, industrialist and military man.” Or as I like to think of it, Casa Loma is an outrageous example of making your dreams come true.
Ever since my parents started bringing my brother and I here at Christmas time to see all the decorations and tour the magnificent rooms, this ‘house’ has had a spell over me. Which is why I decided to take advantage of a rare afternoon off to come back and see the old place. After getting off at the Dupont subway stop and walking up the steep road followed by even steeper stairs here I am.
And it has been well worth the effort.
In addition to creating this current addition to my blog, I have also drafted out the agenda for my upcoming corporate strategy planning session, achieved clarity and perspective on a brilliant solution for a client of mine, worked through a plan of action for helping out a colleague dealing with a challenging tactical situation, and remembered just how fortunate I am to live in Southern Ontario in particular, and in Canada in general. The last realization drifted over me as I sat and listened to and watched people from all over the world enjoying this tourist attraction almost as much as I do.
To sum up, in just a few hours my batteries are completely recharged, my creative juices are flowing, and I feel ready to take on the world. In fact I even looked into booking a meeting room here to host my corporate strategy planning session. If my associates get half the creative boost out of this place as I do we’ll be able to “fix” the world....or should I say "we'll be ready to accompany the world on its journey of Change."
No practical, real-world solution or insight into a complex business problem from me today. Plenty more where those come from. Just a friendly suggestion for any of you who may have forgotten where you last saw your inspiration. Go back to your ‘castle’ and have a look in the basement.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Part 2: Products & Services: Who's right and who's wrong?
As soon as we had our list of Attributes the discussions about who was right and who was wrong immediately started. That is not to say there were heated exchanges in the hallways and out on the shop floor. More like self-satisfied smirks from the Engineers, "I told you so's" from Sales, and "You never listen's" from just about everyone else.
So the next step was to figure out who was right. But before we did that we needed to create and test a methodology to quantify everyone's perceptions. Enter The Survey. At this point most people within the company, other than perhaps those in Sales, had not yet figured out who the "who" was in "who was right." ~ My apologies to my high school English teachers and my academic parents for not knowing whether, when or where to use the word "whom."
The Survey was designed to allow everyone to personally evaluate each of the product Attributes. For practical purposes the list was again distilled down to a total of 25 descriptors. And respondents from all areas of the company were asked to rate each Attribute against the following two scales:
A) Importance:
B) Performance vs 'Best in Class'
When the results were collected they were presented on a 2-axes chart. The X-axes or bottom axes measured Performance. So the further to the right the better the "perceived" Performance vs 'Best in Class.' And the Y-axes or vertical axes measured "perceived" Importance. So the higher up the Attribute the greater the "perceived" Importance and so on.
Taken a step further, Attributes close to the top right were "perceived" to be very Important and our company was "perceived" to be much better than our 'Best in Class' competitor. Likewise for Attributes that appeared in the bottom left of the chart we "perceived" that we did not perform very well compared to our 'Best in Class' competitors, however we also did not "perceive" that these were very Important.
So the next step was to figure out who was right. But before we did that we needed to create and test a methodology to quantify everyone's perceptions. Enter The Survey. At this point most people within the company, other than perhaps those in Sales, had not yet figured out who the "who" was in "who was right." ~ My apologies to my high school English teachers and my academic parents for not knowing whether, when or where to use the word "whom."
The Survey was designed to allow everyone to personally evaluate each of the product Attributes. For practical purposes the list was again distilled down to a total of 25 descriptors. And respondents from all areas of the company were asked to rate each Attribute against the following two scales:
A) Importance:
- = very low
- = low
- = neutral
- = important
- = very important
B) Performance vs 'Best in Class'
- = very poor
- = poor
- = neutral
- = better
- = much better
When the results were collected they were presented on a 2-axes chart. The X-axes or bottom axes measured Performance. So the further to the right the better the "perceived" Performance vs 'Best in Class.' And the Y-axes or vertical axes measured "perceived" Importance. So the higher up the Attribute the greater the "perceived" Importance and so on.
Taken a step further, Attributes close to the top right were "perceived" to be very Important and our company was "perceived" to be much better than our 'Best in Class' competitor. Likewise for Attributes that appeared in the bottom left of the chart we "perceived" that we did not perform very well compared to our 'Best in Class' competitors, however we also did not "perceive" that these were very Important.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Part 1: Products & Services: The Disconnect
When it comes to disconnects I do not think a larger one exists than the one between a company and its customers when it comes to perceptions regarding products and services. Of course there are many spectacular exceptions to this rule. Disney is an example that immediately springs to mind. Apple is another. But more on that later.
So what do I mean by disconnects? How can two people or groups of people possibly disagree on something as tangible as a product or a service? True marketers will know what I mean. As well as that select group of true entrepreneurs. But for the rest of us who assume that it is Marketing's role just to order brochures and organize trade shows, and who think that successful entrepreneurs just "got lucky," pay attention.
For this discussion I am going to focus on Products although the same would apply to Services. And by the time I am finished hopefully you will see that there is no real difference between the two in terms of what matters most to your customers.
The Definition of a Product:
To start with in order to "understand" your Product it is first necessary to define it. Just as any scientist will tell you any subject from a newly discovered life form to a theory to explain the origin of the universe must be labeled or defined using a common language that everyone understands.
