iSixSigma

EdG

Forum Replies Created

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 295 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #174745

    EdG
    Participant

    In all probability, you have the same available time each day.  But for each of your 100 different parts; you very well may have 100 different customer demand levels.
    So, guess what.  You may have 100 different takt times.
    Ignore what was mentioned about the capacity of the machinery.  It is like Xgames said; it is all about your available time and customer demand.

    0
    #174006

    EdG
    Participant

    Chris,
    Agree with all you said, I just tried to make it super-short.
    For anyone wanting a great example, go visit a local hospital.  They are actually a great example.  Well, maybe not all of them are but there are a good many of them that offer a beautiful example.
    I know of one pharmaceutical company that leveraged many of their methods/ideas for use in their manufacturing plant.

    0
    #173968

    EdG
    Participant

    Mitchell,
    Sorry I misunderstood your question.  That was why I started out my response with, “if I understand your question correctly…”
    What you have works.  I have seen other terms used for the S’s but these work.  In short, you are trying to understand all that you have and determine what and where should everything go (somethings should just go – in the trash).  Then clean up, standardize the set-up, and keep it.
    Personally, I have seen just doing 5S result in a substantial reduction in muda and turn-around time.
    Good luck…

    0
    #173964

    EdG
    Participant

    If I understand you question correctly, “Do I have to do all of the S’s in 5S?”, the answer would be YES.
    What good is it to do DMA_C and no I? 

    0
    #173963

    EdG
    Participant

    John,
    Use 5S in the Improvement phase.  Along with things like poka-yoke, SMED, andons, heijunka, jidoka, and kanban to name a few.
    You may be begin “touching” on these in the analysis phase but you would be implementing them during the improvement phase.
    Remember that during DMA you are focusing in on the problem’s root cause(s).  But when you hit I, that is where you are putting changes into effect and many of these would “probably” be radical changes.  Especially if you are just begining.
    Good luck…

    0
    #173702

    EdG
    Participant

    Availability is the amount of time that the equipment is actually available versus the planned availability.  Planned availability may be 8 hours a day for a normal workday while Actual availability is simply the planned availability less any downtime for things like preventative maintenance, equipment breakdown, or set-up / adjustment periods.
     
    Availability Index = ( Actual Availability / Planned Availability ) x 100%.
     
    Hope that this helps.

    0
    #173649

    EdG
    Participant

    Personal opinion; I would never recommend a team member for certification, ONLY the Lead. 
     
    No reason why you cannot have someone that was the lead on the previous project be a member or advisor on the next and then use a previous member is the lead.  We did that on previous projects; for my certification project I had five GB’s (in training) support me.  Then after I certified, I was used on their certification projects as a member / advisor.  It was helpful for them and it began preparing me for future BB projects.
     
    I like your 5:1 ratio for GBs to BBs.  I had seen between three to five on many of our BB projects, but that depended upon the complexity of the project and problem.
     Good luck…

    0
    #173577

    EdG
    Participant

    SSG,
    I wouldn’t worry about “certifying someone within your company and it being recognized as valid or not by another company.”  Because…
    (1)  You are “in business” to improve YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION, not be a training ground for everyone else.
    (2)  If those that are selected for GB cert, are only interested in it if it is recognized by other companies (so that they can move on) then maybe you should reconsider your selectees.
    (3)  I know of a number of companies that look for individuals with the experience, but will still have a new hire go through their only training and certification process once inside the company.  “You were certified as a GB (or BB) with GE Engines, great!  But you will still go through our curriculum and re-certify with us now.”
    Also, we had multiply GBs work and certify on a project.  But we “broke the project into pieces” so that we had a multi-pronged approach; simultaneously attacked the problem from different issues with one lead (typically a BB) ensuring everything tied together and complimented each other (vice negating each others improvement).  Although each GB’s project was dependant upon each other, the BB kept them honest (no one along for the ride).
    Good luck…

    0
    #171479

    EdG
    Participant

    And here I thought it was a map of the local gas stations…

    0
    #169462

    EdG
    Participant

    Lean mfg is both a “journey” and “the destination” where as kaizen it a tool for that “journey”.
    An analogy might be:

    “I want to go on holiday and travel to the ultimate tourist destination.” “I want to establish my company as a lean manufacturer.”
    “I want to fly first class on my trip.” “I want to use a series of kaizen’s to lean out my plant inorder to become lean.”
    Does that help???

    0
    #164844

    EdG
    Participant

    All it is for is to take someone that is “totally clueless” and give them a clue.  What was originally intended to be a ~1 hour class has grown; I believe it is now a ~4 hour class.  Just the same, it was to give everyone an idea of what is this “continuous process improvement” stuff; and it was to briefly go over six sigma, lean, theory of constraints.  It has expanded a little and it is presently undergoing a second revision.
    Oh and no test at the end.  Other than fogging a mirror.

    0
    #164638

    EdG
    Participant

    Mr IAM,
    If you originally had 100 units in WIP and experienced a lead time of 10 days but now established your process with 80 units in WIP and an additional 20 units in your “incoming triage” the reality is you have done nothing to benefit from chaning your process.  If you look at the wait time that the 20 units in your triage experience and add that to your 8 day lead time I would expect that the total time is still 10 days.  End result: NO BENEFIT.
    If your process can operate without that “incoming triage” then your process is really operating at 8 days lead time.  Until you do, you are only fooling yourself.  Eliminate the need for that triage and gain the benefits…
    Good luck, EdG

    0
    #162169

    EdG
    Participant

    All, Take a quick look at this.  As both Ron and I were trying to explain, it hope this picture helps eliminate confusion…
    That first inventory triangle, that is your “stuff at the loading dock” awaiting their turn to be received.  The first process block, that is your Receiving Process step (with all information ONLY pertaining to the process of receiving an item).  The time-line portion below the first inventory triangle is how you will account for all of the WAITING time that the items must endure prior to actually being received.
    I hope that this helps.
    Good luck…

    0
    #162143

    EdG
    Participant

    If you refer to the “Current State Map” section of Learning to See, in the example the authors show inventory triangles between each process step and preceeding the first process step in the example.  (Look at page 33 for the final sample)
    I would recommend you use that to account for the parts awaiting “their turn for Recieving”.  In this fashion, the parts awaiting recieving are not apart of the recieving cycle time.  However the time duration for a part to make it through recieving from when it arrives “at the dock” is dependent upon the Recieving process step’s cycle time.  I.E: If recieving’s cycle time is 5 minutes and the “inventory” prior to recieving is 1,000 parts then their is 5,000 minutes of inventory (or ~3.5 days of inventory assuming continuous 24 hr operations).  Meaning that after arriving at the dock, that part will take ~3.5 days before it is actually recieved into the plant.
    Hope that this suggestion helps some.

