|
|
|
06/27/2012 01:28 PM
|
|
|
Sam,
What you say is probably true of all religions too: take a simple message and cloud it with snake oil, leaving a zillion incompatible versions of, for example, Christianity. Does that suggest we ban all religions on the grounds that a few millennia of theology have caused us to completely distort what was originally a simple message?
It is not my intention to compare Lean with any of the great religions, but if Lean is just snake oil then what is the alternative? I see none mentioned.
Do we have a perfect definition of Lean? No, I hope these dialogues will help.
Are there any examples which stand comparison with Toyota? I believe there are very few if any, but I am prepared to stand corrected.
Did Toyota show the rest of the automotive sector the way to improve? Absolutely, even there was strong reluctance over several decades because we "were not Japanese and did not have their collective frame of mind".
Do the occasional difficulties Toyota experiences negate Lean (while feeding the Schadenfreude of those who said it would not work)? All this proves, to me, is that Toyota is human and can occasionally have feet of clay. This is why we must move on from worshipping gurus and start to think for ourselves even if we are occasionally guided by the likes of Deming, Ohno, Matsushita, Womack, Shook, Jones, Ford, Imai, Shingo, Chapman, Cleese, Gilliam Idle, Jones and Palin (not the one from Alsaka).
From my perspective, Toyota/Lean radically changed perceptions of Quality at all the major auto manufacturers. Before that, the perception was that Quality costed more. Few thought of it as a way of reducing costs. Quality is the customer's opinion of our best efforts which most companies still try their best to ignore. Regardless of any other aspect of Lean we owe Toyota for this.
The Web and Lean.org have enabled us to have discussions/conversations/dialogues about Lean. What worries me about these discussions is that, in our enthusiasm, we can slide into something a tad too theological about the nature of things. We then begin to sound like one of the scenes from The Life of Brian (Monty Python) which I believe is one of the best discourses on religion and snake oil.
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 02:04 PM
|
|
|
Owen, I had to look up snake oil to make sure I understod what we are talking about. Here's Wikipedia's definition:
"The phrase snake oil is as a derogatory term used to describe quackery, the promotion of fraudulent or unproven medical practices. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with questionable and/or unverifiable quality or benefit."
I don't believe all the changes to the original concept of Lean, which I believe was originally, and simply, described as the process of waste elimination, can be called "snake oil". I note many innovative improvements and additions to the orignial concept of Lean since its introduction. Applying those innovative improvements and additions did give Lean a different flavor. I don't believe value stream mapping was part of the original concept, but if it wasn't, it certainly turned out to be an innovative approach to process analysis and certainly a new Lean tool.
Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
06/27/2012 04:48 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: 22767
.... I note many innovative improvements and additions to the orignial concept of Lean since its introduction. Applying those innovative improvements and additions did give Lean a different flavor. ...
Unfortunately, I've noted so many additions, changes, and mostly deletions from lean's original concepts that the resulting state, whatever you wish to call it, produces results that don't even vaguely resemble lean's intent.
pc2
|
|
|
|
|
06/28/2012 11:14 AM
|
|
|
I agree about Toyota radically changing how quality is viewed in the auto industry. When I left one of the traditional big three companies for ten years to become part of the management team at Toyota Georgetown I welcomed the quality philosophy: "The highest quality system drives the lowest total cost".
Even after the learning that took place at NUUMI too many still believed that you have to balance cost and quality. High quality systems drive not only lower manufacturing costs but also lower warranty costs and happier customers. Sometimes the problem is that increasing spending in my budget (operations) decreases the spend in another budget (warranty) does not provide motivation to improve. How many companies still allow suppliers to have incoming quality lower than their outgoing quality? How many companies still have repair units at the end of production lines instead of preventing defects? Repair units have greater warranty rates that rates than regular production.
I have personnally seen warranty costs differences in several auto companies and it they are significant. Warranty costs are controllable. Customers do not want great dealer warranty repairs - they don't want to go back for rapairs at all.
Ron Turkett
|
|
|
|
|
06/29/2012 04:15 PM
|
|
|
Lean is a system framed in a collection of rules and principles that drive continuous improvement in all areas of a business.
|
|
|
|
|
07/03/2012 12:43 PM
|
|
|
I define Lean by the core messages of the katas:
Lean is Logic. Lean is Intelligence. Lean is Wisdom.
It brings back the knowledge into companies that nothing is forever, people are more than the sum of their parts, and the only way to keep going is to stop retaining and start learning.
For me it's a necessary evolution in management, bringing back all the stuff into companies that were lost in the global search for maximum profit.