By way of example I will use a product from a now defunct company that used to produce tooling for the automotive industry. Yes this would be the same company I wrote about when describing the evolution of the PODs. For those of you not familiar with this company's product let me review. The company produced stamping dies that are used by automobile manufacturers to produce metal parts ranging from tiny brackets up to entire body panels. The dies are placed into presses ranging in size from small to massive. And flat pieces or coils of metal are fed into the press while the die opens and closes. By forming and trimming the metal in a precise manner the flat metal is "formed" into parts to be used to make cars.
For the tooling company to start to gain market share, focus improvement efforts, and generally deploy its limited resources (manpower, machines, material and money) in the best way possible, it was necessary to start by understanding its Product.
To get the ball rolling various people within the company were asked to come up with 25 Attributes to describe the company's Product. The following are examples of the Attributes that people from Sales & Marketing, Engineering, Design, Purchasing, Operations and Logistics came up with:
1) High quality
2) Tooling expertise
3) 3D design capability
4) Ability to produce any type of die (hand transfer, progressive, etc.)
5) On-site tool try-out capabilities
6) Company owned delivery trucks
7) Large and experienced workforce
8) Low Canadian dollar
9) Ability to respond quickly to engineering changes
10) Best in class tool packaging and distribution capabilities
11) Ability to produce prototype parts
12) Ability to product Checking Fixtures
13) Large 90,000 square foot manufacturing facility
14) Knowledgeable Program Managers assigned to each project
15) Highly experienced tooling engineers.
and so on....
When the data was collected and duplicate Attributes were combined we were left with over 100 distinct descriptors that could be used to describe elements of our Product. Incidentally we added another dozen or so that no one inside the company had even thought of after speaking with our customers.
The Disconnects:
As soon as the list was distributed within the company the disconnects were immediately apparent. Most could agree with the "quality" and "experience" related Attributes. But few in the Engineering department considered the ability of the Program Managers to be a Product Attribute. And no one in the company, except those in Shipping and Receiving, considered how well we packaged the tools before sending them out on trucks to have any relevance at all.
But we were on our way towards understanding exactly what our Product was.
So what do I mean by disconnects? How can two people or groups of people possibly disagree on something as tangible as a product or a service? True marketers will know what I mean. As well as that select group of true entrepreneurs. But for the rest of us who assume that it is Marketing's role just to order brochures and organize trade shows, and who think that successful entrepreneurs just "got lucky," pay attention.
For this discussion I am going to focus on Products although the same would apply to Services. And by the time I am finished hopefully you will see that there is no real difference between the two in terms of what matters most to your customers.
The Definition of a Product:
To start with in order to "understand" your Product it is first necessary to define it. Just as any scientist will tell you any subject from a newly discovered life form to a theory to explain the origin of the universe must be labeled or defined using a common language that everyone understands.
By way of example I will use a product from a now defunct company that used to produce tooling for the automotive industry. Yes this would be the same company I wrote about when describing the evolution of the PODs. For those of you not familiar with this company's product let me review. The company produced stamping dies that are used by automobile manufacturers to produce metal parts ranging from tiny brackets up to entire body panels. The dies are placed into presses ranging in size from small to massive. And flat pieces or coils of metal are fed into the press while the die opens and closes. By forming and trimming the metal in a precise manner the flat metal is "formed" into parts to be used to make cars.
For the tooling company to start to gain market share, focus improvement efforts, and generally deploy its limited resources (manpower, machines, material and money) in the best way possible, it was necessary to start by understanding its Product.
To get the ball rolling various people within the company were asked to come up with 25 Attributes to describe the company's Product. The following are examples of the Attributes that people from Sales & Marketing, Engineering, Design, Purchasing, Operations and Logistics came up with:
1) High quality
2) Tooling expertise
3) 3D design capability
4) Ability to produce any type of die (hand transfer, progressive, etc.)
5) On-site tool try-out capabilities
6) Company owned delivery trucks
7) Large and experienced workforce
8) Low Canadian dollar
9) Ability to respond quickly to engineering changes
10) Best in class tool packaging and distribution capabilities
11) Ability to produce prototype parts
12) Ability to product Checking Fixtures
13) Large 90,000 square foot manufacturing facility
14) Knowledgeable Program Managers assigned to each project
15) Highly experienced tooling engineers.
and so on....
When the data was collected and duplicate Attributes were combined we were left with over 100 distinct descriptors that could be used to describe elements of our Product. Incidentally we added another dozen or so that no one inside the company had even thought of after speaking with our customers.
The Disconnects:
As soon as the list was distributed within the company the disconnects were immediately apparent. Most could agree with the "quality" and "experience" related Attributes. But few in the Engineering department considered the ability of the Program Managers to be a Product Attribute. And no one in the company, except those in Shipping and Receiving, considered how well we packaged the tools before sending them out on trucks to have any relevance at all.
But we were on our way towards understanding exactly what our Product was.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Micromanagement is a good thing. And your good employees deserve it!
As a manager or supervisor have you ever heard or said any of the following?:
"He's my best employee because he never bothers me with anything. He just does his job."
"She's the best employee I have because I never have to talk to her about anything. She just knows what needs to get done."