    0
    #161755

    EdG
    Participant

    That would be a sly way of finding out who is using your materials without your consent…

    0
    #161736

    EdG
    Participant

    No doubt.  —I was ranting a little…
    With respect to recalls, the reason why is also be a factor.  Is the recall due to the failure of an automatic switch or valve that makes the A/C fail to work if the item fails, or is it due to a failure of a heating element that can cause the vehicle to catch fire.  Big difference between the two yet they both may be valid recalls…
    As for the original question, I have been watching this post for a while and I think that everyone is getting too rapped up in the tools of the trade.  Looking at the Toyota’s, Honda’s, etc; they also have an entirely different culture that they were originally dealing with that allowed their versions to thrive.  Although Toyota has had success in transplanting TPS to the western culture it has come with some challenges of its own and they have had to rethink their original precepts.  None the less, they are having continued success…

    0
    #161685

    EdG
    Participant

    Cap,
    Your point may be to “not always believe what you read or hear about Toyota” but you know, I still think I will continue to go with Toyota.  And, why?  Because inspite of your statement that they are leading in recalls, I have yet to experience any major problem with ANY Toyota’s that my family has owned (my wife and I have owned nothing but Toyotas since 1989). 
    Oh, and it wasn’t because of anything that I read that made us decide to go with Toyota.  Rather it was probably the fact that my parents went through a series of five different Dodge cars from the late 1980’s through the early 2000’s and had major issues with EVERY one of them PRIOR TO THEM REACHING 50K miles on them.  By the way, in the early 2000’s I finally convinced them to try SOMETHING else so guess what they tried… A Camry and they are now on their second one.
    So I will heed your advice on not always believeing what I read but then again…  But then again I guess I will stick with Toyota given ALL of those that we have owned have handled >200k miles and continued to run just fine.  Although I do acknowledge that there are varying levels of quality, my Corolla is no where near what my Camry was but even then.  But then it does have >170k miles on it and is still running strong, unlike my first car (a Ford Escort – and last non-Toyota that I have owned) which had to be laid to rest after just over 100k miles.
    Just the same, I do enjoy reading about Toyota, studing what they do with TPS, and speaking with Toyota folks.  It is amazing what you can take away if you just listen with an open mind…
    Have a nice weekend.

    0
    #161534

    EdG
    Participant

    Its the same “rule of thumb” I have used to anticipate when a process has stabalized after a change.  If the process operates at a takt time of 1 day, then after a kaizen I made the assumption that after 5 days the process should have stabalized by then.  It is not always perfect but it is a close guess-timate.

    0
    #161487

    EdG
    Participant

    Steve,
    You mentioned in your first paragraph that the service bill for your Lexus could have been used to buy “2 Ford clunkers.”  How many could you buy if that Lexus was a Benz or BMW equivalent?
    2X or 3X???  Okay, maybe 1.5X…
    ;->

    0
    #161233

    EdG
    Participant

    Well,
    Merriam – Webster says:
    Main Entry: 3lean
    Function: adjective
    1 a: lacking or deficient in flesh
    1 b: containing little or no fat
    2: lacking richness, sufficiency, or productiveness
    3: deficient in an essential or important quality or ingredient
     
    Personally I like #2 or #3; lacking productiveness or deficient in an important quality (i.e.: value)…

    0
    #161228

    EdG
    Participant

    The reasoning may be similar to why “five half-lives” is the rule of thumb for an isotope to radioactively decay “away”.  Although even after five half-lives there is still some material left (1/32 of the original quantity of the original element still exists), it is practically assumed to have decayed away by reaching five half-lives.
     
    It is assumed that after asking WHY five times, you will have gotten to the root cause.  Is that reality, it depends.  In one circumstance you may have gotten to the root cause after asking why only four times but in another it may have taken you longer (maybe you had to ask why seven times).
     
    Mind you, this is just a guess.

    0
    #156020

    EdG
    Participant

    Toyota is using a fairly short one.
     
    TOYOTA GLOBAL VISION 2010
     
    Innovation into the Future – A Passion to Create a Better Society

    Through “Monozukuri – manufacturing of value – added products” and “technological innovation,” Toyota is helping to create a more prosperous society.

    0
    #151922

    EdG
    Participant

    Marko,
    Depending upon who responds you may see a variety of responses.  My take,

    Kaizen is a part of Lean.
    Kaizen is a Process.  Lean is a Philosophy.
    Lean is a mirror of the Toyota Production System.  Kaizen is a part of TPS.
    “Where there is no Standard there can be no Kaizen” – Taiichi Ohno (one of the key contributors to TPS)
    Have a nice day…

    0
    #151589

    EdG
    Participant

    Additionally, a concept that Toyota used extensively to drive stability was Standard Work.
    “Where there is no Standard there can be no Kaizen” – Taiichi Ohno

    0
    #151373

    EdG
    Participant

    Oh they are soooo much better.
    And you get to pay Otto 15X’s the going rate for something simple as an oil change else no more warrantee.
    I would hate to go with something like… a LEXUS.

    0
    #151150

    EdG
    Participant

    Steven,
    The following hyperlink with take you to OPM and provides for the rules the Fed must live within.
    https://www.opm.gov/perform/reward.asp
    If you like, I can probably send you a Command specific example of a local program also.
    What contract are you on with GG?  NAVAIR or NAVSUP?  Maybe one of the other branches of service?  Just curious.

    0
    #151119

    EdG
    Participant

    Hugs & kisses
    Next question?

