Closest to the Worker

I’ve used the phrase “closest to the customer” when explaining some aspects of lean – for example, starting improvements with the process closest to the customer outcome then working backwards in the process. Lately, I’ve been using the phrase “closest to the worker” to get people to think about removing non-value-added effort from out processes.

For example:a colleague is explaining what happened in a recent “kaizen” event, where office supplies were organized in an area and colored tape was used to indicate the space for every item, such as scissors, rulers, etc. However, they were having a hard time getting people to put things back. The stapler kept being removed to a spot about 20 feet away and being left there – “The people are too lazy to put it back where it belongs.” So I asked a question: What work was being done 20 feet away that needed a stapler? Was it possible that the taped-off space was not located closest to the work, and therefore incurred transportation waste to get the stapler each time? Or, was it possible that there was a need for TWO staplers, one in each area? This question brought up the response that it would be costly to order multiple staplers just to put them everywhere they were needed! It seems to me that if an item is consistently needed in a work area, it’s least wasteful to place it there rather than in a central area.

A similar example involves printers. I know of an organizationthat, in order to save ink cartridge costs, mandated that each department (of 100 – 300 people) have one central gigantic printer; and then they removed all the desktop printers. Now, when you print, you get assigned a code that you take with you to the central printer; enter into the printer; and then it prints your copies. If you are not first in the queue, you don’t know that until you get to the printer. If others are waiting ahead of you, you have the option to wait at the printer, or go back to your station and keep checking. This may indeed save ink cartridgecosts; but what hiddenexpense is being incurred while all those people wait for their printed materials? Not to mention the transportation and motion waste!

Handpicked Content:   17th Century Change Management

Some lean work I have done involved placing printers at each person’s workstation so they don’t interrupt the flow of their work. For example, hospital registration staff who would have to get up in the middle of the registration to copy the patient’s driver’s license an insurance card; or physicians in exam rooms who would have to search out the central printer in order to get a form for a patient (such as discharge instructions, information sheets, or consent forms).

In each case, the hidden costs of waste exceed the supposed savings – the problem is, the expense hits the budget while the hidden costs do not. I think that if we had to pay a dollar for every minute of patient (customer)wait time, or non-value-added worker time, it would soon become obvious where the savings were.

When I was amanager over clerical staff, I saw our office supply costs start to rise dramatically. I was told that people couldn’t find their supplies so theywere coming to the storeroom to check out excess supplies (in order to hoard them, to be sure they always had enough). In the past, I would have mandated some strict supply-sign-out log or allowed people to sign out supplies in a limited fashion (I have seen this done elsewhere). Instead, I bought $1 plastic school supply containers with a snap-close lid. I stocked each one with basic supplies – small stapler, pencils, pens, paper clips, etc. – and gave them to each worker. I ask them to put their names on the boxes and keep them in their lockers, to use each day. And guess what – the supply expenses dropped dramatically and employee satisfaction scores went up. The principle was: place the supplies closest to the worker.

Handpicked Content:   Use the Force . . .

In some ways, this seems like a basic principle to me; but I’ve seensome cases where “lean” has been used to reduce costs as a primary driver, without regard to the hidden costs, so I was motivated to write about this topic.

How about you – can you share some examples of removing wasteful effort from the workers, or do you have a nomination for the “hall of shame?”

Comments 2

  1. cas123

    I work in a two story building. We have one fax machine- upstairs. People I deal with throughout the day want me to fax them things, or want to send me faxes. Because of the nature of my work I cannot leave the office until lunchtime or the end of the day. I have to wait for the secretary to deliver my faxes with the mail, and wait until lunchtime or the end of the day to send anything which also involves filling out a log sheet for each fax. In an effort to control excessive faxing they bog down my work and cause problems for other companies who are waiting for information. Many things can be emailed, but not all. I am not alone in my suffering as every employee who works on the lower level cannot get to the fax machine without disrupting work. Definitely a hall of shame situation.

  2. Sue Kozlowski

    AARRGH! This type of example makes me want to pull out my hair, and I’m not even the one who has to work through this "process" every day. How easy it would be to buy at $200 printer/fax/copier that could handle all this work right at the desk-side! And you point out a very important concept – "in an effort to control excessive faxing…" – perhaps someone was found using the fax to send something personal or inappropriate, so now everyone’s work has been made incredibly difficult and timeconsuming so the "abuse" WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN! Or, perhaps it’s seen as a cost control measure? The fact that this results in a tremendous amount of waste is a secondary consideration… Transportation, overprocessing, waiting, motion – all contributing to the hidden costs of this policy.

    Thanks for sharing your example. I hope that you may eventually get your leaders to "learn to see" the amazing impact of this decision.

Leave a Reply