"I don't know how he does it. But I wish everyone could work the system like he does."
"I'm not really sure what she does. But it must be right because I never hear any complaints."
Sadly this is how many managers feel, especially in "office" or so-called "professional" environments. And as a result it is not uncommon for our firm to see productivity levels range anywhere from 20% down to 10% or less. And believe it or not the more "professional" the staff, the lower the productivity.
How can this be?
We believe the answer lies with the notion shared by many managers that "professional" or "office" people don't need to be "micromanaged." For some reason it is considered perfectly acceptable to tell a worker on an assembly line that they need to produce "x" units per hour. But when it comes to how long it shoud take to create a Purchase Requisition - anything goes.
Before I go any further talking about the office example let's examine what happens in a factory when a supervisor sets a target for an employee of 10 units per hour. Let's suppose the conversation would go something like this...
Supervisor: "Hi Mary, I just want to make sure you have a copy of today's schedule."
Mary: "I sure do. It's right here posted on my board."
Supervisor: "That's great. Do you have everything you need to complete 10 units per hour like it says?"
Mary: "I think so. But I'm going to run out of labels in a couple of hours so you might want to send some over. No rush."
Supervisor: "No problem. I'll take care of it. See you in a couple of hours."
Sounds simple enough. Not too many people would complain about the fact that the employee is being micromanaged. But consider carefully what happened. Or more importantly what didn't happen.
First of all the supervisor confirmed that his employee knew exactly what she needed to do. It wasn't left up to chance or her own "judgment" what hat to get done. She didn't come in and start prioritizing her day on her own with no guidance from management. As a result the supervisor knew for sure that this particular employee was going to spend the next few hours doing exactly what the company needed her to do.
Second of all the supervisor confirmed that she knew how long it should take to do the particular tasks. Presumably at some point during the R&D stage of this product's life-cycle some very smart engineers, designers and marketers had gotten together to figure out exactly how much labour should go into each product. And no doubt some very fancy spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations had been used to ultimately get approval from Senior Management to "go to market" with this item with the promise of an acceptable return on investment for the company and its shareholders. By confirming that Mary knew exactly how long it should take her to make each unit the supervisor was confirming that the labour component for this product would meet the parameters originally used to get Senior Management approval to launch. Again, makes perfect sense.
Third of all the supervisor confirmed that Mary had everything she needed to create the 10 units per hour. And guess what, Mary informed her micromanaging boss that she was ok for a couple of hours but then she would run out of labels. "So what" you say?
So think about what would happen if this conversation had never taken place. Assuming Mary knew how to read her schedule she would have started producing units at a rate of 10 per hour. But two hours later she would have to stop because she would have run out of labels. Of course the cost of her labour would not stop, just her output.
At this point she would have to call for someone to get her more labels. Or if she was a "good employee" she would likely know where the extra labels were kept and she would go and get some for herself. Either way she would stop creating units at a rate of 10 per hour and the company would stop making the required amount of money for the units. Not because Mary was too slow. But because the process around her had failed. By finding out this information ahead of time the supervisor now has two hours to make sure that Mary gets the labels she needs before she has to stop working and go through the aggravation and frustration of finding more.
Let's take this example one step further. Let's pretend the supervisor came by Mary's work station two hours later to do some more Micromanaging. Suppose the conversation went something like this...
Supervisor: "Hi Mary. Just checking to see how you are doing. According to the schedule we talked about you should have 20 units put together by now. How did you do?"
Mary: "Hi there. Well I would have made 20 no problem but this press has started to act up. It feels like something is coming loose. As a result I only have 15 finished so far."
Supervisor: "hmmm, that's not good. We'll never finish the schedule at this rate. I'm going to get Maintenance over here to have a look at that. In the mean time why don't you switch to this afternoon's schedule. Do you have everything you need to do that?"
Mary: "Let me have a look. Yes I think I can get started on that job for a while at least if that's what you want me to do."
Supervisor: "Well it's not ideal but at least we'll keep you working while they figure out what's wrong with your press. Thanks for letting me know."
Mary: "Anytime. Thanks for your help. See you in a couple of hours."
Now let's think about what just happened, or more importantly didn't happen. First of all without having to stand next to Mary for the entire two hours the supervisor knew immediately that something had gone wrong with her process because she had been unable to meet the standard they had both agreed on at the start of her shift.
Second of all the supervisor found out about the problem just two hours into the day which left plenty of time to make adjustments to the schedule on the fly and keep Mary productive.
What did not happen was the supervisor finding out at the end of the day that the work was not completed. Even if Mary had a valid "excuse" about her equipment not working properly it would still be too late to fix anything. The result might have been a short order, missed shipment, additional overtime, upset customer or worse. But it wasn't all because the supervisor micromanaged his employee.
In this example the three key components to effective micromanaging were the following:
1) Proper standards for completing a task
2) A daily Schedule to clearly communicate what needed to be done
3) Timely follow-up by the supervisor on Schedule Attainment
Next we'll consider a similar scenario in an office environment.
"He's my best employee because he never bothers me with anything. He just does his job."
"She's the best employee I have because I never have to talk to her about anything. She just knows what needs to get done."
"I don't know how he does it. But I wish everyone could work the system like he does."
"I'm not really sure what she does. But it must be right because I never hear any complaints."
