Lean Manufacturing Workshop S i W k h Series

APICS, 2003

Process Improvement and Quality in Lean Manufacturing

John Bicheno, CFPIM

APICS, 2003

Lean Manufacturing Workshop Series

Current Workshops
Introduction to Lean Manufacturing Lean Mapping 5S Process Improvement and Quality in Lean Manufacturing Lean Scheduling Standard Work Lean Teams, Lean Design, and Accounting

Authors
Sam Tomas, CFPIM, CIRM, C.P.M. John Bicheno, CFPIM Kate Mackle John S.W. Fargher Jr., Ph.D. Elizabeth A. Cudney John Bicheno, CFPIM John Bicheno, CFPIM Elizabeth A. Cudney John S.W. Fargher Jr., Ph.D. John Bicheno, CFPIM

Available through the APICS Bookstore (800) 444-2742 or (703) 354-8851 Series Consulting Editor Lynn H. Boyd, Ph.D., CPIM, Jonah Assistant Professor of Management College of Business and Public Administration University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky
APICS, 2003

He graduated with an engineering degree from the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. Thereafter, he spent 12 years in industry and local government in South Africa in the areas of project and design engineering, management services, operations research, and operations management. Bicheno joined the Department of Industrial Engineering (School of Mechanical Engineering) at the University of the Witwatersrand in 1981 and became associate professor and head in 1984. During this time he had close associations with a number of leading Just-in-Time companies in South Africa including Toyota, Nissan, Afrox, and GEC. In 1987 he became a senior lecturer in operations Toyota Nissan Afrox GEC management at the University of Buckingham, became a reader in 1990, and was dean in 1992. He has lectured to masters participants at Warwick University, Cranfield University, London Business School, Cardiff Business School, and Fachhochschule Wedel. Bichenos books have sold more than 50,000 copies. These include Implementing JIT, Cause and Effect Lean, The Lean Toolbox, The Quality 75, and Operations Management (with Brian Elliott). He has produced three videos and several lean-related games. He has also codeveloped several computer programs in JIT, MRP, and quality. Bicheno consults and trains in the areas of lean, productivity improvement and measurement, and quality in Britain, Germany, Denmark, and South Africa. He runs regular CPIM and lean training programs in Britain and Denmark and lean programs for the Manufacturing Institute Trafford Par, Manchester, England. Manchester England In 1996 and 1997 he was part of a research team led by the Department of Manufacturing Engineering at the University of Cambridge investigating the implementation of performance measurement in manufacturing. In 1997 he joined the Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff Business School and in 1999 initiated and became director of a new MSc program in lean operations at Cardiff Business School. In 2001, he helped found the Association for Manufacturing Excellence (UK). He conducted the first AME-UK event and serves on the board.
APICS, 2003

John Bi h J h Bicheno, CFPIM, is South African. CFPIM

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to the Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff Business School for its contribution to the lean manufacturing body of knowledge.

APICS, 2003

Workshop Objectives
To illustrate the symbiotic relationship
between lean and quality

T appreciate the application of some To i t th li ti f

quality techniques in a lean context. g can work together.

To appreciate how lean and six sigma

APICS, 2003

Workshop Topics

APICS, 2003

Views from the Gurus The Lean View and Kaizen Problem Solving and PDCA Types of Defect Sporadic Problems: The Seven Tools and Five Whys S di P bl Th S T l d Fi Wh Chronic Problems and Six Sigma Improvement Types Improvement Events (Blitz) Holding the Gains and Sustainability
7

Views from The Gurus

Crosby Juran Deming Kano K

APICS, 2003

Crosby

Quality is free

It is not a gift It is the basis of future profit Quality means conformance to requirements, requirements not elegance The system of quality is prevention The performance standard is zero defects The measurement of quality is the price (or cost) of nonconformance
9

The four absolutes

APICS, 2003

Cost of Quality

Appraisal costs pp

To assure outgoing and incoming quality Appraisal activities detect nonconforming items Include acceptance sampling, inspection, and final testing

Prevention costs

Prevent rework, scrap, and other failures , p, Activities include process control, preventive maintenance, most ISO 9000 activities, and training

Failure costs F il t

APICS, 2003

Internal failure: scrap, rework, rectification, retest, and lost opportunity costs External failure: warranty, returns, customer dissatisfaction, customer defection
10

Quality Costs

failure Quality Costs appraisal ti prevention prevention Before

APICS, 2003

failure appraisal

After
11

Chronic and Sporadic (Juran)

Sporadic problems often elicit firefighting responses

Defect D f t Level

But the d l i B t th underlying chronic problems remain

Time

Improvement I t to chronic problems has effects that go on and on and on

12

APICS, 2003

Chronic and Sporadic Problems

A sporadic problem is an annoying problem p p y gp occurring from time to time. Such problems tend to get attention. Firefighting results. A chronic problem recurs regularly and tends to become part of daily life. Procedures are developed to get around them. But chronic problems are a g p major source of waste and make work frustrating and less enjoyable. Attacking both types should be seen as both reducing the magnitude and the variation of the p problem.
Juran, Quality Control Handbook; and Nakajima,TPM Development Program
APICS, 2003

13

Tackling Problems
A problem arises (A deviation from standard)

Chronic

Sporadic

Harder to solve But bigger payoff Area for six sigma and DMAIC d

Easier to solve

Use 7 tools and 5 whys

Develop countermeasures. Target time to implement. Then develop new standard operating procedures. Implement visual management.
Developed from an original by Suzaki, The New Manufacturing Challenge, Free Press, 1987
APICS, 2003

14

The Deming Philosophy

Deming had two big themes waste themeswaste and variation. Waste reduction is strongly associated with lean. Variation reduction is strongly associated with six sigma. But management is responsible for about 85 percent of quality problems problems.
15

