|
|
|
03/21/2012 03:15 PM
|
|
|
Wayne,
In our social life we believe in freedom of choice. The freedom to chose products that suits our needs. To take our time to work, and then use those wages to improve our lives....Agreed?
This is what dictates the activities of production in a free society. What happens in the company is that it is managed to ensure that those customers needs are met. Yes its dictatorial, but in the sense that the dictator is the consumer. If you don't manage those activities properly then the customer will go somewhere else.
You are free to leave your job anytime and chose another if it does not suit your needs. Lean is about respecting your employees. This is Toyota's policy. Toyota strives to create a better working environment that respects people's lives and individuality.
A dictator does not care about free choice. A dictator decides production, who wins and loses. He does not care about choice. I dont want that sort of society. Yes lean tools can be used in any society, but Ford talked about something completely different and those ideas are the roots of lean.
I respectfully think you have this wrong, and we should never strive for a society run by dictators, that would not be lean.
John Podlasek
|
|
|
|
|
03/22/2012 11:36 AM
|
|
|
Hi John
Please note I fully respect your opinion however i feel the need to respond...
You make an assumption that everyone wants to live in a society that places working and purchasing goods and services at the top of the agenda. What about if i want to live in a really nice part of LA but cant afford to buy a house because i dont want to work for any corporation. I dont have the money to live with out working so i am forced to get a job and forced to live in a place i can afford. However i want to live overlooking the sea, but i cant because a house in that zip code cost at least 3 million dollars, so everyone with money has pushed me out and i cant and dont have that choice. Thats dicatating to me where and how i must live.
John you should really consider how much choice you actually think you have. If i said to you ok John you cant earn another penny for the rest of your life go and survive. Right down all the choices you would have? Its scary i did it. Our society dictates that we must work to survive.
You and I live in a societies that are full of people dictating to us, its just way more subtle but it starts to add up, and maybe its actually more oppressive to some than a single dictator.
As for Toyota they made 3.5 billion in profits i believe in 2011, did they go and negate the Greek debt so the people there could have their pensions? Did they cure homelessness in America with that money, did they move all of their production there to give people jobs? Did they cure hunger in Africa?
No i dont think they did.
So yes Toyota and Ford may respect their employees, that i am not arguing, but really they are like all companies all over the world they are in it to make a profit and keep shareholders happy.
They are not there for the betterment of the people, as one famous tv character puts it "everybody lies" even those that run the corporation!
As for a society run by dictators, you live in one, and that is why it is not Lean.....at all.
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 11:02 AM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: WayneLingard
Hi John
Please note I fully respect your opinion however i feel the need to respond...
That is what makes this fun.
You make an assumption that everyone wants to live in a society that places working and purchasing goods and services at the top of the agenda. What about if i want to live in a really nice part of LA but cant afford to buy a house because i dont want to work for any corporation. I dont have the money to live with out working so i am forced to get a job and forced to live in a place i can afford. However i want to live overlooking the sea, but i cant because a house in that zip code cost at least 3 million dollars, so everyone with money has pushed me out and i cant and dont have that choice. Thats dicatating to me where and how i must live.
Not really. I don't make the assumption that everyone wants to live in such a society, more of realizing that is the society we currently live in. No one has ever had the right to live wherever they please. Even the American Indians were territorial and fought to protect territories from other tribes. I prefer this one over that due to instead of taking the land by force as it used to be (maybe still is I agree), you have to work and be productive in order to get people to give you money in which you can trade it for your desires - be it a house by the sea. That is the idea of a free market. I don't believe you have a right to live by the sea just because you want to. If you earn it legally I have no problem, nor am I jealous of others that have earned it legally. Our current system is messed up I agree. We dont live in a free market as defined. For a proper definition read Mises "Human Action" or Hayek, "Road to Serfdom" I think we have a serious problem with understanding proper consumption and waste.
John you should really consider how much choice you actually think you have. If i said to you ok John you cant earn another penny for the rest of your life go and survive. Right down all the choices you would have? Its scary i did it. Our society dictates that we must work to survive.
I can not say I lived in the wild and hunted for my food, but I dont want to do that, and we have evolved out of that thru modernization. I have had to start over in my life a few times, but generally those experiences made me stronger, and I have no problem with working as long as that work is appreciated and I am paid accordingly for my efforts. I agree that my choices are limited and the society is not ideal from my standpoint as well for me or the starving in Africa, but there are reasons for that which are out of my control.
You and I live in a societies that are full of people dictating to us, its just way more subtle but it starts to add up, and maybe its actually more oppressive to some than a single dictator.