Unfortunately you would never convince somebody with this definition...
|
|
|
|
|
07/06/2012 05:53 PM
|
|
|
I will borrow from my former company that summed it up the best:
LEAN is..."the relentless pursuit of waste elimination."
Waste refers to the 7 wastes (plus an 8th "intellect").
If the spirit of this is followed, it matters not the tools used or the focus on costs. Nor does it matter the size of the project scope. It only matters what the customer values (Customer, Consumers, Shareholders) and the "big" and "small" tasks to minimize or eliminate that which does not add value.
|
|
|
|
|
07/26/2012 03:16 PM
|
|
|
i'm not much of a lean guru neither do i consider myself having obtained the highest degree of knowledge thereof but i believe that lean is a standard and discipline that suscribles to eliminating waste of resources in such an econimical way that bottom line of results are obtained in the most efficient and optimized fashion to the extent that customer value is continously increased while cost is considerably and proportionatly reduced. Lean is a "customer focused" initiative an organization pursues when obtaining profit (from end user, ROI) is not enough for the organization but the ability to satisfy and delight the customers (internal & external) while delivering not only quality products and services but are passionate about designing and running processess and operations that pleases the customer.
|
|
|
|
|
08/06/2012 11:18 AM
|
|
|
how to express the lean with one word?
how to set sail for lean system?
As most people of out-of the door always want to know it brief.
Help get you feedback.
Tks Antonio
|
|
|
|
|
08/20/2012 12:27 PM
|
|
|
I just plowed through this Lean Definition twine (no longer a thread) in my search to tell my new boss what 'Lean' is. What a journey! complete with conflict and conjecture.
One big hurdle is that this new (to me) company's comprehensively engineered Tayloristic piece-rate pay based factories are very successful - perhaps because the change in demand has not hit that particular sector yet. Does that make them Lean - by being low cost producer?
EVERY business is trying to make money by pleasing the customer. There are many ways. Is a successful business "lean" by definition? I vote not.
A couple of recurring themes are that Lean is
1) a BUSINESS practice - not applied to family, religion or government
(except where these enter business like practices like schools, armies, or collecting taxes)
2) a business PRACTICE - not only a philosophy, it requires action
3) requiring LEARNING
4) by EVERYONE
5) to continually ADAPT to changing customer demands
Most of the 'lean' styled tools come from the root requirement of LEARNING - organizing and reducing inventory and stressing the system to see problems and Learn how to eliminate (solve) them. (I always hear that TPS means Thinking Production System). The focus on Quality was a real lesson, proven by several companies, that the best cost reduction comes from good quality.
In HS Biology, we did an experiment reacting a glob of Mercury with something so it would react and move around, and were asked to compare that with a living organism. What was the difference? My answer was that the living organism would learn how to react to the situation better every time, not just react the same way. Learning is how we grow, and adapt to survive.
So, my current 'convincing' effort will be:
Lean is a Business Practice of Learning by Everyone to Continually Adapt to Changing Customer Demands.
maybe 'everyone' could be written 'at all levels'. Like, "One Team, All Levels."
In any case , a business can never BE Lean, it can practice Lean, in varying degrees.
Best for now,
Dan
"Lean is Learning"
|
|
|
|
|
08/20/2012 04:57 PM
|
|
|
Dan, it always seems that one person's definition leads other persons to volunteer their definitions. Your definition sounds plausable to me as it might apply to your company. Previous person's definitions led me to state earlier that another description of Lean might be that it's anything a company says it is as it applies to them specifically.
But that definition doesn't really describe how or why a company might want to implement Lean where I'm thinking that a definition of Lean should encompass the reasons for using what has been identified as Lean Tools and Techniques to improve the efficiencies of company business processes. Improving efficiencies for whatever reasons, or should I say for any reason, is a key concept in understanding what Lean is all about and in utilizing its tools and techniques. To provide some reasoning for why companies should implement Lean, I suggest the following rationale and definition.
Managing business performance is all about aligning people, company processes such as corporate planning and the development of corporate strategies, and the use of data and analytics technology (referred to as Enerprise Performance Management by an Aberdeen report), to monitor and control company activities in its efforts to achieve its corporate goals. Goals, and spporting company objectives, usually include cost reduction, revenue and profit growth, customer satisfaction, productivity (efficiency) improvement etc.
Once the overal direction of a company has been formuated and the timing to accomplish its goals and objectives decided, it then becomes necessary to determine how it will all be accomplished. At this point, Lean, and Six Sigma in many cases, can be introduced as the means to achieve company goals and objectives by improving the efficiencies of specific and strategic company processes.