APICS, 2003

Deming on Waste and Variation

Waste can be tackled by the Deming (or Shewart) cycle. Natural variation is inherent in all p processes. It is the task of management to understand and control the causes of undue variation.
16

APICS, 2003

Five Lean Principles

Begin with the Customer! Specify what creates value from the

APICS, 2003

customers perspective Identify all steps across the whole Perfection is ongoing! value stream first the Make those actions thatunderstand l M k th ti But th t create value t first four principles. flow Only make what is pulled by the customer Just-in-Time Strive for perfection by continually perfection removing successive layers of waste i i l f t
17

The Kano Model

Must be (Basics) : characteristics or features taken for granted. (hotel: clean sheets and hot water) More is better (Performance): we are disappointed if a need is poorly met but have increasing satisfaction the better it is met. (hotel: response time for room service) Delighter: features that surprise and delight in a positive way (hotel: wine and flowers upon arrival) Reversal: features that annoy: TV in a smart restaurant

delight delighters more is better

Customer satisfaction

neutral must be

reversal Reversal

dissatisfaction
APICS, 2003

absent fulfilled presence of characteristic 18

Delighters
The possibility of creating

and

APICS, 2003

19

Delighters
The possibility of creating

and

APICS, 2003

20

Quality, Value, Cost, and Waste

Quality as value/cost

Two paths to Improvement

Value

Variable cost

Revenue Cost (waste?) ( )

APICS, 2003

Volume
21

Perfection: The Deming Cycle

PLAN (What to do for improvement)

(Implement more widely; id l standardize) ACT Hold the gains

DO

(On a trial basis; experiment)

Check (or study) (If it works, LEARN!)

APICS, 2003

22

Plan
Note the Japanese way of taking much longer over this step.

Determine customer needs Identify the concern Set objectives Set out the working plan gp A C P D Collect data and study y Seek root causes Train as necessary

APICS, 2003

23

Do

A P C D

Implement the improvement i

APICS, 2003

24

Check (and Learn)

Were the objectives met? W th bj ti t? Review root causes Confirm the results B vs. C analysis (alpha and beta risks?) After-action review Is the problem completely solved?
APICS, 2003

25

Act (and Standardize)

Identify further improvements Adopt new standards Communicate the requirements Prevent recurrence Celebrate and g congratulate

APICS, 2003

26

In God We Trust all others must bring data.

W. Edwards Deming
APICS, 2003

27

PDCA, DMAIC, and Tools

Plan Define What is the problem?
Identify Opportunities Scope the Project Analyze the Process Define Outcomes Identify Root y Causes
Benchmarking, QFD, Disruptive Tech, Hoshin, FMEA, Serv Gaps, Pareto, Importance Performance, Cost of Quality, Market Survey y y Tree Diagram, Critical Path Anal, Mapping, NGT 7 tools, DPMO, Data Presentation, Process Chain, 5 Whys, MoT, Kano 6 Honest Men Supplier Partners Men, Capability Analysis, CoQ Maps, Blueprints, SERVQUAL 5 Whys, FMEA, 7 tools, DOE, QFD, Matrix Analysis, Shainin Gap Analysis, Benchmarking, QFD, Matrix Analysis, Policy Deployment p y QFD, Affinity, Contingency, FMEA Force Field, Kaizen, Blitz Critical Path, Single Point Lessons Control Charts and SPC, 5 S Standardization, DPMO, Cusum Cost of Quality, ISO 9001:2000, Sustainability, Capability, Supplier Partnership

Measure

How are we doing? What is wrong?

Analyze

Prioritize

Do Improve Fix it

Refine Implement

Check Control Act A t

APICS, 2003

Hold the gains. Celebrate. C l b t

Measure Outcomes Acknowledge A k l d

Improvement a Toyota View

All systems display entropythey entropy they run down unless active effort is put in. in Therefore improvement effort is p necessary just to maintain current p performance.

APICS, 2003

29

Problem Solving in Lean

APICS, 2003

30

The Problem Is
When I was asked to attend a general When managers meeting the first time, I was happy to attend because I thought I could say that there were no problems in my department. And I said so when it was my turn to report. Then this general manager from Toyota looked straight into my eyes and said, Steve, y y you when you say that y do not have a problem, that is the problem.
Kiyoshi Suzaki, The New Shop Floor Suzaki Management, Free Press, p153
APICS, 2003

31

Mess Management

Resolving (clinical) Relies on past experience; qualitative opinions Most problems are so messy as to render alternative
approaches inappropriate.

Solving (research) Based on scientific approach, tools, and techniques Often resort to resolving for those parts that cannot be
quantified

Dissolving (design) Change the nature of the problem to remove it Process and people development; systems view
Russell Ackoff, The Art and Science of Mess Management

APICS, 2003

32

Go to Gemba

The actual place (gemba) The actual work center The actual thing (gembutsu) The actual facts (gemjitsu) The actual people
Dont problem solve in the office! (You cant p ( see the state of 5 S, visible management, etc.)
APICS, 2003

33

Problem Analysis: Task Analysis and Data

Go t G to gemba. Walk the area. b W lk th Draw a map. Speak with data. Collect the 6 honest men.

APICS, 2003

34

The 6 Honest Serving Men

APICS, 2003

What Why y When Who Where How

35

Problem Identification Is the Key to I K t Improvement t

5S

Standard operations

Line st Li stop

APICS, 2003

36

Defining the Problem

A problem as a deviation from standard. (Is there p (
a standard?) the effects) problem)?

Has the problem been clearly stated? (including p y ( g Is there an earlier problem (the source of the Is it measurable? A problem statement should not contain an

indication of the solution (e.g., no maintenance).