    0
    #151108

    EdG
    Participant

    I’d agree with your description.
    This may be what allows those companies with a very flat organizational structure, succeed.  They possess more Leaders than Managers.  —Just a crazy thought.

    0
    #151101

    EdG
    Participant

    Maybe those that work for a Leader are empowered to do what is right. 
    And those that work for a Manger???  Well, that is why we have a QA Department…

    0
    #151099

    EdG
    Participant

    Steve,
    I had a colleague in the military that put leadership vs management quite nicely.
    Management is about what your people do ONLY when you are around.  Leadership is about what they do when you are not around!  MANAGER or LEADER.  You  decide!!!
    Hope this helps.
     

    0
    #150945

    EdG
    Participant

    Offer FREE BEER.  Then when you have them in the room, lock the doors and threaten to shoot them until…
    Hey, its late. 

    0
    #150494

    EdG
    Participant

    Six Sigma Shooter,
    Come on, it is so much easier for the Monday-morning Quarterback to explain at the water cooler why yesterday’s team failed than it is to get out on that field and show everyone what they are talking to.  They just know, right?  I mean, that’s why the General Managers listen to those couch…
    Disregard…

    0
    #150033

    EdG
    Participant

    Marlon,
    Try this website out.  BTW, you need java for it to work…
    http://www.jcu.edu/math/isep/Quincunx/Quincunx.html

    0
    #149938

    EdG
    Participant

    I agree with Dave said in the other post.
    Once you pareto out your QA problems, start asking WHY.  For the number one issue, why did this occur?  And keep working towards the root cause of the issue.  You may find standard work, poke yoke, or a combo fixes this first issue.  Then go to the next one…
    Good luck.

    0
    #149904

    EdG
    Participant

    Start out value stream mapping your product families.  It will make your wastes readily apparent.  Then start attacking those.

    0
    #149900

    EdG
    Participant

    Remember, EVERYONE SERVES AS AN EXAMPLE.  Just not all of them are a good example…

    0
    #149861

    EdG
    Participant

    I offered similar advice to someone once.  Their response, “But I have a right to work here and I should not have to put up with this…”
    I shrugged my shoulders at that and replied, “You have a right to live in misery but I don’t know why you would want to…  And if you were the Chief Buger Cook you may have the capacity to make a Whopper but at McDonald’s you don’t have a right to do it and they will probably fire you for it…”

    0
    #149266

    EdG
    Participant

    Sandy,
    I like Dale’s and QualityColorado’s responses.  However, here is another that I hope doesn’t confuse things for you.
    At our facility, if you show up with a Charter you have better also have a SIPOC to go with it.  If not, then you will be asked where is your SIPOC.  As they both stated, the Charter is a living document that will evolve over the life of the project and so to may the SIPOC change a little through Define.  Maybe a little in Measure.
    Just another take on this.  Over time I am sure you will see that just about every Company has their own little take on things.  I hope you find the info useful.
    Happy Holidays…

    0
    #149241

    EdG
    Participant

    I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying.
    Might I offer a thought?  I didn’t know the man but mace what he was driving at was:  If you are running a process with specifications well beyond what your customer requires then you are potentially driving unnecessary cost into your product.  Therefore if you drop your requirements to that in line with your customer’s need then your yield will improve and you added cost would probably drop.   MAYBE???
    —Why operate a process that manufactures pencils with specifications that rival the design of a core to a nuclear power plant?  Your customers will be just as happy with a functioning 25¢ wooden pencil than a $545 wooden pencil, but more inclined to purchase the former.

    0
    #149233

    EdG
    Participant

    Isn’t that like saying, “if I continue to lower my standards then eventually I be pleased?”

    0
    #149204

    EdG
    Participant

    Lebowski,
    I have watched a number of threads discuss the 1.5 shift but I have yet to see anything that made sense.  I simply chalk it up to, “this is something that can happen over time” but it is a rule of thumb, NOT an absolute.
    Have a nice holiday…

    0
    #149197

    EdG
    Participant

    Lebowski,
    Between you and me, I don’t worry much about the shift.  Hey, SHIFT HAPPENS.  Right…
    I remember it in my training but we never went into any great depth.  It was fuzzy anyways.

    0
    #149185

    EdG
    Participant

    HO,
    You ask how much is due to the tool set vs. the work or contributions of one individual.  I would suggest that neither is the major contributor.
    Rather it is due to the PEOPLE (Sr. Mgmt down to the lowest hourly worker) and the CULTURE of the Company (an openness to change, to improvement, and TRUST one another) that is the major driver.
    Else how do we explain why the tools work in one company but not in another?
    Just my 2¢ – Have a nice day.

    0
    #149177

    EdG
    Participant

    So you are saying that NO Japanese company uses SPC or any other means of understanding how their process is performing with respect to its capability?
    Now who is being naive???

    0
    #149065

    EdG
    Participant

    You will not necessarily be able to control customer demand, but if you understand it then you staff to it and level the workload across your Agents.  This will take some analysis of what you have historically seen with respect to call load over time.
    That is the whole purpose of heijunka, Level-Loading as a means of loading your production system according to the exact needs (+ or -) of your customers. Ideally it is based on the consumption of products customers are “pulling” from your system.  Which is what you are shooting for.
    Best of luck and happy holidays.

    0
    #149052

    EdG
    Participant

    That is exactly where I was going with the standard work & error-proofing ideas.  If the all of the agents use a standardize series of questions to guide them to the information that the caller is attempting to “pull” it helps minimize time and variabiltiy between agents.  Similar to the way FAQ pages work on a lot of websites, except with a human instead of a computer on the other end…

    0
    #148984

    EdG
    Participant

    Push vs Pull may not immediately make sense but there are other aspects of Lean that would apply.