Very true, I agree totally.
As for Toyota they made 3.5 billion in profits i believe in 2011, did they go and negate the Greek debt so the people there could have their pensions? Did they cure homelessness in America with that money, did they move all of their production there to give people jobs? Did they cure hunger in Africa?
No i dont think they did.
Not sure I believe they have to do these things by force. I am not an altruist per say. I have serious reserves about our monetary system. I believe inflation is the root to not feeding and housing the world and Ford was closer to your ideas in my opinion than Toyota. Please read his book "Today and Tomorrow" and I think you will be surprised about his ideas about society and business. We are pretty close to agreement except I have no problem with working hard and success. There will always be people who are more talented and offer more to society and they should be rewarded and promoted, not made to slow down for everyone else. However they as need us as well to survive in a free market society
You may if interested watch the movie Zeitgeist addendum, Money Masters or The Secret of Oz, which are all available on Youtube. These movies address a monetary system that creates debt instead of wealth, and money is 1/2 of every transaction in our society, so we need to get that right in order to have a lean and proper system
So yes Toyota and Ford may respect their employees, that i am not arguing, but really they are like all companies all over the world they are in it to make a profit and keep shareholders happy.
I have no problem with that
They are not there for the betterment of the people, as one famous tv character puts it "everybody lies" even those that run the corporation!
If you are not forced to buy their products, than you have the ultimate power over them in the end.
As for a society run by dictators, you live in one, and that is why it is not Lean.....at all.
True but who are the dictators, do you know?
Some people get offended by these conversations, so if that is the case, please contact me by email john_podlasek@hotmail.com to continue the discussion.
Edited: 03/23/2012 at 11:02 AM by Lean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 11:02 AM
|
|
|
Basit,
What do you mean by 'working on a customer need does not always mean that all activities are value adding'?
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 11:03 AM
|
|
|
Wayne
Toyota does a lot for the communities in which they have facilities. $3.5 B is not enough to have much impact on the debt in Greece or cure homlessness in America. Yes, corporations do have a responsibility to their owners (stockholders). Communities that have Toyota operations have reaped many benefits of direct employment and employment for suppliers and other businesses the area, Look at the whole picture. The history of creating jobs shows more benefit that handouts like America is becoming dependant upon from the Govenment.
Ron Turkett
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 11:03 AM
|
|
|
I'm pretty late to this thread, so I don't know how much help this will be for your paper. But I would suggest you consider Theory of Constraints (TOC).
I don't think there's an actual downside to Lean per se (and PLEASE let's not get back into "L"ean vs. "l"ean vs. TPS), either the philosophy or the tools, but as many have said the tools are often misapplied. Lean and TOC are generally compatible, but there is one philosophical area in which they differ that I believe would be worth your time to explore.
The way I was taught Lean, one target state is a balanced production chain in which each link operates to takt time. The TOC equivelant is Drum-Buffer-Rope (DBR), in which the constraint drives release and production, and only the constraint is directly managed (and of course can be paced to takt time if appropriate).
The difference is that a Lean line controls EVERY resource, while a TOC line controls ONLY the constraint, subordinating all other resources to serving that constraint but otherwise allowing them to behave more "naturally". That doesn't mean that waste is allowed to blossom in non-constraints, but rather that additional effort and energy is not applied to keeping every link in lock-step. It also means that non-constraints can experience even moderate problems without affecting the whole line; the key thing is to make sure that the constraint is never down and never starved for input.
And of course, proponents of each claim that the other's perspective is "wrong". I think such a comparison would add a nice dimension to your thesis.
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 11:03 AM
|
|
|
AND -
As Mark Rosenthal suggested, for particulars of how TOC relates to project management you should look into Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM). CCPM differs from traditional PM in four main ways:
1) CCPM de-emphasizes detailed task and project schedules. It looks at each branch of a network as a relay race in which it's ok to start and complete before schedule but each participant must pick up the "baton" as soon as it's available. This demands a common understanding, priority and sense of urgency, and a planning phase which accommodates the availability of specific resources.
2) CCPM recognizes that task duration estimates (and therefore the project as a whole) are almost always over-stated. It uses that over-estimation to establish time buffers for each branch of the project network. CCPM focuses and simplifies project management by monitoring the consumption of those buffers. A primary metric is the "fever chart" which tracks the intrusion into the time buffers.
3) CCPM emphasizes planning and managing the workload on specific resources - the "Critical Chain" - rather than progress on the technical critical path.