37

APICS, 2003

Total Quality

Policy Deployment Cross Quality y Department FuncFunc tional Management

5 S Shop Floor Teams 7 QTools PDCA

APICS, 2003

38

Toyota Production System

Heijunka Single Pi Si l Piece Flow Pull Takt Time Standard Work W k Demand Smoothing

JIT

Jidoka

Intelligent Machines and Lines Visual Control

Production Smoothing oduct o S oot g Heijunka H ij k

APICS, 2003

39

TPS + TQC

Policy Deployment Lean Promotion Office Demand Smoothing Value Stream JIT Jidoka OrganOrgan ization Production Smoothing

5 S Shop Floor Teams 7 QTools PDCA

APICS, 2003

40

Jidoka

A composite term meaning p g

built in quality (Standard and Davis) autonomation (Shingo) automation with a human touch (Toyota) (N.B., not to (N B automate work, but to make work and decisions easier) in-station process control (ISPC) (Ford)

Stems from Toyotas original involvement with looms in 1902 Combines

poka-yoke quality at source lit t andon
41

APICS, 2003

Shifting the Quality Emphasis

From

Suppliers

Process

Customers

To
APICS, 2003

42

Process Elements: PETS

Procedures

Equipment

Supplier Process

Customer

Training

Standards

APICS, 2003

43

Seeing the Whole

Customer survey process Marketing process Design process Engineering process Manufacturing process Supplier and supply chain process Warehousing/inventory process Distribution and demand process Sales and delivery process
APICS, 2003

44

Mapping Links
Value Stream Map
Supplier Monthly orders WEEKLY Weekly Schedule
BLANK

Forecast PRODN CONTROL Customer MRP Daily Call

Daily Schedules DAILY

PRESS

SHIP

C/T = 3 sec C/O = 15min 500 parts 1 day 2 shifts 1% scrap

C/T = 10 sec C/O = 30min 1000 parts 2 days 3 shifts 2% scrap

C/T = 2 sec C/O = nil 1 shift 0% scrap

and Quality Filter Map

APICS, 2003

LEARNING TO SEE: CURRENT STATE

FTT=21% rework ppm

scrap

Blank Press1 Press 2 Weld

QUALITY FILTER MAP

45

Lean Qualitys Big 5

Standard Operating Procedures Mutual Support Leading to Stability Consistency Low Variability

5S

TPM

Visible Management
APICS, 2003

Source Inspection
46

Three Sources of Defects

Variation Address by statistics, six sigma, SPC, DOE Complexity Address by simplification, visibility, design, Mistakes Waiting to happen: address via SOPs, 5 S Actually happened: address via successive
inspection, self-inspection, but best source inspection (poka-yoke)

especially DFM, GT, modularity, and platforms

Standard, Davis, et al. A Proven Strategy for Lean Manufacturing. Hanser Gardner Publications, 1999.
APICS, 2003

47

Lean Tools for Process Improvement

APICS, 2003

Kaizen 5S Standard operating procedures/standard work Visual management 5 whys and root cause analysis 7 wastes Quality at source Poka-yoke/mistake p y proofing g 7 tools Kaizen blitz (kaikaku) Approaches to continual improvement
48

Kaizen

I fixed the machine six times I today. Experience is the ability to recognize a problem when it occurs g over and over again.

APICS, 2003

49

Recording the Problem Sequence: Kaizen Storyboard K i St b d

Sketch Photo Fishbone Data History

APICS, 2003

Concern, Cause, Countermeasure, Who/ Status When AP

CD AP CD AP CD AP CD

50

Foundations of Lean and Quality

5S Standards and standard operating p g procedures (SOPs) Visual management

APICS, 2003

51

5 S Housekeeping
Sort, clean out Simplify, configure Sweep, clean, and check, (includes visual
sweeping)

Standardize, conform Self-discipline, custom, and practice Self discipline,

training and routine.
The basis of Japanese (and now (and, increasingly, Western) quality
APICS, 2003

52

5 S Is More than Housekeeping

Basis of safety Directly cuts waste, particularly waste of
motion

Reduces variation Basis for improvementbuilding on

reduced variation

Helps recognize further waste Changes the mindset

APICS, 2003

53

5 S HousekeepingCan Do
C Cleanup Sort A Arranging Simplify N Neatness Sweep D Discipline Standardize O Ongoing Improvement Self-discipline Self discipline
APICS, 2003

54

5 S HousekeepingCan Do
C Cleanup Sort A Arranging Simplify N Neatness Sweep D Discipline Standardize

(continued)

O Ongoing Improvement Self-discipline Self discipline

APICS, 2003

55

5 S HousekeepingCan Do
C Cleanup Sort A Arranging Simplify N Neatness Sweep D Discipline Standardize

(continued)

O Ongoing Improvement Self-discipline Self discipline

APICS, 2003

56

5 S HousekeepingCan Do
C Cleanup Sort A Arranging Simplify N Neatness Sweep D Discipline Standardize

(continued)

O Ongoing Improvement Self-discipline Self discipline

APICS, 2003

57

5 S HousekeepingCan Do
C Cleanup Sort A Arranging Simplify N Neatness Sweep D Discipline Standardize

(continued)

O Ongoing Improvement Self-discipline Self discipline

APICS, 2003

58

Root Causes: Fault T F lt Trees and Fi d Five Wh Whys

p problem

possible cause

possible cause

possible cause

possible cause

possible cause

APICS, 2003

59

Root Causes ...