So, I suggest another simple definition of Lean as being simply, efficient, i.e., a Lean company is one that is being run efficiently.
Of course, now you have to be sure everyone in a company knows what being run efficiently means,
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
08/21/2012 11:44 AM
|
|
|
Hey Sam,
Thanks, but I will respectfully point out that efficiency is not the only gauge; the now famous saying of TPS being a blend of Industrial Engineering and Common Sense serves to introduce an element of.... well, common sense.
And I certainly cannot agree that Lean is 'anything a company says it is as it applies to them specifically'. It cannot be internally defined, even if it the business affects the applicaiton.
And, yes, the definition offered gives the reason of 'continually adapt to changing customer demands'. Which raises the question of why meet customer demand, which raises the question of why earn profit, which raises the question of why survive..... this is Five Why on Steroids
I'll stick with this: Lean is like Maggie Thatcher's definition of being powerful or being a Lady: if you have to tell someone, you're not.
Which can also be said of having common sense, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
08/21/2012 01:25 PM
|
|
|
Dan, thanks for your feedback.
Efficiency is a powerfull word. It implies many-many things. Using a simplistic definition of efficiency as the 'mostest for the leastest', implies that improved efficiency can be obtained three ways; by increasing product output using the same amount of input resources, maintaining product output levels but by using reduced amounts of input resources, or ideally both - more output with less input. Hence the mostest for the leastest.
As soon as you talk about improving efficiencies by reducing resources, you are into Lean applications. Lean tools and techniques are typically used to reduce requirements for labor, time, space, raw materials, in-process and finished goods inventories, material handling, etc, all the things it's good at reducing. It's really Lean being applied to improve process efficiencies - the mostest for the leastest.
If you wanted to simplify all this you could easily say that the prime benefit of Lean can be derived when it is dedicated to reducing time, since time reduction is obtained by reducing cycle times, space, raw marterial requirements, inventories, defects, product handling, etc.
To come full circle you can simplify even all this by saying that the most productive application of Lean is to improve process efficiencies. Hence my statement that Lean means efficiency - a Lean company is an efficient company by producing the mostest with the leastest.
You can get into some interesting discussions on where common sense fits into the definition of Lean. I don't believe anyone can argue against the need for comon sense in business. Like the word Lean however, people wil probably have different dfinitions of common sense. So maybe here also, common sense is whatever a company says it is at it applies to them solely.
I'm a strong believer in the critical thinking process, which is now being taught in a number of schools such as the Unversity of Phoenix. To me, being a critical thinker goes far beyond just having common sense. Here's my definition of Critical Thinking. Note that it's an elaborate process.
Critical Thinking
The rigorous use of information, observation, experience, and logical reasoning
to evaluate and analyze any situation needing clarification or resolution
for the purpose of guiding one's beliefs, decisions, and actions.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
12/07/2012 02:27 PM
|
|
|
Lean is what it literally means; Lean in inputs but fat in outputs. Outputting more and more with less and less. And much more with just a little more. It is a productivity tool that sucks out waste in a manufacturing system to facilitate faster value addition and pull more and more materials through the system. It increases manufacturing velocity represented by the ratio of Sum of Cycle times (? CT/Lead time) divided by Lead time. The closer the ratio is to 1 the best it is and closest it will be to a Lean system.
There is another simple way through 2 step simple rule. The Rule No 1 is '' Man can wait Machine can wait but material(under process-WIP) should not wait. meaning no inventory between work stations The No 2 rule is '' Man should not wait, Machine should not wait and also material should not wait'' This is achieved by making the process cycle time at each of the work stations as far as possible equal through step by step improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
12/07/2012 04:39 PM
|
|
|
Mohamed, what you are describng is efficiency. A process can become more efficient three ways:.
Produce more output with the same amount of inputs
Produce more output with less amounts of inputs
Produce the same amount of output with less amounts of inputs
Inputs refers to material, labor, space, time, cost, tooling, etc. or any of the elements of a company's various processes such as order entry, procurement, scheduling, production, warehousing, shipping, transportation, supply chain activities, etc. Consequently, one of the many definitions of Lean is that Lean means efficient. Being Lean then means being efficient, or, a Lean process is an efficient process.
However, if you've read all the definitions of Lean that people submitted in this forum in response to the question of what is Lean, you would have seen that there were a variety of responses. There didn't appear to be a standard, universal definition. That led me at one point to suggest that Lean is anything a company says it is as it applies specifically to that company. That means your definition is perfectly valid for your company.
