In any TPM implementation there are key questions that need to be asked and answered. There are no right answers—they’re all “how?” questions—but if the answer to any one of them is “We are not going to do this,” then the effectiveness of your TPM implementation is in serious doubt.

What makes an exemplary leader? Certainly the answer might be that “it depends” on the situation.  That said, one of the key characteristics we trace among excellent leaders is an exceptional ability and inclination to embrace both the social and technical facets of organizations and processes. Hands down, one of the top leaders we know who exemplifies those attributes is Raymond Floyd, who was inducted into the 2011 Industry Week Manufacturing Hall of Fame last month.

Currently a senior vice president at Suncor Energy in Calgary, Alberta, Ray spent 24 years with Exxon, led six different businesses there, and was an early adopter of lean practices.  As a testament to his leadership, the outstanding performance of his operations earned his plants multiple public awards including the Industry Week America’s Best Plant award (two-time winner) as well as the Shingo Prize for Operational Excellence.  Ray is also an outstanding teacher who has shared his keen insight over the years at Productivity events.  And he’s shared his knowledge and experience with wider audiences as well, through two books published by Productivity Press—A Culture of Rapid Improvement and Liquid Lean.  (Note: Ray also recently added to his growing list of distinctions the Shingo Research Prize for Liquid Lean.)

Underlying his mastery applying lean techniques is Ray’s deep, demonstrated understanding of cultural issues and their impact on performance. In this area, Ray is one of a small and truly exceptional group of leaders.  His pioneering human diversity initiatives in the late 1980s demonstrated that engaging diversity is a key to fostering leadership at many levels and creating a high-performing organizational culture.  His work served as the cornerstone for many later efforts to include different cultural heritages in the workplace community.

Our heartfelt congratulations to Raymond Floyd on his well-deserved induction into the Hall of Fame. It has been a privilege working with him for more than ten years.  We urge you to learn more from his experience and the example he’s set by reading his books and taking advantage of opportunities to hear him speak.

The Six Sigma discipline teaches us to ask if the symptoms are indeed symptoms of any change, or just normal variation. The first question we ask is not ‘what is happening?’ but ‘has anything happened?’. One reason fixes fail is that there wasn’t anything to fix in the first place – it was just the natural variation of the process.

The only way we can know if something has happened in a process is if we understand the normal variation of the process, usually by control charting key variables. Once we know that a process is in control, we can then identify if it is changing; otherwise we may just be responding to noise in the system.

It is perfectly possible for a process to be in control but intermittently fail to meet customer requirements.

Reacting to that failure by performing root cause analysis is beside the point – we know that the process isn’t capable of meeting customer demand all the time, so we should improve the process to make it capable rather than treat individual failures as special causes which require root cause analysis.

Irrationality (or madness) is often defined as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Process control tells us that irrationality is reacting to normal variation as if it were a different result. There are two reasons fixes might fail; one is that you have only fixed the symptoms not the root cause, but often the reason might be that there was nothing to fix – you were just reacting to natural variation.

Dr Shingo’s reply was that when he was at school the number 15 had two digits – he was talking about single digit minutes – 9 minutes 59 seconds or less. He ended his lecture with “you must do better!”

In subsequent work teaching SMED I have always told this story, but also implied that Shingo was perhaps wrong to berate me – that the cost of taking a further six minutes off a changeover that had already been reduced by 75% could not perhaps have been cost justified – 15 minutes could have been the optimum. In fact I tended to say that the first 50% reduction is free, being mainly organisational changes, the next 25% is inexpensive, being mainly small equipment modifications but the final 20% can be expensive, necessitating major tooling changes (Shingo believed that only 5% of most changeovers comprised essential internal work which required production to be shut down).

The basic cost benefit equation is easy, although it does assume there is sufficient demand to soak up the extra production capacity. You just take the machine hours saved on changeover, convert them to sales value less cost of material and you have the extra gross margin delivered by the improvement. You can then work out how long it would take to pay back the required changes to tooling etc.

Sometimes however we are just producing not more, but a greater variety of products. We might use the same number of machine hours but produce 5 different lots instead of one. So instead of producing in weekly batches we can produce in daily batches and service the same customer demand with lower stocks – effectively we are producing every part every day instead of every part every week (the EPE interval). What is reducing here is not COGS (cost of goods sold) but Inventory Carrying Cost (ICC). Inventory carrying cost is notoriously hard to quantify, but the chances are that you are underestimating it.

A consensus estimate would be that the cost of carrying inventory is about 22% of the value of the material per annum. This is just the financial cost, before we start thinking about the physical costs of storage i.e. warehousing. But theoretically we could still come up with a cost benefit equation even if we were just increasing flexibility rather than producing more end product.