For want of a nail, the shoe is lost; For For want of a shoe, the horse is lost; For want of a horse, the rider is lost; For want of a rider, the message is lost; g For want of a message, the battle is lost; For F want of a battle, the war is lost; t f b ttl th i l t For want of a war, the country is lost.
Herbert: Jacula Prudentum
APICS, 2003

60

The Seven Wastes and Quality

APICS, 2003

Overproduction: delays in detection, more rework Waiting: delays in detection, money tied up, freshness Transporting: damage a d delay a spo t g da age and de ay Inappropriate processing: failsafing not added, machines not capable Unnecessary inventory: delay, smaller batches more frequently can improve customer service Unnecessary motion: handling damage, stress at work, tiredness, quality of work life Defects: rework and scrap. scrap
61

Standards
To standardize a method is to choose out of many y methods the best one and use it. What is the best way to do a thing? It is the sum of all the good ways we have discovered up to the present. It, therefore, becomes the standard. Todays standardization is the necessary foundation y y on which tomorrows improvement will be based. If you think of standardization as the best we know today but which is to be improved tomorrow you get tomorrowyou somewhere. But if you think of standards as confining, then progress stops.
Henry Ford, Today and Tomorrow, 1926
APICS, 2003

62

StandardsAnother Quotation
In a Western company, the standard In operation is the property of management or the engineering department. In a Japanese company, it is the property of the people f doing the job. They prepare it, work to it, and are responsible for improving it Contrary to it. Taylors teaching, the Japanese combine g g g thinking and doing and thus achieve a high level of involvement and commitment.
Peter Wickens, 1995
APICS, 2003

63

Standards: Characteristics
Detail main and important steps, especially for safety and
quality

Use verb plus nounand picture for critical steps Develop with operators (from all shifts) and let them write
the SOP in their own words

Confirm or test Keep at the point of use Compare actual to standard to uncover waste or
improvement

problems; a problem is a deviation from standard

If there are no changes to SOPs, there has been no

APICS, 2003

64

Standardized Process Chart

Doing the work Doing the work
Pick labels photos from shelf Place in hopper Activate machine Place in container Check glue temp is between 130 and 150 deg C

Checking key process indicators

Responding to signals
If below 130 - flush If abo e 150 mo e above move dial up one notch

Record temp on control chart

If in control leave alone If out of control, switch off and tell supervisor

APICS, 2003

65

The Vision of Vision

APICS, 2003

Every item in the workplace must be needed y p and have a designated location when not in use. The environment is immaculate, safe, and self-cleaning. Standards are easy to identify. Abnormal conditions are easier to detect. Performance and progress are easily noticed. Zero defects are a reality!
66

 - GREEK PU?ENJE ZABRANJENO - CROATIAN VIETATO FUMARE - ITALIAN

Universal and Standardized !

APICS, 2003

67

Visual Management
There are two aspects

Process

APICS, 2003

Visible SOPs kept at gemba Easy to see controls (maximum and minimum inventory, inventory kanban status, heijunka boards, inventory footprints) Problem indicators (lights, andon) S C and precontrol boa ds SPC a d p eco t o boards Clear indicators on machines Single-point lessons Skills matrix board Company performance Kaizen storyboards G .D. Galsworth, Visual Workplace Visual Order Associate Handbook.
68

Information

Visual Management

These two aspects each have two functions:

To manage the processto hold the gains To improve the processthe foundation for improvement p

APICS, 2003

69

The Visual Factory and 5 S

5 S is NOT the visual factory The visual factory is a far wider concept and includes

APICS, 2003

5S Kanban Visible schedules SOPs Heijunka Inventory footprinting OEE graphs

Storyboards Single-point Single point lessons Information sharing Graphs on SPC p Red tags for TPM Red tags for 5 S Changeover time graphs
70

Visual Management g

3 boxes maximum 1 box minimum

APICS, 2003

71

Quality at Source: Types of Inspection

Judgment g

Compares the part to a standard Uses blueprints

Information
Focuses on feedback from a downstream operator Or worse, from an end of line inspector The less WIP the better The less delay to point of inspection, the better

Point of Use

Focuses on prevention Relies on operator judgment or SOPs May incorporate poka-yoke or SPC

APICS, 2003

72

How Many Fs ?
Finished files of financial information are the result of four years of scientific study combined with the experience of research from fifty professionals from the University of Frankfurt These files Frankfurt. will be frozen effective the first day of February.

APICS, 2003

73

Operators and Self Inspection: Conditions

Operators must know and managers ensure that know, ensure,
inspection is not a means for evaluation. Errors and mistakes are inevitable.

Juran says operators must be given

Knowledge about what they are supposed to do g y pp Knowledge about what they are actually doing A process that is capable of meeting specifications

Oakland says managers should not ask whether

operators are doing the job correctly but whether the operator and process system is capable of doing the job correctly.
74

APICS, 2003

Self-Inspection
Big advantage: immediacy Requirement: authority, knowledge, time

Maximum of 2 or 3 checks per operator

Problem: objectivity and lapses Successive inspection and where

necessary specialized inspection Not done by supervisors Only a slight loss of immediacy

But data must be accumulated

APICS, 2003

75

Poka-yoke
For six sigma perfection, standards
and SPC may not be enough but still fail due to mistakes Hence,

Y can have high process capability You h hi h bilit

100% automatic i t ti inspection t ti together th

with warning or stop
76

APICS, 2003

Poka-Yoke Methods and Examples

Control Contact
Parking height bars Armrests on seats French fry scoop Predosed medication

Warning
Staff mirrors Shop entrance bell p Trays with indentations Spellcheckers Beepers on ATMs

Fixed Value

Motion Step Airline lavatory doors

Richard Chase and Douglas Stewart, Mistake Proofing Based on Shigeo Shingo
APICS, 2003

77

Poka-Yoke Cycles
A P A P D C D

Little poka-yoke poka yoke

APICS, 2003

Immediate detection and stop g or warning Short-term prevention

Bi poka-yoke Big k k
Getting after the root cause of the problem Long-term prevention and problem solving Accumulate the evidence
78

Poka-Yoke References
Shigeo Shingo, Zero Quality Control:
Source Inspection and the Poka-yoke y , y, System, Productivity, 1983

Nikkan Kogyo (ed), Poka-Yoke,

Productivity, Productivity 1989

Web site by John Grout

http://campbell.berry.edu/faculty/jgrout/

C. Martin Hinckley, Make No Mistake!,

Productivity, 2001
APICS, 2003

79

Seven Tools of Quality

APICS, 2003

Flowcharts/maps Pareto Fishbone Run diagram Tally/histogram/measles Correlation SPC (Check sheets SOPs)
The seven tools are a set !
80