    Standard Work – standardizing how the individual callers all handle customer issues (getting the slow folks up to speed with the faster folks)
    5S – applied to the software (uncluttering the system to increase effeciency of user time)
    Poka-yoke – error proofing they system for the call screeners (decrease the chance bad information is going out to customer)
    Visual Mgmt –  within the office
    These are only the first few things that come to mind. 
    Regardless of the environment I prefer to think of things this way, “Does the change I am thinking about make it easier for everyone to tell when something abnormal has occured (or better yet is about to occur)?  If it does, then it is a step in the right direction.  If it doesn’t, then why do I want to make this change?  Because the change I am thinking about (or worse yet the one I just implemented) may not be a positive thing.”
    Happy Holidays…
    Sometimes applying this in a less than traditional sense takes an open mind, creativity, and a little bit of the Force.  Don’t tell Darth…  He’ll be hunting me down…

    0
    #148738

    EdG
    Participant

    David,
    Just out of curiousity, have you ever seen a Dilbert cartoon that did not make fun of any corporate policy, management style, or program?  I could be mistaken but I think that is how Scott Adams makes a living…

    0
    #148695

    EdG
    Participant

    QualityColorado
    I always thought of the difference between the two as:

    Leading Indicator – A Driver.  Something that I measure as I put it into the process or monitor as I am “in the process.”  Similar to driving down the highway and it is what I see out the front windshield or see on my dashboard – the speedometer or fuel tank level.
    Lagging Indicator – A Result.  Something that I measure or monitor after “all is said and done.”  Similar to looking out the review mirror of your car to see where you were or maybe the odometer on your dashboard or the red light indicating you are getting ready to stop due to no fuel.
    Too simple?  Make sense? 

    0
    #148628

    EdG
    Participant

    In speaking with the Ford guys, the focus (those metrics that mattered most to them) were COST.  Like I said, a result. 
    But for Toyota it was adhereing to thier other metrics – takt time, quality, etc.  Drivers…

    0
    #148621

    EdG
    Participant

    Maybe I am just reading too much into the two statements but what I see is…
    Ford makes the statement immediately that they are focused on creating value for their shareholders (a result) and then goes into the various drivers.  Toyota focuses on their drivers first and foremost.
    I acknowledge that ALL companies are solely in business to make a profit but it just seems atypical that Ford is focused on the results first and the drivers second while Toyota focuses on the drivers and knows the results will follow.  The cultural difference is exemplified in the answers to: 

    Which one lays-off their people and which one doesn’t?
    Which of the two has a great deal of focus on developing their personnel?
    Like I said above, I could have read too much into this but then I have worked very closely with folks from both Toyota and Ford and there is a difference in their reverence of their former employers.
    Good luck…

    0
    #148615

    EdG
    Participant

    rob_t
    Xomed had only one A3 Report for a project.  All five phases of DMAIC had their own section on the report covering essentiall what you spoke to below.  Although in the Define section there was a Problem Statement (that may be within the Background) and a Current State Process Map in the Measure section (very detailed but not to the level of a VSM).
    Sorry, but I don’t have a copy that I can offer.  It wouldn’t be something that they would allow outside of the facility anyways.  Although they offered up that this concept is easy to copy – just put in the key information to help “tell the story” from start (Define) through to finish (Control or the gate you are currently in).
    Good luck…

    0
    #148600

    EdG
    Participant

    I know of one example in which a company is doing that.  And they were the 2003 Shigo Prize recipient for a Large Business – Medtronic Xomed.
    Actually, at the doorway to each of their shops you will find posted:

    the Current State VSM,
    the Current A3 Report for a problem being addressed for the shop (updated to the phase of DMAIC that they are in), and
    the a completed A3 Report for the last project that was accomplished.
    I spoke with their CPI lead on this (he is new to the organization – came after they won the Shingo Prize) and he said at his last employer they used it as a one-page executive summary for ALL six sigma projects completed so it was a natural addition to Xomed’s methodology.

    0
    #148580

    EdG
    Participant

    Steve,
    Thanks for the article.  I enjoyed it.  I’ll have to forward it to a couple of former Ford employees that I know – they put a lot of sweat into changing the culture of Ford.  Unfortunately it didn’t stick.
    But then compare the two. 
    Toyota’s Principles in 1935 were:
    1.      Always be faithful to your duties, thereby contributing to the Company and to the overall good.
    2.      Always be studious and creative, striving to stay ahead of the times.
    3.      Always be practical and avoid frivolousness.
    4.      Always strive to build a homelike atmosphere at work that is warm and friendly.
    5.      Always have respect for God, and remember to be grateful at all times.
    And today Toyota’s Principles are:
    1.      Be contributive to the development and welfare of the country by working together, regardless of position, in faithfully fulfilling your duties.
    2.      Be at the vanguard of the times through endless creativity, inquisitiveness and pursuit of improvement.
    3.      Be practical and avoid frivolity.
    4.      Be kind and generous; strive to create a warm, homelike atmosphere.
    5.      Be reverent, and show gratitude for things great and small in thought and deed.
    Ford on the other hand has these as their Business Principles:
    Ford Motor Company is committed to creating value for our shareholders over the long term through the delivery of excellent automotive products and services and to do so ethically and responsibly. These principles will guide our decisions and actions globally. As a whole, they set the standards by which we judge ourselves and by which we hope to be judged by others.
    –        Accountability.  We will be honest and open and model the highest standards of corporate integrity.
    –        Community.  We will respect and contribute to the communities around the world in which we work.
    –        Environment.  We will respect the natural environment and help preserve it for future generations.
    –        Financial health.  We will make our decisions with proper regard to the long-term financial security of the Company.
    –        Products and customers.  We will offer excellent products and services.
    –        Quality of relationships.  We will strive to earn the trust and respect of our investors, customers, dealers, employees, unions, business partners and society.
    –        Safety.  We will protect the safety and health of those who make, distribute or use our products.
    There appears to be a big difference between the two, No?

    0
    #148367

    EdG
    Participant

    Generally, one rejects the null hypothesis if the p-value is smaller than or equal to the significance level, often represented by the Greek letter á (alpha).  If the level is 0.05, then the results are only 5% likely to be as extraordinary as just seen, given that the null hypothesis is true.
    Based upon your own statement you are rejecting null hypothesis when the p value is less than 0.05 so your results are 4.99999% likely to be as extraordinary as just seen, given that the null hypothesis is true.