More than 20 years on from when I first met Shingo, who died in 1990, I think he may have had a point in not allowing me to be happy with a 75% changeover reduction. Just as the point of One Piece Flow is not to make batches of one, rather that any number is divisible by one, so we can make a batch of however many the customer wants, so the point of SMED may not be to search for the optimum balance between production and changeover time, but to continually challenge our assumptions of what is possible, thus increasing our options to respond to changes in the market for our products.

In TPM we target Zero Losses, in Lean we target Zero Waste and in Six Sigma we target Zero Defects – although Six Sigma is perhaps the only one of the three which allows a non zero target – 3.4 defects per million! I think of these zero targets as goals to be approached without limit – we don’t assume in our budgets that we will achieve them, but without a zero target we put a limit to our potential for improvement.

Perhaps this is what Dr Shingo was trying to tell me – 75% is a good try, but it is not perfect and we should always be striving for perfection, rather than striving to justify why our current level of improvement is good enough: “You must do better!”

Malcolm Jones
Productivity Europe

What the current vogue for VSM reminds me of most of all is that the originators of Lean theory (not the originators of the original practices) are by background economists.  Now there is nothing wrong in being an economist or indeed in being an economist studying and writing about manufacturing, but it is just one perspective among many.  Much interesting (and Nobel Prizewinning) work is being done in the field of behavioural economics, which acknowledges that people do not behave as economically rational actors, which brings us back to the problem with the economic perspective on organisational change.

One way of looking at this is to say there are two types of complexity – technical complexity and social or organisational complexity.  Daniel Kim and his colleagues in the systems faculty at MIT have written at length about this, but briefly put, technical complexity is about the number of items and connections in a system (stocks and flows).  If we can identify all the stocks and flows we can build a systems dynamics model which will predict the outcome of changes in the system.  Economic forecasting models tend to be this sort of model.  Social or Organisational Complexity is rather different, and depends on the number of individuals and groups of individuals involved in the system, all of whom may have different ideas, perspectives and experiences which effect how they act within the system, or ‘mess’ as Russell Ackoff describes it.

Organisations combine these two kinds of complexity in what are in a related discipline called socio-technical systems.  So back to my concern with VSM – that it only really deals with the technical complexity of manufacturing operations, not the socio-technical mess.  The biggest challenge is not in mapping the waste and defining an optimum future state, the biggest challenge is implementation which involves gaining everyone’s commitment to enacting the future state.

British systems engineer Peter Checkland had a similar issue when working with complex systems in the 1970’s.  Checkland’s approach is called Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to distinguish it from ‘harder’ Systems Dynamics Modelling approaches.  SSM uses a seven step process to move through systems redesign to implementation.  In SSM we start with a complex organisational problem and in step 2 try to describe the problem from a number of perspectives (a ‘rich picture’).  We then extract and define our system of interest, which can be thought of as our Current State VSM, an abstract description of the essential features of the system.

In step 4 we develop an idealised version of how we would like that system to work – our Future State VSM.  What SSM then does is tell us to compare this idealised future state with our rich picture which we developed in step 2 and work with all stakeholders to develop desirable and practical changes we can make to the current system.  Step 5 – the comparison and Step 6 – desirable and feasible changes are the mechanism whereby we generate that commitment to the changes which we are seeking.  Some of the changes suggested by the theoretical Future State Map may not turn out to be practical when discussed with stakeholders – some may not even be desirable from other points of view, but only by engaging with all the stakeholders in steps 5 and 6 can we find this out.

Step 7 is implementation.  Some critics have argued that SSM is light on advice for implementation, but the thought is that the work we have done in steps 5 and 6 paves the way for a much smoother implementation.  In Appreciative Enquiry these are the steps of Envisioning What Might Be, Dialoguing What Should Be and Innovating What Will Be.  The problem with the VSM process is that it takes us straight from ‘what might be’ (Future State) to ‘what will be’ without necessarily dialoguing ‘what should be’.

So the advice is not to abandon your Value Stream Maps, but to use them not as an engineering blueprint, but as a dialogue tool to engage people in a discussion of what should be.

Malcolm Jones
Productivity Europe

Malcolm Jones of
Productivity UK talks about the difference between Operator and Autonomous Maintenance in the June/July issue of Uptime Magazine by Reliabilityweb.   You can check it out HERE.

Green TPM, as it is called, is “looking at day-to-day activities and processes, and their impact not only on health and safety, but more specifically, on the environment,” says Ellis New, consultant with Productivity, Inc.

He adds, “Think about a dirty motor and how that can impact reliability. We don’t think about how that same motor can have an impact on the environment. It pulls more amperage; the carbon footprint is going to be impacted because of that. The kilowatt usage per hour is going to be impacted. The environment itself is going to be impacted.”