Flowcharts and Maps

Activity maps, spaghetti, logic
PROCESS CHART
receive material inspect move to machine wait for part drill store
APICS, 2003

cumulative time distance 0:00 0 m 0:40 5 m 2:15 2 15 35 m 8:00 35 m

FLOWCHART
receive part

accept t ? rework paint

8:10 36 m 9:00 48 m 5

off-page connect reference

Flowcharts and Maps

PROCESS CHART
receive material inspect move to machine wait for part drill store
APICS, 2003

(continued)

Activity maps, spaghetti, logic

cumulative time distance 0:00 0 m 0:40 5 m 2:15 2 15 35 m 8:00 35 m paint 8:10 36 m 9:00 48 m 5 off-page connect reference
82

FLOWCHART
receive part

accept t ? rework

Pareto
80/20, ABC, the vital few and trivial many the single most powerful management
concept of all time t f ll ti

Examples: p

1% of Web sites get 32% of Web traffic 5% of cars cause 85% of emission pollution Inventory, problems, innovation, customers, products

APICS, 2003

83

Pareto (continued)
80/20, ABC, the vital few and trivial many , , y the single most powerful management
concept of all time

Examples:
1 percent of Web sites get 32 percent of
APICS, 2003

Web traffic 5 percent of cars cause 85 percent of emission pollution Inventory, problems, innovation, customers, products t d t

84

Fishbone
Brainstorming Root cause CEDAC
Measures Machines Material
A Problem (from Pareto Analysis)

Mother Nature
APICS, 2003

Men / People

Method
85

Run Diagram
defect rate

problems are more common in the a.m. am

dimension

pm

am

pm

am

pm

am

pm

variation occurs within units; not over time

samples taken from batches over time

dimension

variation is batch dependent; not within units

samples taken from batches over time
APICS, 2003

86

Measles Chart
XXXXX XXX

XXX

XXXXX X X XXX XX X
APICS, 2003

MEASLES CHART Example: defects in spray bottle p y manufactured over one week

87

Tally Chart

Nick Burrs B Scratches S t h Dents Other 9

Peter

John

Simon

Claire 14 18 8 7

17

10

Other axes could be time: time vs. person, time vs. defect
APICS, 2003

88

Correlation
No Correlation Clear Correlation

defects

defects

temperature

temperature

A
defects defects

B
temperature but stratified, there appears t b a negative to be ti relationship for Machine A
89

temperature no apparent relationship l ti hi

APICS, 2003

Correlation (continued)
No Correlation Clear Correlation

defects

defects

temperature

temperature

A
defects defects

B
temperature but stratified, there appears t b a negative to be ti relationship for Machine A
90

temperature no apparent relationship l ti hi

APICS, 2003

Seven Tools: Insurance E I Example l

Flowchart Pareto on rework
incorrect amounts Fishbone assessment errors incorrect address clause missing People wrong clause time pressure name wrong adding up spell
unclear figures

interpretation

Incorrect amounts
wrong category

Identified : large number of back and forth visits l b f b k d f th i it large amount of rework throughput time 60 hrs, value adding time 12 mins g

wrong tables g

Procedures

APICS, 2003

91

Seven Tools: Insurance E I Example l

Run Diagram

(continued) ( )
Correlation Solutions
cross train staff automate some procedures flexible hours move inspection point earlier

Claims processed d

Errors

Days Day of week

peaks on Tuesdays overcapacity on 3 days per week, but average OK note variation patterns

Outcomes
60% drop in errors average process time down to 2 days

APICS, 2003

92

Chronic Problems and Six Sigma

APICS, 2003

93

Six Sigma
An objective of six sigma is to reduce variation j g and to move outputs permanently inside critical customer requirements

service output (for example loan approval time)

APICS, 2003

3.4 ppm (ultimately)

94

Six Sigma

(continued)

An objective of six sigma is to reduce variation j g and to move outputs permanently inside critical customer requirements

service output (for example loan approval time) example,

APICS, 2003

3.4 ppm (ultimately)

95

Origins
Both six sigma and lean trace roots
back to Deming Six sigma on variation and PDCA Lean on waste

Strong Juran influence

APICS, 2003

Project-by-project improvement The customer Improvement tools

96

Why Six Sigma and Lean?

APICS, 2003

Six sigma has strength in variation reduction and problem solving Lean has strength in waste reduction L h t th i t d ti and seeing the whole These are synergistic Both are necessary Dont separate the lean and six sigma g functions
97

Comparing 99% with 6

3000 misdeliveries per 300k letters 4100 crashes per 500k computer p starts 1.68 hours of dead time per week of TV broadcasts b d t

1 misdelivery

Less than 2 crashes 1.8 seconds of dead airtime

98

APICS, 2003

Recent History of Six Sigma

APICS, 2003

Developed by Alan Larson and others at Motorola during 1980s, strongly supported by CEO Bob Galvin 1987 Motorolas head of communication, George Fisher, unified several Q programs into six sigma (Fisher later took it p g g ( to Kodak) Several articles in Quality Progress early 1990s Black belt certification developed by Motorola, IBM, TI, and Kodak Adopted by Jack Welch CEO of GE in 1995 Welch, GE, AlliedSignal and Cisco adopt in 1998 Japanese (Sony, Toshiba) adopt in 1998/1999 Delphi and big three U.S. automakers adopt in 2000
99

Six Sigma: The Basis

Everything is a process Every process has variation Every process can be measured Every process can be improved and variation reduced The l Th long term target is 3.4 defects per t t ti 34d f t million opportunities (note not ppm) in customer output
100

APICS, 2003

Six Sigma: The Basis

Everything is a process

(continued)

Every process has variation Every process can be measured Every process can be improved and variation reduced The l Th long term target is 3.4 defects per t t ti 34d f t million opportunities (note not ppm) in customer output
101