Sadly this is how many managers feel, especially in "office" or so-called "professional" environments. And as a result it is not uncommon for our firm to see productivity levels range anywhere from 20% down to 10% or less. And believe it or not the more "professional" the staff, the lower the productivity.
How can this be?
We believe the answer lies with the notion shared by many managers that "professional" or "office" people don't need to be "micromanaged." For some reason it is considered perfectly acceptable to tell a worker on an assembly line that they need to produce "x" units per hour. But when it comes to how long it shoud take to create a Purchase Requisition - anything goes.
Before I go any further talking about the office example let's examine what happens in a factory when a supervisor sets a target for an employee of 10 units per hour. Let's suppose the conversation would go something like this...
Supervisor: "Hi Mary, I just want to make sure you have a copy of today's schedule."
Mary: "I sure do. It's right here posted on my board."
Supervisor: "That's great. Do you have everything you need to complete 10 units per hour like it says?"
Mary: "I think so. But I'm going to run out of labels in a couple of hours so you might want to send some over. No rush."
Supervisor: "No problem. I'll take care of it. See you in a couple of hours."
Sounds simple enough. Not too many people would complain about the fact that the employee is being micromanaged. But consider carefully what happened. Or more importantly what didn't happen.
First of all the supervisor confirmed that his employee knew exactly what she needed to do. It wasn't left up to chance or her own "judgment" what hat to get done. She didn't come in and start prioritizing her day on her own with no guidance from management. As a result the supervisor knew for sure that this particular employee was going to spend the next few hours doing exactly what the company needed her to do.
Second of all the supervisor confirmed that she knew how long it should take to do the particular tasks. Presumably at some point during the R&D stage of this product's life-cycle some very smart engineers, designers and marketers had gotten together to figure out exactly how much labour should go into each product. And no doubt some very fancy spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations had been used to ultimately get approval from Senior Management to "go to market" with this item with the promise of an acceptable return on investment for the company and its shareholders. By confirming that Mary knew exactly how long it should take her to make each unit the supervisor was confirming that the labour component for this product would meet the parameters originally used to get Senior Management approval to launch. Again, makes perfect sense.
Third of all the supervisor confirmed that Mary had everything she needed to create the 10 units per hour. And guess what, Mary informed her micromanaging boss that she was ok for a couple of hours but then she would run out of labels. "So what" you say?
So think about what would happen if this conversation had never taken place. Assuming Mary knew how to read her schedule she would have started producing units at a rate of 10 per hour. But two hours later she would have to stop because she would have run out of labels. Of course the cost of her labour would not stop, just her output.
At this point she would have to call for someone to get her more labels. Or if she was a "good employee" she would likely know where the extra labels were kept and she would go and get some for herself. Either way she would stop creating units at a rate of 10 per hour and the company would stop making the required amount of money for the units. Not because Mary was too slow. But because the process around her had failed. By finding out this information ahead of time the supervisor now has two hours to make sure that Mary gets the labels she needs before she has to stop working and go through the aggravation and frustration of finding more.
Let's take this example one step further. Let's pretend the supervisor came by Mary's work station two hours later to do some more Micromanaging. Suppose the conversation went something like this...
Supervisor: "Hi Mary. Just checking to see how you are doing. According to the schedule we talked about you should have 20 units put together by now. How did you do?"
Mary: "Hi there. Well I would have made 20 no problem but this press has started to act up. It feels like something is coming loose. As a result I only have 15 finished so far."
Supervisor: "hmmm, that's not good. We'll never finish the schedule at this rate. I'm going to get Maintenance over here to have a look at that. In the mean time why don't you switch to this afternoon's schedule. Do you have everything you need to do that?"
Mary: "Let me have a look. Yes I think I can get started on that job for a while at least if that's what you want me to do."
Supervisor: "Well it's not ideal but at least we'll keep you working while they figure out what's wrong with your press. Thanks for letting me know."
Mary: "Anytime. Thanks for your help. See you in a couple of hours."
Now let's think about what just happened, or more importantly didn't happen. First of all without having to stand next to Mary for the entire two hours the supervisor knew immediately that something had gone wrong with her process because she had been unable to meet the standard they had both agreed on at the start of her shift.
Second of all the supervisor found out about the problem just two hours into the day which left plenty of time to make adjustments to the schedule on the fly and keep Mary productive.
What did not happen was the supervisor finding out at the end of the day that the work was not completed. Even if Mary had a valid "excuse" about her equipment not working properly it would still be too late to fix anything. The result might have been a short order, missed shipment, additional overtime, upset customer or worse. But it wasn't all because the supervisor micromanaged his employee.
In this example the three key components to effective micromanaging were the following:
1) Proper standards for completing a task
2) A daily Schedule to clearly communicate what needed to be done
3) Timely follow-up by the supervisor on Schedule Attainment
Next we'll consider a similar scenario in an office environment.
The POD - Part 6
Over the next few days the work progressed as did the method changes. The toolmaker in charge prided himself by coming up with change after change to make The POD better. One of the most significant was his idea not to mill all six sides of each block. Thinking he had come up with a way to “cheat” my new system he asked why it was necessary to machine all six sides if we didn’t have to.