    0
    #146776

    EdG
    Participant

    Although I can’t say I have your answer, I am offering you an idea.
     
    What is the typical timeframe for manufacturing your lots?  1 hour, 1 shift, or 1 day?  During that time you are producing numerous items, correct?  From that lot you randomly select items for testing, still correct?  So, as long as you are randomly selecting samples that can be tied to the raw material stock being used, you are meeting the intent of the testing requirement.  Correct?
     
    So for single-piece flow, what is the difference if you select items as they go by one at a time or you pull from a bunch?  Isn’t it still the same thing?
     
    Just an idea that might help you look at this from a different perspective, I hope.  I would recommend going back to your testing requirements and make sure you have nailed down the intent of the requirement.
     
    Good luck and hope that this helps.

    0
    #146719

    EdG
    Participant

    Here are two websites that may help.
    http://www.belbin.com/  (within the UK) and http://www.3circlepartners.com/ (within Canada – these are the folks that do the Team Accelerator training for the George Group)
    Hope that this helps. 

    0
    #146685

    EdG
    Participant

    Just my opinion but I prefer e-Learning for refresher (or additional) training over the initial training.  I’m not saying that e-Learning is an ineffective method of training but during the initial training curriculum; it is easier to ask the instructor questions than the computer – quicker feedback.
    For the initial training, I like how GE Aircraft Engines does it.  Everyone goes to their Academy for their training – but that can be costly.
    Hopefully others can direct you to a specific source with respect to “the better option.”
    Best of luck.

    0
    #146663

    EdG
    Participant

    Andy,
    I did and it got me thinking about a few things.  Obviously, the “linkage” was an initial interest but beyond that…  Couldn’t it be said for virtually any methodology of getting the bottom of an issue or root cause, although the processes will use different names (DMAIC, PDCA, TOC, 5-Why, etc…) when it comes down to it those that work are really the same (at the heart of the matter).  Yes/No?
    BTW, That was a possible doctorial thesis I was playing with a couple of years ago… 
    Thanks for the article.  It was interesting.  Take care…

    0
    #146649

    EdG
    Participant

    First, don’t use a lean term out of context to justify an obviously non-lean method.  Kanban is a Japanese term that actually means “signal”.  It is a “demand signal” that indicates a need for a product or material at its point of use thereby “connecting” the point of use with the source.  It IS NOT a term referring to work-in-process, inventory, or stuff (one form of Ohno’s identified WASTE’s – muda) within a process.  It is a signal that controls inventory but it is not the inventory.
     
    With your method of 2 offline machines, you add:
    §         transport time to the process – muda ,
    §         storage for the items to two locations (at the offline machine & on the production line) – more muda, and
    §         scheduling challenges (right quantity in the right location at the right time).
     
    Additionally, what if one of your machines goes down for some reason – something broke, a PM is due, someone called in sick, etc.  Does half to plant go down now? 
     
    Also, you mentioned that 2 machines cost less than 10.  If two of these machines have the capacity for the ten product lines, then in doing the comparison why wouldn’t you find a smaller machine for the in-line option?  It is nice to have capacity, but 5x the requirement seems overboard…
     
    Good luck.

    0
    #146635

    EdG
    Participant

    Andy U,
    Based upon the flurry of posts yesterday on this subject, I have one question.  Is this how a full moon affects this website and those that post here?
    Just curious… 
     

    0
    #146478

    EdG
    Participant

    What are you trying to prove? 
     
    If you are trying to explore the plausibility of ¦Ì = ¦Ìo then your null hypothesis would be HO: ¦Ì = ¦Ìo and the alternative hypothesis would be HA: ¦Ì ¡Ù ¦Ìo.  
     
    But if you are trying to explore the plausibility of ¦Ì > ¦Ìo then your null hypothesis would be HO: ¦Ì > ¦Ìo and the alternative hypothesis would be HA: ¦Ì ¡Ü ¦Ìo.  Or, if you are trying to explore the plausibility of ¦Ì ¡Ü ¦Ìo then your null hypothesis would be HO: ¦Ì ¡Ü ¦Ìo and the alternative hypothesis would be HA: ¦Ì > ¦Ìo.
     
    If you are always trying to prove something is equal to something else then sure, your null would be ¡°=¡±.  
     
    Think of your null hypothesis as always what you are exploring the plausibility of, then the alternative hypothesis is the opposite of that.
     
    I hope that this helps…

    0
    #146380

    EdG
    Participant

    Lisa,
    Hope it works out for you.  Good luck…

    0
    #146346

    EdG
    Participant

    When you took the course, weren’t there any other students that had Black Belts from where they were from that you might be able to use?  Someone local would be best…  Maybe even the individual that facilitated the class.
    Just an idea.

    0
    #146269

    EdG
    Participant

    I like Brit’s Promote, publish and scream out results.  
    I would also offer that you need to keep in mind that although the whole goal is to focus on the customer and deliver a better, more consistent, and cost effective product to them; you need to also remember WIIFM.  Why should they (the people in the organization) care.  Right?
    I know of a location that posts outside of every shop a copy of that shop’s last completed Project Summary A3 Report.  Anyone walking by can see what they did last and the results incurred.  It isn’t flashey but it communicates to the workforce the change that is ongoing.  They also post the current VSM at the door and the ongoing Project A3 Report, but that may be more than you initially want to try.
    Food for thought.  Hope it stirs some ideas…

    0
    #146108

    EdG
    Participant

    Andy,
    Enjoy.
    By the way, I have a mate in Leicester.  Haven’t made it across the pond to visit but he and his family come across so that we can meet at Mickey’s Playground (Walt Disney World).  Ironic that he is a Budweiser fan and I am a Hobgoblin fan.  Funny, isn’t it?
    Cheers.

    0
    #146102

    EdG
    Participant

    I like this perspective on value:
    ¨      Whatever the activity, the term “manufacturing” may be simply interpreted as “producing value” for the customer…  (This brings all facets of the company into the fold – production, sales, marketing, engineering, etc…)
    ¨      In the customers’ hand, products do not make any excuses nor do they lie…  Making excuses about a product does not change its value for the customer.  (This makes it real and recalibrates one’s perspective.)
     