APICS, 2003

Six Sigma Stages

D M A I C
APICS, 2003

Define Measure Analyze p Improve Control C t l

Scope the project Find out customer requirements i Quantify current performance. performance Try to locate the problem Identify and confirm root causes

Implement and test solutions Confirm the implementation Hold the gains.
102

PDCA, DMAIC, and Tools

Plan Define What is the problem?
Identify Opportunities Scope the Project Analyze the Process Define Outcomes Identify Root Causes Prioritize
Benchmarking, QFD, Disruptive Tech, Hoshin, FMEA, CTQ Pareto, Importance Performance, Cost of Quality, Market Survey Tree Diagram, Critical Path Anal, Mapping, NGT, SIPOC 7 tools, DPMO, Data Presentation, Process Chain, 5 Whys, 6 Honest Chain Whys Men, Gage R&R, Cost of Quality, Capability Analysis, Kano Maps, Blueprints, 5 Wh Whys, FMEA, 7 t l DOE, FMEA tools, DOE QFD, Matrix Analysis, Shainin, Gap Analysis, Benchmarking, Hypothesis Tests QFD, Matrix Analysis, Policy , y , y Deployment QFD, Affinity, Contingency, FMEA Force Field, Kaizen, Blitz Critical Path Single Point Lessons Path, Control Charts and SPC, 5 S Standardization & SOPS, Cusum Cost of Quality, ISO 9001:2000, Sustainability, Capability, Supplier Partnership

Measure M

How are H we doing? What is wrong?

Analyze

Do Improve Fix it

Refine Implement

Check Control Act

APICS, 2003

Hold the gains. Celebrate.

Measure outcomes Acknowledge

103

Lean and Six Sigma

D M A I C
APICS, 2003

Define Measure Analyze p Improve Control C t l

Kano Model Understand value (Check 5 S) Value-stream map Current state map Takt time, Amplification VA and NVA Constraints to FLOW Future State Kaizen and Blitz Many Lean tools 5 S, SOPS, Poka-yoke Poka yoke Sustainability
104

Using Six Sigma with Lean

Do not study and measure waste when y y you can remove much of it straight away

Do not spend time measuring, for example, excess transport or changeover

Build on a firm foundation. Check that 5 S and SOPs are in place and working before doing a six sigma or other study

Do not waste time measuring when there is an inherently g y poor variable foundation through poor or lax 5 S or standard operations.

APICS, 2003

If so, d these lean things first do th l thi fi t

105

Using Six Sigma with Lean

(continued)

Use lean mapping and policy

deployment first to get after the big p picture, and identify priorities before , yp using DMAIC on a project-by-project basis.

If you dont do this, you may target

valuable six sigma expertise on l bl i i ti inappropriate problems.

APICS, 2003

106

Lean and Six Sigma: A Motorola View

Workplace W k l organization

Standardized Work

Noise reduction Role for R l f six sigma i

Continuous Improvement

Defect reduction Control

JIT and Kanban

Adapted from John Lupienski, Motorola, AME Conference 2001

APICS, 2003

107

Reducing Variation by Surfacing

An alternative or supplement to reducing
and controlling variation is to surface it by, for example Jidoka Heijunka Meeting the schedule

In each case, stop and investigate

immediately. immediatel Use the fi e whys. five h s special study later on.

Address variation immediately, not as a

APICS, 2003

108

Six Sigma and Lean

Analagous to a surgeon working in a third world country. The surgeon can make acclaimed improvements one at a time. But the public health engineer works behind the scenes on larger projects that ultimately have much greater impact.
Kaufman Consulting Group White Paper, Integrating Lean and Six Sigma, 2000
APICS, 2003

109

Typical Six Sigma Organization

APICS, 2003

Steering committee/quality council (see Juran) Six sigma champion (sitewide) Project leader (master black belt) j Coach (black belt or master black belt) Team leader (black belt) belt) Team member ( T b (green b lt)
110

Typical Black Belt Program

Core Skills

Problem solving Quality tools Basic t ti ti B i statistics

Technical Skills

Nonparametric statistics Measurement systems DOE Robust design and tolerancing Reliability analysis Survey design and analysis Multivariate analysis Advanced regression Response surface analysis Time series forecasting Benchmarking
111

Interpersonal Skills

Change management Effective presentations Consulting skills g Teamwork skills Business skills Project management Coaching

APICS, 2003

Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility (Gage R&R)

Also known as measurement system analysis How well (consistent) operators are in using test equipment and whether the measurement system is effective Often involves several operators using the same p g equipment and blind testing a set of numbered parts in random order. Each part is measured three times at random intervals. A gage error of 10 percent is usually considered p acceptable Also use of SOPs for test equipment
112

APICS, 2003

Six Sigma and Lean References

Anand Sharma and Patricia Moody, The Perfect Engine,
Free Press, 2001 - chapters on Lean Sigma Leadership

Michael George, Lean Six Sigma, McGraw Hill, 2002 John Bicheno, The Quality 75: Towards Six Sigma Mikel Harry and Richard Schroeder Six Sigma: The Schroeder,
Breakthrough Strategy, ASQ Press, 2000

Performance in Service and Manufacturing, PICSIE, 2002

Motorola Web site at www.motorola.com Quality Progress magazine Forrest Breyfogle, James Cupello, Becki Meadows,
Managing Six Sigma, Wiley Interscience, 2001
APICS, 2003

113

Statistical Process Control

Measure the process not the product Common causes and special causes;
dont ti k ! d t tinker!