Pointing out that I was not a toolmaker I asked him what he meant. He explained that in most cases the blocks were either going to be further machined in a later operations, or did not require machining because they would not be installed next to another block. Of course he only knew this because he had the designs in front of him. An apprentice working in isolation in the Machining department would have no way of figuring this out. So the Toolmaker came up with a method by which he used a simple magic marker and marked the sides of each block that required machining with an “X.” He then gave instructions to the operators not to waste time on the unmarked sides. And the Minutes/Block dropped further.
By Thursday morning the Toolmaker told me that he would be all finished by noon. While we had made big improvements over the “hour to mill and hour to drill” I was still wondering what I had missed. But trying to focus on the positive I thanked him for his help and asked if would be willing to tell the whole company at Shift Change how the trial had gone.
And that was when the next amazing thing happened.
All of a sudden the Toolmaker said “wait a minute. It usually takes five to six weeks to get all the blocks milled and drilled for a job. I’ve just managed to mill and drill all the blocks for two jobs in just three and a half days.”
And there it was. The dramatic improvement I had been looking for. At the Shift Change meeting the toolmaker went on and on explaining to the group all the wonderful things he had done in order to get all his blocks completed in less than a week. And how he was now “five weeks ahead of schedule” on his next two jobs.
This time there was no yelling. There were no cries about how it was impossible to improve out process. There was just toolmaker after toolmaker lining up to get their jobs scheduled through The POD as well.
And that’s how this 65 year old tool and die shop took its first hesitant steps on the journey of LEAN manufacturing.
Pointing out that I was not a toolmaker I asked him what he meant. He explained that in most cases the blocks were either going to be further machined in a later operations, or did not require machining because they would not be installed next to another block. Of course he only knew this because he had the designs in front of him. An apprentice working in isolation in the Machining department would have no way of figuring this out. So the Toolmaker came up with a method by which he used a simple magic marker and marked the sides of each block that required machining with an “X.” He then gave instructions to the operators not to waste time on the unmarked sides. And the Minutes/Block dropped further.
By Thursday morning the Toolmaker told me that he would be all finished by noon. While we had made big improvements over the “hour to mill and hour to drill” I was still wondering what I had missed. But trying to focus on the positive I thanked him for his help and asked if would be willing to tell the whole company at Shift Change how the trial had gone.
And that was when the next amazing thing happened.
All of a sudden the Toolmaker said “wait a minute. It usually takes five to six weeks to get all the blocks milled and drilled for a job. I’ve just managed to mill and drill all the blocks for two jobs in just three and a half days.”
And there it was. The dramatic improvement I had been looking for. At the Shift Change meeting the toolmaker went on and on explaining to the group all the wonderful things he had done in order to get all his blocks completed in less than a week. And how he was now “five weeks ahead of schedule” on his next two jobs.
This time there was no yelling. There were no cries about how it was impossible to improve out process. There was just toolmaker after toolmaker lining up to get their jobs scheduled through The POD as well.
And that’s how this 65 year old tool and die shop took its first hesitant steps on the journey of LEAN manufacturing.
The POD - Part 5
Finally we were ready to begin. On the last Friday afternoon we conducted one final check of everything – material, machines and manpower. We had schedules set up for each machine and I had designed a basic Schedule Control to allow us to measure Blocks/Hour at all steps every hour.
At precisely 7:00am on Monday morning we fired up the Vertical Mill and began to 2D machine blocks. It took the anticipated 15 minutes for the first blocks to come off the Vertical mill at which point they were stacked in front of the next two mills in the process. Half an hour in the first blocks were ready to be drilled.
And that’s when it happened. One of the two drills didn’t work.
Word quickly spread that “half the POD was shut down.” I couldn’t believe it. These two drills were specifically selected because they “were the best we had.” Unfortunately no one had bothered to try them out.
I asked my plant manager how it was possible that no one knew this drill did not work. With an “I told you this wouldn’t work” grin on his face he explained that we had “so many extra drills it didn’t make sense to waste time fixing a broken one.”
And that’s when the next amazing thing happened. My maintenance man, who had been to intimately involved in setting up The POD jumped into action. He and a helper quickly pulled the broken drill apart and diagnosed the problem. It took them just under two hours to make the necessary repairs and we were back in business. I heard more than one comment to the effect that no one had “ever seen those maintenance guys more so quickly before.”
When it came time for our 10:00 Schedule Check we found predictably that we were a little behind schedule. However the delay getting the one drill up and running was somewhat compensated by the lower than expected time required to mill each block. While there was no immediate explanation for this, I secretly suspected it was due to a lack of material handling associated with the machines being set up next to each other.
When the first blocks started to emerge milled and drilled I had a look at the Minutes per Block. Even with the equipment problems we were tracking at just under 50 minutes/block. Certainly an improvement over the “hour to mill and hour to drill.” But still not the “70% improvement” I had been promised. However the first day was generally considered to be a success and we shut things down for the night.
At precisely 7:00am on Monday morning we fired up the Vertical Mill and began to 2D machine blocks. It took the anticipated 15 minutes for the first blocks to come off the Vertical mill at which point they were stacked in front of the next two mills in the process. Half an hour in the first blocks were ready to be drilled.
And that’s when it happened. One of the two drills didn’t work.
