46 replies to this topic

[b_sdaddy]

Had an argument with my boss today. (Not too heated)

 

Anyway, he went on a 'Lean manufacturing' course (Jolly) and has returned an expert!

 

So here's the question for you all:

 

You are working as an assembler in a carburetor factory and you have a 5m working bench where you assemble carbs from 20 or so individual pieces.

 

You use several tools of different sizes.

 

Is it quicker (more lean), to place 5 up on the table and repeat every step 5 times (using the same size tool) and assemble 5 at a time. (It's what we've been doing for the past 30 years)

 

or

 

place one unit on the table with pieces and assemble. Place on pallet. Repeat.

 

He said that on the jolly (course), they did exercises with LEGO! No mention of the 6mm, 8mm, 13mm, 19mm sockets, as well as electrical screwdriver and small rubber hammer!

 

 

cheers, and don't worry, my job's not at risk!

 

 

[TAR]

The idea behind Lean is to work out what is the most efficient practice. This is done by trying out different solutions. The answer to the question is that either could be better. You would need to try it. 

[FlyingScot]

As above.
Plus I very much doubt after 1 course he has much more than a few ideas....
I do it for a living and after 15 years including 3 years with a Japanese professor I'm still learning...and listening to those who have to implement THEIR improvements.

FS

[Carlos W]

..and listening to those who have to implement THEIR improvements.

FS

And that's the point of lean management, the staff are meant to come up with the improvements.

 

Many processes evolve over time rather than being designed.

[lawrence]

Or do you have more people doing the same job and each assembling one part continually? 

like the McDonald's assembly line as an example. 

[Steve220]

A critical part of lean is to also minimise wear on tooling - that includes personnel working on them. A colleague of mine went on a lean course a second part of the RAF scheme, Same thing happened, they guy came back and tried to change everything. Bloody annoying.

Edited by Steve220, 14 April 2017 - 10:01 AM.

[xrocketengineer]

Your boss drank the kool aid. All these different methods to improve efficiency vary based on whatever is the fashion at time. It is all theory that might apply, or not, to whatever process you are trying to improve. I remember years ago when NASA decided to incorporate ISO 9001 into our documentation. The initial briefing we got from our quality personnel was that the documentation system would ensure that the process was consistent every time. However, the documentation would not prevent doing things wrong. If we were going to build concrete parachutes everyone of them would be built exactly alike.

[sonikk4]

Ahh lean, what a pain in the arse. One company i worked for in Civil Aviation went full monty on this process along with 5S. What a bleeding misery. 

 

Its something that can be done on a production line (Boeing) but on a ever changing flexible day to day work area (line and hangar engineering) nearly impossible to fully implement.

 

The Lean process is part of my remit as an Aircraft Maintenance Supervisor but trying to fully engage with it is nigh on impossible. I do not force it on my team as it makes their working lives a pain to deal with along with the workload fluxing from hour to hour.

[b_sdaddy]

Your boss drank the kool aid. All these different methods to improve efficiency vary based on whatever is the fashion at time. It is all theory that might apply, or not, to whatever process you are trying to improve. I remember years ago when NASA decided to incorporate ISO 9001 into our documentation. The initial briefing we got from our quality personnel was that the documentation system would ensure that the process was consistent every time. However, the documentation would not prevent doing things wrong. If we were going to build concrete parachutes everyone of them would be built exactly alike.

I was always told that ISO meant that you were consistent in what you did: Even if you made things poorly, at least you made them consistently bad! Our company has ISO's plaques plastered all over our entrance foyer! If only our customers knew exactly what went on in the workplace!

[dyshipfakta]

Pretty rife in my work also (NHS). Mostly a load of drivel essentially it just means that you don't just get routed doing the same thing for years and years and occasionally try something different which may or may not be better.

[xrocketengineer]

Ahh lean, what a pain in the arse. One company i worked for in Civil Aviation went full monty on this process along with 5S. What a bleeding misery. 

 

Its something that can be done on a production line (Boeing) but on a ever changing flexible day to day work area (line and hangar engineering) nearly impossible to fully implement.

 

The Lean process is part of my remit as an Aircraft Maintenance Supervisor but trying to fully engage with it is nigh on impossible. I do not force it on my team as it makes their working lives a pain to deal with along with the workload fluxing from hour to hour.

The NASA Space Shuttle processing contractor, United Space Alliance a (dis)joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, tried several iterations of lean systems. Every time it would end up being the same outcome. To go and buy some commercial software package for production lines that integrated the procedure writing with everything else needed to accomplish a task including tools, drawings, specifications, equipment and even logistical support to order and obtain parts for the job. The software would end up being used most of the time in non routine operations with simple operations that required no parts. I.E removal of fasteners to open up an access panel for an inspection. Since no new parts were needed the engineers writing the procedures would have to "order a pencil" to work around the logistics requirement of the software to make it work.