The last tool not the first tool, Cpk and capability Chart interpretation
APICS, 2003

114

Variation
Common cause variation

APICS, 2003

The variation a process would exhibit if g behaving at its best or stable It occurs in every process

S i l cause variation Special i ti

Results from the occurrence of sources or people external to the usual operation of the process An unusual event
115

Variation

APICS, 2003

(continued)

Common cause variation

The variation a process would exhibit if g behaving at its best or stable It occurs in every process

S i l cause variation Special i ti

Results from the occurrence of sources or people external to the usual operation of the process An unusual event
116

SPC and Limits

APICS, 2003

117

In Control

APICS, 2003

In control means that variation is occurring between the control limits. Common cause variation is at work. C i ti i t k If you are in control, dont tinker. y , In control means the process is stable. But, in control does not necessarily mean things are goodyou can have a g g y stable high level of complaints.
118

SPC: Tracing Problems

Trend
UCL

Freak
X
UCL

Shift
UCL

X X X X X X

X X
LCL

X X X X X X X X

LCL

LCL

maintenance wear dirt environment

misread data entry other people other material

machine speed other people other material

Cycle
UCL UCL

Erratic
X X
LCL

Grouping
X X
UCL

X
LCL

X X X X X

X X

X X

XX X X X X X

LCL

work pattern other people environment

careless overadjustment

th l other people new method another distribution

from John Bicheno, The Quality 75, PICSIE Books, Buckingham, 2002.
APICS, 2003

119

SPC Cautions

Delay in detection of problems Risk of error (type 1 and type 2) Frequency (risk and cost) and sample size (cost, time, confidence) Workers distanced from the quality of their product Dont understand what they are doing The means (charts) become confused with the end (p ( ) (perfection) ) Discourage continual improvement (still under control) Autocorrelation on long runs Previous parts affect present partse.g., tool wear

Standard & Davis, Running Todays Factory, , g y y, Nicholas, Competitive Manufacturing Management, pages 514-520 Ronald Blank, The SPC Troubleshooting Guide, Quality Resources, 1998
APICS, 2003

120

Improvement Types

APICS, 2003

121

Point and Flow Kaizen

Point Kaizen Localized improvements Often to sporadic problems Done by operators Often identified as low-hanging fruit as a result of
value stream value-stream mapping

Flow Kaizen Bigger picture improvements Involving more of the value stream Done by lean promotion office or six sigma black belts

working with operators ki ith t Almost invariably arising out of value-stream mapping
122

APICS, 2003

Improvement Types
Enforced Incremental (Point Kaizen) Passive

Enforced Kaizen Kaizen Events Blitz Lean Mapping Some Six Sigma Enforced/Driven

Quality Circles, Circles Suggestion Schemes Traditional Industrial Eng. Some Six Sigma

Breakthrough (Flow Kaizen)

Passive

APICS, 2003

123

Passive Breakthrough
Classic large-scale industrial large scale
engineering projects or some six g p j sigma projects failure: noninvolvement or nonconsultation

by IE or other experts success: areas of urgency plus involvement

APICS, 2003

124

Passive Incremental
Quality Circles

the cycle of failure cycle of success: muda spectacles 5 S spectacles, S, OEE, flexible manpower lines

S Suggestion Schemes ti S h

failure: delay, red tape success: every idea is valuable

APICS, 2003

125

Passive Incremental
Quality Circles

(continued)

the cycle of failure cycle of success: muda spectacles 5 S spectacles, S, OEE, flexible manpower lines

S Suggestion Schemes ti S h

failure: delay, red tape success: every idea is valuable

APICS, 2003

126

Enforced Incremental

The classic is Toyota y

response analysis line stop inventory withdrawal exposing the rocks waste checklists every improvement opens another opportunity cell rebalance according to taktwhen done by takt when operators

Organizing for enforced incremental

individual, team, process, intercompany with full-time facilitator support failure: no management follow through follow-through success; expectation
127

APICS, 2003

Enforced Incremental

The classic is Toyota y

(continued)

response analysis line stop inventory withdrawal exposing the rocks waste checklists every improvement opens another opportunity cell rebalance according to taktwhen done by takt when operators

Organizing for enforced incremental

individual, team, process, intercompany with full-time facilitator support failure: no management follow through success; expectation
128

APICS, 2003

Enforced Breakthrough
Value-stream mapping Value stream (See the Lean Mapping Workshop,
session 2, in this Lean Manufacturing Workshop Series.)

APICS, 2003

129

Breakthrough Flow Kaizen

Kaizen Events or Blitz 5-day event typical a self-fulfilling expectation; no barriers 30% to 50% improvement you can do it again (and again)

change the emphasis when the mix changes

APICS, 2003

Failure: No management involvement, expectations; no standardization Success: Careful preparation mixed teams preparation, teams, follow up; part of a wider lean program
130

Kaizen Blitz
Whether you believe you can, or Whether can whether you believe you cant, youre absolutely right. b l t l i ht
Henry Ford

APICS, 2003

131

Characteristics
Immediate action

not ponderous analysis, reporting, etc.

Improvement, not perfection Trial and error

just do it

Team based
APICS, 2003

132

Steps in a Breakthrough Event (1) Identify the area

possibly with mapping

Id tif the focus of the event Identify th f f th t Establish the event pattern

5 days, 3 days, 1-2-2 days, etc.

G i management support and Gain t t d

commitment i l di involvement including i l t
133

APICS, 2003

Steps in a Breakthrough Event (2) Select the team

must include operators, supervisors, managers, outsiders

Establish the takt time

APICS, 2003

available time / average demand

Preparation
BOMs, costs, schedule, staffing, shifts maintenance standby
134

Steps in a Breakthrough Event (3) Awareness and training

waste, flow, takt time, CQDT clarifying objectives

Establish block diagram Establish subteams

APICS, 2003

layout, inventory layout inventory, process

Mapping and data collection

measures
135

Steps in a Breakthrough Event

(continued)

Awareness and training

waste, flow, takt time, CQDT clarifying objectives

Establish block diagram Establish subteams

APICS, 2003

layout, inventory layout inventory, process

Mapping and data collection

measures
136

Steps in a Breakthrough Event (4)

Initial analysis and brainstorming Initial changes and testing Further changes and measures Standardization Follow up holding the gains
137

APICS, 2003

Performance Measurements

Start Lead time Flow length Inventory Space Defect rate

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Day 5

APICS, 2003

Blitz: Watch out for.