New recalls a manufacturing client whose processes involved using significant amounts of compressed air. The company had three main plant compressors, and “the biggest complaint was they never had enough air pressure, and they needed another compressor.”

But New noted that “compressed air is, in some cases, the number one cost of energy. We always hark on fixing compressed-air line leaks, not just from the standpoint of reliability, but from an environmental standpoint.” The company took that to heart, he said, and after an intensive effort to fix all leaks, air pressure had improved so much that the company was able to shut down one of the compressors and run another only intermittently. Equally important, the effort achieved a 25 percent reduction in the company’s electric bill.

The specific techniques used to implement Green TPM, New notes, are not all that different from implementing TPM without that focus.  The shift in focus will impact what initiatives are undertaken and when focusing efforts on the environment, additional metrics may be involved.  For example, in addition to metrics like uptime or incident rate, Green TPM might also focus on waste disposal or kilowatt-per-hour usage, he observes.

While the environment has gained increased attention and focus in recent years, looking at TPM in environmental terms is “still more the exception than the rule,” New says.

“The topic wasn’t even talked about 10 years ago. Today, there are more questions being asked.  The community affairs manager and the director are talking about carbon footprint and environmental impact. But those discussions aren’t always working their way down to actions on the shop floor.”

He adds, “The guys on my TPM team at Productivity, we bring it up more within our client base than our clients bring it up. At the end of the engagement, we leave them nodding their head and grinning – because they not only achieved an increase in their reliability, but a decrease in their carbon footprint and their costs.  It is not uncommon for them to tell us ‘we got more out of this than we thought we would.’

To achieve those types of benefits, New suggests looking at different ways a problem such as a leak can affect your business (and the metrics that measure those affects). These might include:

• Lost capacity
• Unplanned downtime
• Handling and disposal costs
• Additional energy needs and costs (which, in some states, may include fines)

He also notes that these kinds of problems can create health and safety issues, such as slips, trips and/or falls. These can be measured in lost time, injuries and even fatalities.

“We’ve been by default focused on the environment. It’s just now becoming one of the right things to do and say,” New comments. “When the primary focus of TPM is the environment, reliability, uptime, all those things are impacted in a positive way, and vice versa. They definitely go hand-in-hand. It’s just a matter of a slight shift in focus to broaden the impact you have.”

To learn more about how your TPM efforts can focus on both the environment and equipment reliability, contact us at (203) 225-0451 or lean@productivityinc.com.

This is Part Two of our series on the Gemba Walk

In Part One of our Gemba Walk series we presented a simple Gemba Walk format and suggested that you select a theme for each Gemba Walk period.  We recommended you select a monthly theme that aligns with a defined key improvement initiative.

This month’s theme is Environmental and Energy Conservation.  Let’s get started…

1) First, consult with your local EH&S representative, share your intentions, and get them on the Gemba Walk team.  Who else is on the team?  That’s your call.  But make certain you have a good cross-functional make-up to include that one person that will make things happen (and at your plant you know who that is)!

2) Next, develop learning objectives and questions to ask of the team.  For example, a learning object might be: “How becoming environmentally-friendly adds value to the customer.”  Simple enough.  A question to the team might be: “Name the Lean seven deadly wastes and list the environmental, chemical, and energy impacts associated with each waste.”  As you can see, the possibilities are endless and the learning’s a value add!

3) It’s time to select a Gemba Walk route/area; for example, next month we will focus on the high-impact production processes.  Here is a good question for the Gemba Team: “What are the top ten most common high-impact production processes?”  What are those processes we will focus on in our plant?

4) So then, with a defined route/area, what are some points-of-reference?  What are we going to be on the lookout for?  What questions should we consider?

• Are machines left running when not in operation? Why?
• Do we use energy efficient motors, pumps, etc.?  Why not?
• Are motors, pumps, etc. sized to their use?
• Are there air leaks in the compressed air system?
• Is lighting focused where needed?
• Are process heating temperatures maintained at standard work?
• Oil leaks, fluid leaks?

Here, too, the possibilities are endless.  Start with the fundamentals.

Remember, the Gemba Walk is all about going into the workplace.  Pick a theme.  Make the Gemba Walk work for you!  It’s much more than an audit, the Gemba Walk is about learning!

To learn how you can make additional progress with your Lean efforts, visit our website for other Lean audit ideas.

This is the second in a series of Gemba Walk themes we will share with you.  Future themes will focus on ergonomics, equipment, the office and support services, quality, outdoors and around the perimeter of the plant, and standard work.  We’ll also be addressing issues like team make-up and Gemba Walk action items.

And for information on how we can help you improve your Gemba Walk, contact Lisa Provenzano, (203) 225-0451 x14, lprovenzano@productivityinc.com.