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 01:20 PM
|
|
|
I think we are all losing focus and need to get back to the basics. If you are using LEAN for the purpose of personal or financial gain, YOU DONT GET IT. Financial gain, when realized should be an added benefit to LEAN not the sole purpose.
In reality LEAN is the closest thing to Common Sense which in itself is not marketable nor is it something that can be taught. That being said we ALL need to remember why LEAN came about and stop speculating and hypothising about why it works for some and doesnt work for others.
If you stick to the basics and know why it is being done, improvements will be acheived. Change is not easy. Thats life. The LEAN tool is probably the most basic one available to help in making continuous improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 04:42 PM
|
|
|
Mr. Potr, I think you are missing the point. One of the basic purposes of Lean is indeed financial gain. In fact, financial gain is probably the main DRIVER or reason for implementing Lean by the majority of companies. Why in the world would any company want to use up time and money (resources) to implement a Lean program if it didn't ultimately benefit them financially?
You might want to argue that one purpose is to satisfy customers. Indeed, that is a valid reason. But why do they want to satisfy customers? The answer is so that the customers will continue to buy products which would allow the company to continuously show financial bgain. I know of no company that wants to become Lean just for the sake of being able to say that they are Lean. Ultimately, financial gain for companies is the main reason in the majority of cases.
I suspect some people reading this will come up with examples of Lean being implemented in wich the profit motive was not necessarily the driver. A non-profit organization for example. But even in that case, the non-profit organization has to control their expenses to assure they don't go broke trying to be non-profit. Lean can helpt hem to reduce their costs.
I don't think knowing "Why Lean came about" is a determing factor in its use today. Companies don't implement Lean because of "the way it came about". They implement Lean after determing if it will benefit their company. Besides, what Lean is today is so drastically different from what it was 20 years ago that you can't really compare the two.
Finally, don't confuse Lean with continuous improvement. Lean is a condition or state of being that identifies how efficiently companies are being operated at. A company is either Lean or it is not Lean. It is either efficient or it is not efficient, or somewhere in between.
Continuous improvement is a repetitive process that looks at a series of operations being performed in the making of a product and determines how to make them more efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
03/23/2012 05:51 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: MrPotr
I think we are all losing focus and need to get back to the basics. If you are using LEAN for the purpose of personal or financial gain, YOU DONT GET IT. Financial gain, when realized should be an added benefit to LEAN not the sole purpose.
Nothing is done without the idea of personal gain and no one would pay attention to Lean today if Toyota did not outperform other car companies by profits. Yes I do 5S and I dont itemize that on a balance sheet, but I do it so I have a clean work environment (personal gain) and due to it makes my company look professional to potential and current customers. (financial gain)
We need to stop this empty Lean speak as if it was some altruistic endeavor.
In reality LEAN is the closest thing to Common Sense which in itself is not marketable nor is it something that can be taught. That being said we ALL need to remember why LEAN came about and stop speculating and hypothising about why it works for some and doesnt work for others.
Common Sense I agree. Lean came from Henry Ford, not Toyota, and why not try to understand the failures? You want to just push them under the table and pretend they dont exist. I really don't understand this type of logic. You are sounding like a politician.
If you stick to the basics and know why it is being done, improvements will be acheived. Change is not easy. Thats life. The LEAN tool is probably the most basic one available to help in making continuous improvements.
ok
John
Edited: 03/23/2012 at 05:51 PM by Lean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
03/26/2012 12:04 PM
|
|
|
After reading the list in the post form Sam Thomas I think it is important to repsond and clarify a few things.
Lean is aprocess for maximising not minimizing the use of resources it is about freeing resources form wasteful activity, this allows resources to be used on more beneficial activitty.
Lean is about making the jiob easier and eesier, not faster anfaster, faster is an outocme of making the job easier.
Lean is the not the Toyota Production System. TPS is just a very good application model.
Lean is the platform not the process for change management. To be able to sustain change there is a need to recognise whre yoou are moving from and the goal you are mving to. If your production systems are not stable and repeatable, if there is waste, tyhen the success factors for change are reduced.
Just because a professor somewhere does not believe in Lean doesn't make him right, yes it may not make him wrong but the success story that is Toyota and all of the follwoing Japanese manufacturers does seem to point towards them doing something right.
Post topics like this one should never get past the review stage, they are dangerous and reduce the effectiveness of the site in assisting peopel to understand what lean is.
|
|
|
|
|
03/28/2012 05:41 PM
|
|
|
<Post topics like this one should never get past the review stage, they are dangerous and reduce the effectiveness of the site in assisting peopel to understand what lean is.>
Raymond: I have to disagree. We may not agree with a viewpoint but we should not suppress a differing viewpoint either. I think this thread is what is needed to have a rational discussion of the viewpoint. And I think this thread is a perfect example of a rational discussion. I do not recall a single post that was an ad hominem attack. Its actually a breath of fresh air when there is a differing viewpoint. Its the differing viewpoints that make us better.