The concept of waste suggests that using more of any of the various inputs than are actually needed is waste.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
01/09/2013 01:17 PM
|
|
|
Ken is right.
We can go back to Deming's 14 principles and here is principle 10:
Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
The ultimate objective is to have everyone clearly knowing the strategy and knowing how to successfully contribute the achieving the strategy
|
|
|
|
|
01/10/2013 01:51 PM
|
|
|
Robert, it has always been suggested in the literature that before you attept to solve a problem, you should define it explicitly.
In solving problems one popular recommendation has been to identify the real problem by finding its ROOT CAUSE. For example, using the 5 Whys approach:
A motor driven production line stops running. Why?
1. The motor driving the line quit working. Why?
2. The motor's bearings got hot and froze causing the motor's circuit breaker to open. Why?
3. The bearings ran out of lubricant. Why?
4. Maintenance did not follow procedures for lubricating the bearings. Why?
5. To lubricate the bearings, the motors had to be shut off but production was running 24 hours per day and manufacturing did not want to shut the line down because of all the back orders.
So, what was the root cause of the production line stopping? Also, what is the systemic problem that you should correct to assure this problem doesn't repeat itself in the future?
A similar analogy can be used when talking about the subject of Lean. What is Lean? If you have a number of people that are trying to descrbe how to use Lean for example with each one having his or her own definition of what Lean is, it would be difficult to arrive at a consensus on how best to use it.
One popular definition of Lean is that it is the process of eliminating waste. But another definition of Lean that has also been proposed is that it is the proess of becoming more efficient. That then raises the question - is the elimination of waste the only way to become more efficient? Clearly it is not. Does that mean there are at least two definition of Lean?
News reporters are well know for their method of collecting complete information on news events. When reporting on an automobile accident for example they typically ask, who, what, where, when, and why. Who was involved, what happened, where did it happen, when did it happen and why did it happen. That gives them all the pertinent information they need to report on the accident accurately. You've heard the story I suspect that if two people standing on a corner both withess the same accident, they nevertheless give different interpretations of what happened. They haven't been trained on asking the right questions.
Unfortunately, there does't appear to be a standard definition of just the word Lean. As I pointed out previously, even the very poular APICS dictionary doesn't offer a definition. Instead, when you look up the work Lean it says to - See Lean Manufacturing.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 11:56 AM
|
|
|
On one hand, I hate to jump back into this, but on the other.... and I promise not to talk about meatloaf.
I'll go on record as saying that Pascal Dennis has far more Lean knowledge and credibility than I do. In his final comments in Lean Production Simplified (Shingo Award) he states,
"I recognize that the lean system cannot and should not be precisely defined. There is no one right path, no one correct answer. There is only the question: What is the need?"
In Chapter 2 he credits Womack, Jones and Roos with the defining Lean as "doing more with less - less time, less space, less human effort, less machinery, less materials - while giving the customers what they want."
As part of "Lean Culture" he talks about "Paradox" which Wikipedia defines as,
"A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense.[1] Most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking.[2] However some have revealed errors in logic itself and have caused the rules of logic to be rewritten."
Examples include, "stop production, so that production never stops" and "standards change all the time". Is there any chance that the need to have a "specific" definition of Lean that can be applied in every situation is some sort of paradox?
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 11:57 AM
|
|
|
Robert, I think my last post may not have explained what I was trying to convey clealy enough. What I was suggesting was this: If three people were talking about how to implement Lean for example, and all three had their own definition of what Lean was, it would be difficult for them to come to any agreement on how to implement it since each would be thinking of implementing something that was partially or totallyh different from the rest. Remember the story of the six blind men and the elephant?
Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today." They had no idea what an elephant was. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was and touched it..
"Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg.
"Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail.
"Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.
"It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
"It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
"It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant and every one of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features."
Conclusin: It's important to have a univesally accepted definition of Lean so that everyone underdstands what it is and everyone then is able to talk about the same thing.
This particular forum offered a number of definitions of Lean but was not able to agree on a universally accepted definition.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
01/11/2013 01:48 PM
|
|
|
Regarding Brian's post, what he quoted is spot on. When Lean experts such as the ones he cited say what they did, it proves that there is no need for one definition of Lean. It just won't happen. What problem are we trying to solve, and how can we, using common sense, solve it?
We have people in my company that may define Lean in variuos ways but guess what? When they tackle a project they are always able to agree on one approach, after discussing what their possible solutions to the problem(s) would be. It's called deep thinking, then "trystorming".
|
|
|
|
|
>
Community >
Forums
Send to a Friend