Word quickly spread that “half the POD was shut down.” I couldn’t believe it. These two drills were specifically selected because they “were the best we had.” Unfortunately no one had bothered to try them out.
I asked my plant manager how it was possible that no one knew this drill did not work. With an “I told you this wouldn’t work” grin on his face he explained that we had “so many extra drills it didn’t make sense to waste time fixing a broken one.”
And that’s when the next amazing thing happened. My maintenance man, who had been to intimately involved in setting up The POD jumped into action. He and a helper quickly pulled the broken drill apart and diagnosed the problem. It took them just under two hours to make the necessary repairs and we were back in business. I heard more than one comment to the effect that no one had “ever seen those maintenance guys more so quickly before.”
When it came time for our 10:00 Schedule Check we found predictably that we were a little behind schedule. However the delay getting the one drill up and running was somewhat compensated by the lower than expected time required to mill each block. While there was no immediate explanation for this, I secretly suspected it was due to a lack of material handling associated with the machines being set up next to each other.
When the first blocks started to emerge milled and drilled I had a look at the Minutes per Block. Even with the equipment problems we were tracking at just under 50 minutes/block. Certainly an improvement over the “hour to mill and hour to drill.” But still not the “70% improvement” I had been promised. However the first day was generally considered to be a success and we shut things down for the night.
The POD - Part 4
With a completion day scheduled I set about deciding how best to try out the POD. I had one particular toolmaker in mind. In addition to being one of the better toolmakers, this individual also had a reputation for speaking his mind (loudly) and not being afraid to let everyone know how he thought about things. It was not unusual for me to be greeted with his shouts of “when are we going to get bolts that are actually the right size!” as I walked out on the shop floor.
I approached this individual carefully. I explained that the POD was almost complete and now I needed someone to try it out. But it couldn’t be just anyone. I needed someone who was very knowledgeable and creative enough to try something different. I added a few more blatant veiled compliments and he was hooked.
As it happened this toolmaker was scheduled to start two brand new jobs. Ordinarily this would involve standing at his work station pouring over his designs while he tried to keep track of several hundred steel blocks as they were ordered, delivered, milled and drilled. For the POD however I told him to take a more active role to make sure that we did not start the experiment until he had every block accounted for and ready to go.
Since he was collecting the blocks ahead of time he spent much more time working with the Designers and then Purchasing to make sure that everything was properly ordered and delivered. This effort in itself uncovered several major method changes in terms of how the Bills of Material were produced and components labeled. With great pride this toolmaker showed me example after example of “mistakes” he had found and fixed because he was “on top of things.”
I approached this individual carefully. I explained that the POD was almost complete and now I needed someone to try it out. But it couldn’t be just anyone. I needed someone who was very knowledgeable and creative enough to try something different. I added a few more blatant veiled compliments and he was hooked.
As it happened this toolmaker was scheduled to start two brand new jobs. Ordinarily this would involve standing at his work station pouring over his designs while he tried to keep track of several hundred steel blocks as they were ordered, delivered, milled and drilled. For the POD however I told him to take a more active role to make sure that we did not start the experiment until he had every block accounted for and ready to go.
Since he was collecting the blocks ahead of time he spent much more time working with the Designers and then Purchasing to make sure that everything was properly ordered and delivered. This effort in itself uncovered several major method changes in terms of how the Bills of Material were produced and components labeled. With great pride this toolmaker showed me example after example of “mistakes” he had found and fixed because he was “on top of things.”
The POD - Part 3
Over the course of the next three weeks my team worked together to design and then set up the POD. The obstacles they encountered would have shut me down in my tracks on the first day. But because I had Design, Toolmaking and Maintenance driving the project, not to mention the Union fully represented, every glitch was somehow quickly addressed.
While the work was going on there was a great deal of interest and skepticism on the part of the other employees. For starters we moved a vertical milling machine, two drills and two horizontal mills an average of 200 feet from their original locations. Keep in mind these machines had not been moved since being installed before anyone in the shop had been born.
I received many comments as I watched the work progress. Most of it boiled down to this: “you can put the mills and drills on the roof in you want. But it takes an hour to mill and an hour to drill a block.” But armed with my new found faith in LEAN methodology and the promise of “70% or better improvements in productivity” I pressed on.
As we were nearing the completion of the POD I noted that we were coming in nicely under our non-existent budget. The maintenance man even went so far as to pull conduit from unused equipment in other locations to safely make all the electrical connections. It was with great reluctance that they informed me that one of the machines required a special high-voltage breaker that would cost us $250. I happily signed the one and only Purchase Req for the project.
While the work was going on there was a great deal of interest and skepticism on the part of the other employees. For starters we moved a vertical milling machine, two drills and two horizontal mills an average of 200 feet from their original locations. Keep in mind these machines had not been moved since being installed before anyone in the shop had been born.
I received many comments as I watched the work progress. Most of it boiled down to this: “you can put the mills and drills on the roof in you want. But it takes an hour to mill and an hour to drill a block.” But armed with my new found faith in LEAN methodology and the promise of “70% or better improvements in productivity” I pressed on.
As we were nearing the completion of the POD I noted that we were coming in nicely under our non-existent budget. The maintenance man even went so far as to pull conduit from unused equipment in other locations to safely make all the electrical connections. It was with great reluctance that they informed me that one of the machines required a special high-voltage breaker that would cost us $250. I happily signed the one and only Purchase Req for the project.