The paintball effect (You may get there eventually but how much wasted effort?)
Standard and Davis

APICS, 2003

139

Improvement: Conclusions

Each approach can be effective They can be made to work together No one formulaso find the way that works!

APICS, 2003

140

Blitz Events in the U.S. and U.K.

APICS, 2003

Widespread in automotive and aerospace with others following Focused over a short period Applying simple tools, (5 S, 7W, SOP, pp y g p ( visual. man.) rigorously Getting people who perform the process to improve the process Sustainability h b S t i bilit has become a major issue j i
141

Industry Forum Model for Blitz

Industry Forum (IF) is a group set up by the U.K. Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and various Automotive OEMs The IF has developed a model for blitz Comprises 1 d prediagnostic (objectives) 1-day di ti ( bj ti ) 3-day diagnostic (analyze, map, identify) 5-day event itself 5 day Three 1-day follow up events over 3 months
142

APICS, 2003

Sustainability Model

120 Typical % impr rovement . t 100 80 60 40 20 0

0

Workshop

Follow up

Post follow up
Class A Class B Class C

Workshop phase

Class D Cl Class E

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

days
D Developed b Ni l B t l d by Nicola Bateman
APICS, 2003

143

Class A and B Enablers

APICS, 2003

A formal way of documenting ideas from the y g shop floor Operators make decisions in a team about the p way they work Time is dedicated to maintaining 5 S standard g every day Measurements to monitor the improvements p Cell leaders and immediate managers to stay p focused on improvement activities
Research by Nicola Bateman
144

Class A Enablers

APICS, 2003

Method changes formally introduced g y Formal hands-on training by those involved in the
improvement

Direction given on improvement For example, mapping, target changeover time An improvement or kaizen coordinator Senior manager involvement Senior managers retain focus on improvement Built into review and assessment agendas
145

Time Spent on Successful Blitz Events

40%

40%

20%

Preparation The event itself Follow-up Follow up

APICS, 2003

146

Workshop Topics Review

APICS, 2003

Views from the Gurus The Lean View and Kaizen Problem Solving and PDCA Types of Defect Sporadic Problems: The Seven Tools and Five Whys S di P bl Th S T l d Fi Wh Chronic Problems and Six Sigma Improvement Types Improvement Events (Blitz) Holding the Gains and Sustainability
147

Workshop Objectives Review

To illustrate the symbiotic relationship
between lean and quality

T appreciate the application of some To i t th li ti f

quality techniques in a lean context. g can work together.

To appreciate how lean and six sigma

APICS, 2003

148

Questions?

Take home some answers!

APICS, 2003

149

References

APICS, 2003

Ackoff, Russell. The Art and Science of Mess Management. Bateman, Nicola. Sustainability. Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Cardiff Business School, Wales, April 2001 (Available from the Web site on the next page). Bicheno, John. Th Q lit 75. PICSIE B k 2002 Bi h J h The Quality 75 Books, 2002. Blank, Ronald. The SPC Troubleshooting Guide. Productivity Inc., 1998. Choi, Thomas. The Successes and Failures of Implementing Continuous Improvement Programs, in Jeff Liker (ed), Becoming Lean. Productivity Press, Portland, 1998. Finlow-Bates T. The Root Cause Myth, TQM Magazine, Volume 10 Number 1, 1998, pp10-15. 1 1998 pp10-15 Ford, Henry. Today and Tomorrow. Productivity Press, 1988. Galsworth, Gwendolyn D. Visual Workplace Visual Order Associate Handbook. Handbook Quality Methods International, Incorporated, 2003. International Incorporated 2003 Hinckley, Martin C. Make No Mistake!, Productivity, 2001.
150

References

(continued)

Hirano, Hiroyuki. 5 Pillars of the Visual Workplace. Productivity Press, Portland, 1995 P tl d 1995. Juran, Joseph. Quality Control Handbook. McGraw Hill Text, 1988. Kaufman Consulting Group White Paper. Integrating Lean and Six g p p g g Sigma. 2000. Kogyo, Nikkan (editor). Poka-Yoke. Productivity, 1989. Laraia, A Moody P Laraia A., Moody, P., and Hall, R. The Kaizen Blitz John Wiley 1999 Hall R Blitz. Wiley, 1999. Lean Enterprise Research Centre (LERC) www.cf.ac.uk/uwc/carbs/lerc. Nakajima, Seiichi. TPM Development Program. Productivity Press. 1989. 1989 Nicholas, John M. Competitive Manufacturing Management. McGrawHill College, 1998. Rother and Shook. Learning to See. Lean Enterprises Institute, 1999. Rother and Shook. Value Stream Mapping. Lean Enterprises Inst. 2002. 151

APICS, 2003

References

(continued)

Shingo, Shigeo. Zero Quality Control. Productivity, 1985. Standard, Charles and Davis, Dale. Running Todays Factory. Hanser Gardner Publications, 1999. Suzaki, Kiyoshi. The New Manufacturing Challenge. Free Press, 1987. Suzaki, Kiyoshi. The New Shop Floor Management: Empowering People for Continuous Improvement Free Press 1993 Improvement. Press, 1993. Womack, James P. et al. Seeing the Whole. Lean Enterprises Inst Inc., 2002.

APICS, 2003

152

Additional References

APICS (800) 444-APICS (2742) or (703) 354-8851 444 APICS 354 8851 APICS Online Bookstore. www.apics.org/Bookstore/default.htm www apics org/Bookstore/default htm APICS International Conference and Exposition Other Web Sites:
John Grout http://campbell.berry.edu/faculty/jgrout/ Motorola http://www.motorola.com

APICS, 2003

153

The end. Thank you! y

APICS, 2003

154