The planned work to configure every flight for the mission was always done using a different (tried and true) type of documents that already had all the requirements laid out to do the job due to programmatic requirements. But this work was not routine either. Imagine your airliner seats being reconfigured before every flight. That is what happened with the orbiter payload bay. The payload bay was pretty much torn apart before each flight and reconfigured electrically and mechanically to match the next payload to fly. To make things worse, The main large payloads had probably the same number of mechanical and electrical connections as the many secondary payloads attached to the side walls of the fuselage. In my view, it took 25% of the effort to configure for the main payloads and 75% for the secondary payloads. That is one of the many reasons why the Space Shuttle operations were so labour intensive and expensive.   

[Mike L]

I've been through the ISO and 5S transition process at a couple different places. ISO is mostly about documentation and traceability. On the shop floor was, where I live, it's about making sure you have proper work orders verifying rev levels and mapping all the steps required to manufacture the part or assembly. Every step has to be signed off on before handing it off for the next process.

5S is the actual lean manufacturing. The point here is to be more efficient and reduce inventory levels and have the product ready for the customer right when they need it but not before. Very few manufacturers can actually do this unless they long term contracts with predefined delivery dates. This is where most management gets too excited. They don't take into account the limits of their manufacturing capabilities and the customers ability to determine their supply needs in a timely manner to allow enough lead time to get the job done.

As for your original question, you were doing it correctly in the first place. If you have a hundred carbs to assemble for a customer you are better off if you can do it in small lots of say five or ten. That way you can send those to the customer while you are assembling the next five or ten.

[Mike L]

Ahh lean, what a pain in the arse. One company i worked for in Civil Aviation went full monty on this process along with 5S. What a bleeding misery. 
 
Its something that can be done on a production line (Boeing) but on a ever changing flexible day to day work area (line and hangar engineering) nearly impossible to fully implement.
 
The Lean process is part of my remit as an Aircraft Maintenance Supervisor but trying to fully engage with it is nigh on impossible. I do not force it on my team as it makes their working lives a pain to deal with along with the workload fluxing from hour to hour.

The NASA Space Shuttle processing contractor, United Space Alliance a (dis)joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, tried several iterations of lean systems. Every time it would end up being the same outcome. To go and buy some commercial software package for production lines that integrated the procedure writing with everything else needed to accomplish a task including tools, drawings, specifications, equipment and even logistical support to order and obtain parts for the job. The software would end up being used most of the time in non routine operations with simple operations that required no parts. I.E removal of fasteners to open up an access panel for an inspection. Since no new parts were needed the engineers writing the procedures would have to "order a pencil" to work around the logistics requirement of the software to make it work.
The planned work to configure every flight for the mission was always done using a different (tried and true) type of documents that already had all the requirements laid out to do the job due to programmatic requirements. But this work was not routine either. Imagine your airliner seats being reconfigured before every flight. That is what happened with the orbiter payload bay. The payload bay was pretty much torn apart before each flight and reconfigured electrically and mechanically to match the next payload to fly. To make things worse, The main large payloads had probably the same number of mechanical and electrical connections as the many secondary payloads attached to the side walls of the fuselage. In my view, it took 25% of the effort to configure for the main payloads and 75% for the secondary payloads. That is one of the many reasons why the Space Shuttle operations were so labour intensive and expensive.

I worked for USA in Houston for seven years before they laid off so many of us. I was machinist support for the NBL. The thing that amazed me was the belt meetings. They had so many of them that I couldn't figure out how supervisors were able to get their regular work done.

[xrocketengineer]

I am glad that I am retired now and out of that rat race. My interpretation of these things is that they are tools that management should have some knowledge about and they should pick and choose what parts and pieces of the tool apply to accomplishing tasks. But instead, it became a "one size fits all" solution that had to be crammed in to everything. I remember some of these guys marching in to my office to introduce themselves as being "black belts on this or that" and by the time they were done with the "lean six sigma" analysis things had gone so badly that it was obvious that their black belts were not holding up even their trousers, since they were down to their ankles.

Edited by xrocketengineer, 15 April 2017 - 01:56 PM.

[OzOAP]

I have suffered in the passed working for companies that have meetings about meetings, just so management can warrant being there. New manager comes in, implements changes, to stamp his mark on things. He lasts a couple of months and a new manager comes in, implements changes, to stamp his mark on things...and so on and so on...
Luckily I now manage my own time, I know what needs doing, by when. It's up to me to get it done.