The POD - Part 2
Back at my office I thought about what had happened and what I had learned. Obviously I needed to come up with a different approach. I thought about the handful of individuals who had come up to me afterward and thought about how I could get some traction for my vision. I knew I could never hope to start at the beginning or end of our process. Those steps were dominated by the most senior toolmakers in the company. And they were arguably the most complex and difficult tasks to do and do properly. Creating the part forming process requires years of experience. The “forming process” ultimately determines the success of the tool. This was not an area I wanted to tinker with.
Likewise the “Tool Tryout” process at the very end also required the highest level of skill and experience. It was here that the most experienced toolmakers worked their magic to ultimately tune the tool to make a quality part. It was also here that all the previous sins had to be corrected. The root causes of issues at this stage were scattered all throughout the previous process.
Instead I decided to start with the milling and drilling of the blocks. These operations were very repetitive and repeatable. I knew this mostly because they were performed by the most junior employees. And because of that one would get too upset if we made changes there.
Not being a toolmaker myself I needed to put together a team to help me create a LEAN prototype. I first chose one of the die makers who had approached me after my meeting. He was very experienced and well respected. He also happened to be the chief union steward. But most importantly for me was the fact that he was also lazy. "Lazy" in that he prided himself on getting his tools to work with the least amount of effort.
I knew I would also need help from the Design department so I next approached the most senior designer, a union steward as well who was also originally trained as a toolmaker. Like the first person this individual was very knowledgeable and had often made suggestions to me in the past on how things could be improved.
Knowing that I would need to move and set up equipment I added my maintenance man to the team who also happened to be a union steward. Like the first two he was also well respected by employees on the shop floor.
I sat them down and told them that I wanted to try out some new ideas using a small prototype in the Milling and Drilling areas. I explained my reasoning and they agreed. They were somewhat skeptical when I told them I wanted to set the prototype up in the middle of the die tryout area. But I told them we needed this to be highly visible and I wanted people to understand that we were trying something different.
To get them going I laid out the following concepts or guidelines for the design and set-up of the prototype which would soon come to be known simply as The POD.
- Flow: The new process had to focus on flowing the product as smoothly as possibly from one operation to the next.
- Visibility: As opposed to the large areas filled with mills and drills I wanted the POD to be laid out so that you could easily see the entire process as you would draw it on paper.
- Pull Scheduling: It was important that the POD would only mill and drill components that were needed by the next operation.
- Cost: There was no budget for this project. With the exception of minor maintenance items there would be no major capital expenditures.
The POD - Part 1
The company was a medium-sized tool and die shop that manufactured stamping dies for the automotive industry. The basic process to build a die is as follows:
1. Engineer the part forming process (blank, blank, form, form, trim, trim, ...etc.)
2. Design the die using 3D Computer Aided Design software (CAD)
3. Order the components from the Bill of Material (blocks of steel, cylinders, etc.)
4. Mill the blocks of steel so they are square on all sides
5. Drill bolt and dowel holes in the blocks of steel
6. Build sub-assemblies by bolting the blocks to steel plates
7. 3D machine sub-assemblies
8. Build the die by bolting sub-assemblies onto die-sets (Upper and Lower)
9. Try-out the tool in a press, adjust until it creates a “quality” part that fits the fixture
During a trade mission to Mexico I had the opportunity to visit several automotive plants where I saw first hand and for the first time just how powerful LEAN manufacturing could be. I am not talking about taking a few steps out of a process here and there. I am talking about entire organizations committed to continually driving waste out of their companies. In one case a seat manufacturer was using approximately a third of their one million square foot facility. And on the floor the proud general manager showed us the series of ever shrinking lines on the floor that marked the continuous reduction in used floor space.
At their customer's plant I next watched in amazement as nine different vehicle models rolled past me in no particular order off the same assembly line. I thought to myself “if they can get thousands of parts to line up like that and turn them into so many variations of vehicle there has to be a way we could do the same thing back home.”
When I got back from that particular trip I knew I wanted to implement LEAN manufacturing into this 75 year old job shop but I did not know where to start. I decided to use an extended Shift Change meeting to bring everyone together. When they were all seated I enthusiastically explained that I was going to read a chapter out of a book that talked about the Porsche motor company. I told them to substitute the name of our company every time they heard the name “Porsche.” I figured this was high praise indeed for a tool and die shop. And sure to win my audience over.
The chapter I read talked about how Porsche had transformed itself from a grossly inefficient organization building one-off, hand-crafted cars, into a LEAN company producing a consistent product by taking variation out of their processes. Every example they cited, from parts that never fit properly, to a complete lack of flow on the shop floor exactly matched, in my opinion, the issues we faced.
When I finished reading I looked up expectantly and asked for people’s reactions. I could not have been more wrong about my audience’s reaction. Instead of general agreement and a unanimous desire to immediately embrace a new LEAN culture, I was faced with people yelling at me about how I “obviously did not understand our process.”
“Sure,” then cried “anyone can figure out how to make the same car over and over again. That’s easy! But here” they explained “we never make the same tool twice. Every tool is a unique work of art that has never before and will never again be created.” I'm paraphrasing of course. But in other words as far as they were concerned no two manufacturing processes were ever the same for us.