    Hopefully you can benefit from this also.  If you want more of this, read The New Shop Floor Management by Kiyoshi Suzaki.  One of my Toyota mentor’s put me on to this book.  A gem!!!
     
    North Florida / South Georgia.  My accent doesn’t give me away?  That’s okay, I’m a transplant.

    0
    #146072

    EdG
    Participant

    I like to think of Standard Work as a microscopic look at our value stream
    Think about it, at the “50,000 foot level” you have a big picture look at your process via a Value Stream Map.  Then as you start getting more and more detailed (start coming down to 5,000 or 1,000 foot level) you are getting into work sequencing.  Until finally you have a very granular look at the process via Standard Work (now you have hit pay-dirt and may consider yourself “in the weeds” of the process).
    It may not be eloquent, but it is a good way of thinking about it.

    0
    #146071

    EdG
    Participant

    Thanks.  I’ve heard of that before, but not with the fish analogy.
    I’ve tried a different angle to explain this same concept.  I would simply ask our people, “Who is your customer?” 
    Most of the time I would get the end user as a response.  My immediate answer back is, “So, we send this to them?” – the wip that they work. Invariably I would get, “Well no.” 
    So I would ask them, “Well then, who gets this?”  Typically, they point to a cell next to them and say, “____ gets it.”  ___ being the next phase. 
    I would then tell them,  “____ is your customer.  As long as you do everything in your power to get this to them when they need it, then you are serving your customer’s best interests.  If you get it to them late or with work still undone, then you are failing your customer.  It is no different than if we sent this out to the end user with work still to be done or something missing.”  They were not too keen on this idea.  But I think now you could go anywhere in our facility and ask someone who their customer is and they will be able to tell you who the true customer is, internal or external.
    Great idea – yours – though.  Thanks.

    0
    #146023

    EdG
    Participant

    No, Please enlighten me.

    0
    #146005

    EdG
    Participant

    Vincent,
    If your parts and machines are being produced on different products lines (or shops) then each has its own takt time. 
    However, if you are producing these same items in the same product line (or shop) then things become more complex and it would appear that you have a mixed model value stream.  With a mixed model value stream you have a product family going through a process (but the different products can have different processing times) that is being regulated, not by takt but rather by a schedule of product required to be produced.  
    In this scenario, you have to “resist the urge to batch process for the sake of efficiency.”  We have operations that initially were doing that, producing a week’s or month’s worth of product for the sake of efficiency instead of just one day’s or week’s worth (week –> day, and month –> week).
    I’m sorry if this isn’t the simple answer you were looking for, but it doesn’t sound like the simple answer works in your case.  Although I admit I may have misunderstood what you offered but it does sound like a Mixed-model VSM.

    0
    #145911

    EdG
    Participant

    I don’t deny the name, just omit the source.  For example, “Here is a QFD and this is what it does for us, so lets go through and generate one to help us…”  Why muddy the waters with, well this is a Six Sigma tool or this is a TQM tool and although we are working on a Lean Project in preparation for a series of kaizen events?
    Do I need to know the inventor of a tool or the current category (today’s marketing scheme) to effectively use it?  No.  Does the current category that we find it in alter its usability or effectiveness?  No.  Hence, I don’t care about that.  Just tell me (and them) what it helps me with, how we correctly use it, and how to effectivley use the darn thing.  Then let us have at it.
    Case in point, in the early 1990’s within the Navy’s TQL/TQM program there was a nice tool that helps us understand a process.  Today folks stress it as a very important Lean tool.  In actualiy the tool didn’t change and it is still a good tool (when used properly), so do I care that ~15 years ago it was a TQM tool and today it is a Lean tool?  Not realy.  The tool: a Value Stream Map.
    I hope that this makes sense…

    0
    #145846

    EdG
    Participant

    Airedale,  I think you would be surprised how similar our circumstances are.  Maybe that is why I have changed my opinion to what it is.  When I am working with a team, I purposely will not tell them that the tool is a six sigma, lean, TOC, TQM, or (you name it) tool.  I’ll simply introduce the tool as “I think this will help us understand the situation better and here is how we use it.” and go from there.  Good luck…

    0
    #145845

    EdG
    Participant

    Cuncur with that assessment of Brit’s input.  I was trying to stay simple and ensure the basic’s of Thomas’s question were addressed. 
    Brit jumped right on in at a higher level and was address that which may have been confusing Thomas.  In the end, I think Thomas’s question has been answered.

    0
    #145835

    EdG
    Participant

    Andy,
    I didn’t assume a constant takt time.  I was only talking about the numerator in the equation, which quite often remains fairly stable, since it appeared to be the initial poster’s concern.  It is the denominator in the equation (the customer’s needs) that we typically see change and therefore affects takt time.
    My mentor(s) stressed a few things about changing takt time.  One being: 
    You want to design your process to operate within takt time via a single-shift, 5-day workweek.  If at all possible…  There are some complexities that can drive you away from that – physical limitations of the man-hours required to be completed and the area within they must accomplish the task.  If I need five people to accomplish the work yet my work area can only accommodate three, then we have a problem.  With a process designed to function at takt and within a single-shift operation and 5-day work week; now if we see a change in customer demand we have the flexibility to still meet customer demand without chasing takt time – I can use overtime or temp help.  If it appears that there is a new baseline for the customer demand, then I need to evolve the process to accommodate this new takt time.  But if it was an intermittent blip on the screen, then I did not waste a lot of time and resources changing my process to a new takt time for nothing. 
    I tried to keep this simple so I hope this make sense and hope it helps.  BTW, in my eyes I am still the student.

    0
    #145832

    EdG
    Participant

    It goes without saying that you must understand how to use the tool to appropriatly apply it.  I am trying to stress the fact that “my screw driver is better than your plyers for…” is a waste of time.  If I need a screw driver, so be it then I’ll use one. 
    But the one-ups-manship is a waste of time.  Who cares which is the best tool in the toolbox, they all serve their purpose at some point in time.
    Comprendere???