James
|
|
|
|
|
03/28/2012 05:45 PM
|
|
|
Originally posted by: RDL
Lean is aprocess for maximising not minimizing the use of resources it is about freeing resources form wasteful activity, this allows resources to be used on more beneficial activity.
I would say you are right and wrong at the same time. I can use lean activities to minimize the amount of material I use in a process. I can use lean activities to maximize the use of available machine time.
Lean is about making the job easier and easier, not faster and faster, faster is an outocme of making the job easier.
Not necessarily. I can make a job easier by breaking it up into smaller components, that does not make it faster. I may make it below takt, but total time stays the same. Making the job faster /speed is key. You can not go faster without good quality and real improvements. I always use Indy Car racing as an example. Speed wins, due to the quality of the car and pit stops. When they changed the design of the wheel to make one bolt instead of one, they made the process easier and faster. Just unscrewing the same amount of nuts easier was not the answer. It had to be faster.
Lean is the platform not the process for change management. To be able to sustain change there is a need to recognise where you are moving from and the goal you are moving to. If your production systems are not stable and repeatable, if there is waste, then the success factors for change are reduced.
Only if you don't work to remove the waste. Waste is opportunity to improve.
Just because a professor somewhere does not believe in Lean doesn't make him right, yes it may not make him wrong but the success story that is Toyota and all of the follwoing Japanese manufacturers does seem to point towards them doing something right.
Post topics like this one should never get past the review stage, they are dangerous and reduce the effectiveness of the site in assisting peopel to understand what lean is.
I would say you are entitled to your opinion but I dont think that is a fair evaluation and I was always told there was never a bad question or topic, only bad answers. Those that want to avoid topics mean that they are not really prepared to discuss their own weaknesses. Its a sign of lack of understanding or fear. Every topic is relevant.
Edited: 03/28/2012 at 05:45 PM by Lean Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
03/30/2012 11:55 AM
|
|
|
Raymond, here are my thoughts on some of your comments.
You say that Lean is a process for maximizing resoures. Actually one definition of Lean is that it is a process for minimizing waste, which in the case of resources such as time, labor, space, material, tooling, funding, etc., means not using any more than is necessary to get a job done. Not using more than is currently being used means that your production process, or any process you are working on for that matter, needs to become more efficient. If you remember the formula for efficiency, it's basically OUTPUT over INPUT, or simply - more production output using less resources input. The challenge to becoming more efficient, and therefor more Lean, is to figure out how to increase production while reducing the amounts of the various resources needed for that production.
I can see your point of view also in that in some cases a company may wish to reduce the current utilization of some particular resource, such as a a piece of production equipment, in order to make it available for other jobs.
You say that Lean is about making the job faster but not necessarily easier. I believe you can get into all kinds of challenging discussions on the relationship between "faster' and "easier". For example, does not making a process faster also make it easier in many cases?
You say Lean is not the Toyota Production System. I have to agree with you on that one. I've personally come to believe that through the evolution process over the last 20 years or so, Lean has taken on many new and continuously changing definitions so that today, there is not one standard definition. The APICS dictionary for example has no definition of the word LEAN.
I actually find that surprising since I've always felt, right or wrong, that Lean means simply "efficient". That is, a Lean process, for example, is an efficient process. I've also found that there are many definitions of Lean today. One of the more interesting ones that someone submitted to this foruum in the past is this one: "I don't know what it is but I'll recognize it when I see it".
As far as the college professor's comment, I don't believe anyone would necessarily accept all comments by all professors all the time as always being unchallengeable. Professors do express their own opinions which some individuals may disagree with. People also ecognize however that college professors use standard research methodologies in their studies which would suggest that their conclusions are based on substantiated data. They are correct in their conclusions many-many more times than they are wrong.
Thanks for your comments. Keep sending them in.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
04/02/2012 12:58 PM
|
|
|
Hallo Everyone,
I think, we should be flexible enough to listen to others point of view.
I utilized some of the early comments and completed my thesis. If anyone is interested to read. A copy of my thesis can be downloaded from the following link
Thesis: Improving Project Management with Lean Thinking?
I am thankful to all of you for your valuable comments and everlasting support.
Regards
Basit Aziz
|
|
|
|
>
Community >
Forums
Send to a Friend