Stunned and disappointed at their reaction I humbly thanked everyone for their time and feedback and adjourned the meeting. “Well that didn’t go exactly as you planned” my executive assistant joked.
But just then a strange thing happened. Amid the continued grumbling from many of the employees as they walked out, I was privately approached by a couple of individuals who told me “you know, there is a lot about that story that makes sense here.”
You Know You're LEAN When..."Minutes for Bits"
I was the COO of a medium-sized, formerly bankrupt automotive tooling manufacturer. We had recently implemented Phase II of our LEAN initiative out in the shop affectionately known as The POD. I was proud and amazed at how well the employees had done making and continuing to make improvements to our milling, drilling and sub-assembly processes.
One afternoon the Chief Union Steward, who was also the Lead Diemaker in charge of The POD walked into my office. "That's not a Purchase Req in your hand, is it?" I asked him spotting the noticeable pink piece of paper in his hand.
He quickly held it behind his back and said "let me explain first." He knew full well that the bank was counting every penny we had so approved Purchase Reqs were few and far between.
"You know that we have four drills out in the POD" he went on. "But what you probably don't know is that we only have one set of drill bits. That means whenever two people need the same drill bit one of them has to wait and that increases our Minutes per Block."
As part of our LEAN initiative the employees kept track of their productivity each day by measuring their Minutes per Block. When we had first started out improvement efforts three months earlier the quoted standard by everyone was "an hour to mill and an hour to drill." Currently the target out in the shop was 28 minutes to mill and drill each block.
The Chief Union Steward went on to explain: "we did some calculations and we think we can get that down to 25 minutes if you buy us some extra sets of drill bits."
"So you want 3 more sets?" I asked, more interested now. "And how much does a set cost?"
"Actually we want 4 new sets he explained. The set we have is pretty worn out."
"How much?" I asked again.
"Well they're $2,000 each" he said.
I flinched.
Then he quickly added "but like I said we'll reduce our target to 25 minutes per block.
I took out my calculator and punched in a few numbers. All in our labour rates were about $40 per hour or $.67 per minute. That worked out to a savings of $2 per block. And since we processed about 450 blocks a day through the POD I estimated that it would take just less than 2 weeks to pay for the new drill bits.
I looked up at him. "You say you'll drop the target to 25 minutes?"
"Absolutely" he replied.
"Because I'll have April drop it on the reports you know" I confirmed.
"Go ahead" he answered confidently.
"Ok give me the Req" I said. He handed me the form and I added my signature.
"I'll get this to Purchasing" he said smiling. He quickly left my office before I changed my mind.
After he left I was smiling too. I had no doubt he was playing it safe with his 3 minutes per block reduction. That would later be confirmed by the Daily Reports. And the $8,000 was easily small enough that no one outside the company would even notice.
But mostly I was smiling because I knew we had truly achieved LEAN when a Chief Union Steward offers to reduce a productivity target in exchange for better tools.
One afternoon the Chief Union Steward, who was also the Lead Diemaker in charge of The POD walked into my office. "That's not a Purchase Req in your hand, is it?" I asked him spotting the noticeable pink piece of paper in his hand.
He quickly held it behind his back and said "let me explain first." He knew full well that the bank was counting every penny we had so approved Purchase Reqs were few and far between.
"You know that we have four drills out in the POD" he went on. "But what you probably don't know is that we only have one set of drill bits. That means whenever two people need the same drill bit one of them has to wait and that increases our Minutes per Block."
As part of our LEAN initiative the employees kept track of their productivity each day by measuring their Minutes per Block. When we had first started out improvement efforts three months earlier the quoted standard by everyone was "an hour to mill and an hour to drill." Currently the target out in the shop was 28 minutes to mill and drill each block.
The Chief Union Steward went on to explain: "we did some calculations and we think we can get that down to 25 minutes if you buy us some extra sets of drill bits."
"So you want 3 more sets?" I asked, more interested now. "And how much does a set cost?"
"Actually we want 4 new sets he explained. The set we have is pretty worn out."
"How much?" I asked again.
"Well they're $2,000 each" he said.
I flinched.
Then he quickly added "but like I said we'll reduce our target to 25 minutes per block.
I took out my calculator and punched in a few numbers. All in our labour rates were about $40 per hour or $.67 per minute. That worked out to a savings of $2 per block. And since we processed about 450 blocks a day through the POD I estimated that it would take just less than 2 weeks to pay for the new drill bits.
I looked up at him. "You say you'll drop the target to 25 minutes?"
"Absolutely" he replied.
"Because I'll have April drop it on the reports you know" I confirmed.
"Go ahead" he answered confidently.
"Ok give me the Req" I said. He handed me the form and I added my signature.
"I'll get this to Purchasing" he said smiling. He quickly left my office before I changed my mind.
After he left I was smiling too. I had no doubt he was playing it safe with his 3 minutes per block reduction. That would later be confirmed by the Daily Reports. And the $8,000 was easily small enough that no one outside the company would even notice.
But mostly I was smiling because I knew we had truly achieved LEAN when a Chief Union Steward offers to reduce a productivity target in exchange for better tools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)