    0
    #145791

    EdG
    Participant

    Go with your heart, passion, and what you enjoy doing??? 
    Life’s too short to work your like away at a job you don’t enjoy.  Especially when you consider the fraction of our day that you find yourself in the WORK category.

    0
    #145790

    EdG
    Participant

    Hey all, How about this:  Once the abnormal is distinguished from the normal, use whatever means necessary to make it right.  Right can only occur once the root cause is found.
    Notice, I didn’t use any tools, theory, methodology, or titles in this.  Why?  Because I don’t care which one was used as long as we have “made it right.”
    You like???

    0
    #145789

    EdG
    Participant

    A) In the simplest of terms; cycle time is what your process is really operating at and takt time is what your process needs to operate at inorder to meet your customer’s needs.
    B) Waiting = waste.  I can’t put that any simpler.
    Hope that this helps…

    0
    #145786

    EdG
    Participant

    Thomas,
    Available time is the actual amount of time that you have available to perform your process.  This available time is pure operational time; remove any breaks such as lunch or dinner in which you stop operation (if you rotate folks thru on their lunch or dinner than ignore the break), also any initial start-up maintenance or changeover periods in which operations stop.  So, for a two 8-hour shift operation you may have up to 16 hours but if you subtract breaks, start-up and changeover time then the time may fall to12 hours (only you know that).  The easiest way to envision available time is with a machine; if it is running and producing in spec products then that is available time – if the machine is down for whatever reason then that is not available time. 
                8-hour Shift:
    –        1 hour, Pre Start-Up maintenance
    –        ½ hour, lunch break
    –        ½ hour, Post Shutdown maintenance and clean-up
    Available time: 6 hours.
    Notice in my description, I never mention how many people are on each shift or are used.  Takt time doesn’t care if you have one person or 1,000 people.  This has NOTHING to do with takt time calculation; however the reverse occurs. 
    However once you calculate takt time, then you can take the total work that needs to be accomplished in a phase or cycle (the total man-hours) and divide it by takt time to identify the number of personnel required to successfully meet takt time (at a minimum).  This is what would be referred to as “staffing to takt time.”
    I hope that this explanation helps.

    0
    #145704

    EdG
    Participant

    This is one write-up that I was able to find: http://www.memagazine.org/emnov04/sixsigma/sixsigma.html
    I can’t seem to find the same information that was on his website.  Although I don’t remember if it was his personal site or the Six Sigma Academy one.  Just the same, you can read the above article for yourself and come to a conclusion.

    0
    #145669

    EdG
    Participant

    six sigme???
    Is that the southern pronunciation?  I better let the folks in Georgia know, we been pronouncing it wrong all this time…

    0
    #145666

    EdG
    Participant

    Andy,
    I concur on Womach’s Lean but am puzzled on the TPS / Toyota System for Service comment.  Given that the Toyota Production System and Toyota System for Service are both Toyota.
    When I looked on Dr. Harry’s website (a year ago) and read about Gen III, I was able to post a question/comment to them.  What’s the difference between LSS and Gen III, they appear to be the same thing?  I never got a response.

    0
    #145656

    EdG
    Participant

    Andy,
    Why did Dr. Mikel Harry come up with Six Sigma Generation III? 
    I’m no expert but it sounded a lot like a description of Lean Six Sigma when I read about it.
    Just stiring the pot, a little…

    0
    #145014

    EdG
    Participant

    We have service providers within our organization that support production.  We used the QFD to take the input from production (VOC – Internal) obtained from horizontal catchball (the give and take session between the provider and the customer) inorder to organize and prioritize their needs.
    Does that make sense?
     

    0
    #144932

    EdG
    Participant

    That catchball session is how you get some of that key information for the QFD.  Right???

    0
    #144882

    EdG
    Participant

    I agree with your statement about the soft-side…
    I was just trying to provide an example of using the two together and so far it is working nicely.  It isn’t perfect but at least it helps order everything and creates and easily understandable visual.
    It isn’t a matter of one replacing the other, rather both complimenting and supporting the other.

    0
    #144861

    EdG
    Participant

    I have recently used QFD as a tool to help visualize our results of a Catchball session.  I used our Corporate Goals and prioritized them (I used a simple matrix and rationalized it as, “if I improve metric ___, I will/may/won;t improve metric ___.”), then took our goals and determined if each had any impact (would drive) those goals.  Lastly, I then took the results of our catchball session with our customers (we support production) and the specific desires they had and did a second level QFD.  It seemed like a reasonable way of prioritizing and focusing our efforts.
    So far, so good.  Knock on wood.
    However, this was after we did the session with our customer.  We simply asked all of our customers to put post-its of their needs up on six different categories.  Those were the key focus of their needs on their goal categories (i.e.: Cost, Quality, Production, etc.)
    Hope this helps…

    0
    #144773

    EdG
    Participant

    Marlon,
    Wow, your own fan club!  Yer da man!!!
    Have a good day…

    0
    #144508

    EdG
    Participant

    I would offer, if you work a 10 hr shift and can deliver what is required in 8 hrs… then don’t you have an additional 2 hours for continuous improvement???  (Ignoring breaks, maintenance, changeover, etc.)
    If there is no need to maintain the additional capacity, then why not allow attrition to get yourself staffed to takt time?  Maintaining the staff and producing in 10 hours what can be produced in 8 hrs, is just as much muda as filling the warehouse.  Either way, you are wasting resources – material & human.
    Good luck…

    0
    #144406

    EdG
    Participant

    An answer to your question: if we attain the ability to deliver product faster than takt time, is it a good or bad idea to do so?
    It Depends…
    If you have the capability to deliver product faster than takt time, I would offer that this is an indication that you possess greater capacity than you currently need.  If you can gain greater customer demand then this is a good thing because you can easily accommodate.  However, if you cannot develop in increase in demand then you are probably wasting resources ($, manpower, something) and this would be a bad thing.
    If you are delivering items at a faster rate than takt time AND demand is not their, then you are filling a warehouse somewhere.  And that is a waste.  Unless you foresee an increase in demand due to periodic surges (such as holiday shopping) but then you are taking a gamble.  If that is the case then there is only one question left, do you feel lucky???
     Hope that this helps…