Neil Clayton faces a challenge: how to help revitalize lean and help introduce total productive maintenance (TPM) into a mature manufacturing operation.

Clayton is the Quality Manager at Aurora Casket Company, and after learning about and implementing lean processes and TPM at his previous employer, he is confident that the lean and TPM journey at Aurora will be successful.  But he recognizes that in this type of situation, transformation is a slow, long-term process that can only be achieved through the right approach.

He previously worked in the auto industry, and Clayton says going from cars to caskets is actually not a big leap. At its plant in Aurora, Indiana, the company makes metal caskets, which “is not that much different from making a car, except we have no power train,” he explains. “We have stamping operations, welding operations, robotic buffing, material handling robots. We’ve got automatic welders, paint systems, a variety of conveyors, ovens, washers, pumps.”

Metal caskets account for about 70 percent of Aurora’s business. Wood and cloth covered caskets, the remaining 30 percent, are made at plants in Tennessee and Canada. “The wood manufacturing is very similar to the furniture industry,” Clayton says. “We process wood from rough mill lumber thru finish operations.”

Top managers at Aurora hired Clayton early 2009 recognizing his ability to support the APS (Aurora Production System) program.

“It’s a competitive environment,” Clayton explains. “We are beginning to see imports in the casket industry. Our margins are contracting. We’ve really got to polish our processes and ensure our equipment is functioning properly at all times, so we’re draining the lake of the waste. We must have TPM and predictable processes to do that.”

So how does one rejuvenate lean and introduce TPM in a mature company? One key is to help employees gain an understanding of the fundamental principles. This fall, Aurora sent its maintenance manager to obtain certification in TPM, an action that Clayton says indicates top management’s commitment to the effort.  Aurora’s focus on lean training for all levels is a cornerstone to APS.

“Equally important”, Clayton comments, “we must have employees that are part of functional, effective teams. They have to know and trust we will support them, and that we’re here to help them.”

Gathering data to measure performance is critical. “Although we have extensive shop floor data collection, certain data is not readily available,” Clayton describes.  “It can be labor-intensive to accumulate that data.  For example, recently we began measuring variation coming off the deep drawing operations, which we previously had never done.”

The order in which tools are deployed is also significant. So far, “we’ve done a lot with visual management – lubrication, labeling what type of lube should be in different equipment, a lot of gauging, so the operator can quickly look and see if air or hydraulic pressure is where it should be,” he says.

Efforts using 5S and value stream mapping are on the agenda, followed by SMED (single minute exchange of die). “TPM will be the last one we roll out to the group, because there is a cultural distance between the maintenance group and the production group,” Clayton observes, noting that this level of maintenance has never before been a responsibility of operators in production. “We have to get some of that proven and sold to the operators on the floor before getting the maintenance team in there. There’s a lot of opportunity on the cultural side.”

For any other company launching or re-charging its lean efforts, Clayton’s advice is “get your people well-versed in the concept of TPM, the philosophy and building teams before you roll out to many tools. It’s almost like giving somebody who wants to be a mechanic all the diagnostic tools and really not telling them ‘we want to build an engine that can do 600 horsepower, and here is why we want to do it.’ It’s really getting that foundation. If you just give them the tools, you’re not going to get the results you want. The key is trying to get that team built and sustainable as quickly as possible.”

How do you start a Gemba Walk in your plant? It may seem overwhelming but it doesn’t need to be.  Don’t walk into the workplace looking for everything.  If you do, you will accomplish nothing while causing confusion. This simple list is a good place to start.  Use this list to build your own Gemba Walk theme.

1. General Housekeeping

• Workplace clutter
• Poor lighting
• Unsafe conditions
• Adequate waste removal
• Clearly marked exits, aisles, walkways, all point-of-use areas

2. High concentrations of WIP

• Up-stream and down-stream
• At point-of-use
• Damaged product
• Non-standard containers
• Old inventory tags

3. Display of information and measures

• Bulletin boards with up-to-date information
• Workplace activity boards are up-to-date

4. Equipment Appearance

• Visible maintenance records are current
• Leaks of air, oil, fluid, lubrication
• Main body clean
• Guarding in position

5. In-plant Office Space

• Well organized
• Free of clutter

This is the first in a series of Gemba Walk themes we will share with you.  Future themes will focus on ergonomics, equipment, the office and support services, quality, energy, chemical and environmental, outdoors and around the perimeter of the plant and standard work.  Do you have any ideas?  Let us know and with your approval we will include it in a future Lean Update.  Click here to email us.

And for information on how we can help you improve your Gemba Walk, contact Lisa Provenzano, (203) 225-0451, x14, lprovenzano@productivityinc.com.