    0
    #144334

    EdG
    Participant

    There are a few problems with your equation.
    1.  Takt time is what the process needs to operate at, but it is NOT necessarily what the process is operating at.  So, I assume that you have made the assumption that the process is capable of performing at takt time.  Correct???
    2.  Takt time is measured in time per unit.  # of Stations might be unit IF there is one piece per station.  And, waste is measured in???  Time, units, what?
    I assume that you are attempting to apply Little’s Law.  That the total time for a process (Lead Time) is proportional to the average completion rate and the number of units in flow.
    Lead Time = (Average Completion Rate) x (Units in Process)
    Where,
    ·        Average Completion Rate would be the cycle time of a balanced process (each phase in the process is accomplishing equal work content)
    ·        Units in Process would be the total Work in Process (WIP)
    ·        Hence, Lead time is the actual time that a unit is in the production line
    I hope that this helps.
     

    0
    #144252

    EdG
    Participant

    Dominic,
    I would offer a little to what the others have already said.  5S and Six Sigma have different purposes and appropriate applications.  Just as a chisel and dynamite have a different purpose and appropriate application.  If you use a chisel where dynamite is appropriate; you will waste a lot of time, become discourages and probably quite.  Additionally, if you use dynamite where a chisel is appropriate then you will probably end up with a mess.
    So to with 5S and Six Sigma.  I wouldn’t worry so much about which is more powerful, but rather when is it appropriate (or inappropriate) to use either.
    Good luck…

    0
    #144194

    EdG
    Participant

    Sounds like a trick question.
    Belt is more of a title where Ability to do problem solving and cost reduction is more of a capability.  Although, typically a proficiency in forming the specified capability is associated with a degree of Belt.
    So, why I said it sounds like a trick question.

    0
    #144131

    EdG
    Participant

    On Wikipedia I found this…
    Advance Product Quality Planning (or APQP) is a framework of procedures and techniques used to develop products in industry, particularly the automotive industry. It is quite similar to the concept of Design For Six Sigma (DFSS).
    APQP was developed in late ’80 by a commission of experts gathered from the three biggest automotive companies in the world: FORD, GM and Chrysler. This commission invested five years to analyze the then current automotive development and production status in the US, Europe and especially in Japan. It was at the time that the success of the Japanese automotive companies was starting to be remarkable in the US market.
    For anyone else that is more knowledgeable on this, I have one question.  Given that this was developed by the Big Three and how things are progressing with their success, why would others want to mimic them over the Toyota Production System?

    0
    #143993

    EdG
    Participant

    First Takt Time.  This is nothing more than the available production time divided by the customer’s demand.  It is the pace at which the process must run in order to meet the customer’s needs.  Understand that just because management (or even the operators) knows what this is doesn’t mean that the process is capable of functioning at this pace, something that we or at least some of my management occasionally forgets.
     
    Now Cycle Time.  If you reference the Lean Enterprise Institute you will find that they define cycle time as how often a part or product is actually completed by a process, as timed by observation.  I describe this to my management as the actual pace of our process.
     
    So, where Takt Time is the requirement as defined by our customer it is the goal that we must achieve in order to meet our customer’s needs.  Cycle time on the other hand it what the process is really operating at.  If Cycle time is at or below Takt time, then the process is capable of performing at the pace necessary to meet the customer’s needs.  If Cycle time is greater than Takt time, then the process is currently not capable of meeting our customer’s need and must be modified if we wish to be able to meet our customer’s needs.
     
    BTW, the time required to produce one unit from start to finish is known as Production Lead Time (or just lead time).  We use the term turn-around-time, but we are talking about the same quantity.  Additionally if you utilize Little’s Law you can relate takt / cycle time, work in process (units in process) and lead time. 
     Hope I got an “A”…  or at least a passing grade…

    0
    #143944

    EdG
    Participant

    Although I cannot accept credit for this, I don’t remember who provided me with this write-up on RTY (it could very well have been on this website).  I hope that it helps…
    Rolled Throughput Yield (RTY) is the probability that a single unit can pass through a series of process steps free of defects.Next we will turn our attention to a Rolled Throughput Yield example. If you will remember, the First Time Yield calculation we did (FTY) considered only what went into a process step and what went out. Rolled Throughput Yield adds the consideration of rework. Using the previous example:Process A = 100 units in and 90 out Process B = 90 in and 80 out Process C = 80 in and 75 out Process D = 75 in and 70 out.If in order to get the yield out of each step we had to do some rework (which we probably did) then it really looks more like this:Process A = 100 units, 10 scrapped and 5 reworked to get the 90. The calculation becomes 100-(10+5)/100 = 85/100 = .85 This is the true yield when you consider rework and scrap.Process B = 90 units in, 10 scrapped and 7 reworked to get the 80. 90-(10+7)/90 = .81Process C = 80 units in, 5 scrapped and 3 reworked to get the 75. 80-(5+3)/80 = .9Process D = 75 units in, 5 scrapped and 10 reworked to get the 70. 75-(5+10)/75 = .8Now to get the true Rolled Throughput Yield (Considering BOTH scrap and the rework necessary to attain what we thought was first time throughput yield) we find that the true yield has gone down significantly:.85*.81*.9*.8 = .49572 or Rounded to the nearest digit, 50% yield. A substantially worse and substantially truer measurement of the process capability.

    0
    #143917

    EdG
    Participant

    I believe that the key stakeholders are Ronald McDonald, Grimace, Hamburglar, Birdie, and the Fry Guys.  Note, Captain Crook and Mayor McCheese were instrumental in the early years but were dropped in the 1970’s.
     
    As for their demands, you may need to contact them directly.  Check with McDonald’s Corp for their direct e-mail addresses.

    0
    #143851

    EdG
    Participant

    One more try…
     

    0
    #143849

    EdG
    Participant

    Percent >12.1 oz: 50%
    Percent <12.0 oz: 2.69%

     
    As you can see, I used Minitab (hope I inserted the screen capture correctly).  It was quicker…

    0
Viewing 100 posts - 1 through 100 (of 295 total)