|
|
|
07/13/2012 11:33 AM
|
|
|
I am working south of the border and am asking if anyone has a quick and effective way to show the benefit of self directed work teams to a large company that has made a lot of progress on individual piece rate - paying for individual jobs separately, thereby motivating the workforce to add value.
Reading Lonnie Wilson's article on Financial Incentives, it is even there conceded that money talks in poorer environments. It certainly does motivate - valuable work is happening - but WIP is enormous and lead time is days/weeks for a product whose VA time is under 30 minutes.
I have learned that social motivation is the key, and have seen it work, but am going to have to convince some rather convinced-of-the-alternative folks that structured teams are more effective. Please try to not use the word 'synergy.' Workforce education - or lack - may also be a factor.
There is some willingness to try different things on a small model line, but that is more long term; my scheduled time here is shorter.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
07/16/2012 10:08 AM
|
|
|
I have never found self directed work teams to be effective. Work teams need to be trained, given goals, empowered and supported. Toyota does this very well.
Financial incentives work best for team applications when goals that are positive to the business are reached. Piece work on individual operations tied to output and not to customer demand usually results in excessive WIP and sometimes poor quality.
Many large companies in the past learned their lessons when employees were given easy targets and found that employees could meet these in 4 to 6 hours.
Start with the customer. How do we meet the customer demand with high quality on time delivery.
Ron Turkett
|
|
|
|
|
07/17/2012 11:49 AM
|
|
|
I will have to disagree with Ron on this one. I have been implementing self-directed teams for more than thirty years and they have been effective in almost every environment.There are lots of published case studies.
But.... the term "self-directed" is easily subject to misunderstanding. No team is completely self-directed or self-managed. The senior management team is directed or managed by the board. Everyone is managed by someone. However, the term is a relative term indicating a degree of autonomy and decision making within the team. A well designed work cell is a self-directed team. The ability to do load leveling within the team is a degree of self-direction. The ability to conduct small experiments, continuous improvement, within the team is a degree of self-direction.
Lean manufacturing plants should incorporate the principles of self-directed teams within each small work unit, call them a team or by any other name.
Each team should know their process, take ownership for that process, measure their process, problem solve and improve within the team.
I have an exercise that I have used for years and always seems to work in which I organize the group into the Eagle Rock Basket Company and they have a manager, quality control manager, are organized into three departments and are told to "do your own work and follow directions" and they end up making terrible baskets, usually selling me (the customer) only one or two. I then ask them to redesign the work system. Inevitably they redesign into self-directed teams that do the whole job, eliminate the manger who added no value, and they sell forty or fifty baskets. The experience the change in the psychology of the group, the feeling being able to make decisions, empowerment, etc.
Self-directed teams work.
|
|
|
|
|
07/17/2012 03:02 PM
|
|
|
Thank you for the responses.
Using the term 'self directed work team' is indeed confusing, as I had in mind exactly what Ron described (teams need to be trained, given goals, empowered and supported). Utilizing these teams to take ownership and self manage, level, etc.. is the vision. Not there yet.
The question is how to convince people, and maybe the Basket game Mr. Miller describes can help, if it is open for sharing? If not, understood. I have a simulation that shows benefits of layout, balancing, and one piece flow, but not work teams.
Please let me know...
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
07/18/2012 10:41 AM
|
|
|
Dear Lawrence- i strongly support you and has a disagreement with Ron. as i am working with an MNC to implementation of self directed work team. within 2-year this MNC has a 6- more plant and this plant becomes the one of the best performing plant within 2-year with the help of SDWT.
in my implementation approach to reach the level of SDWT i divided this journey in 4-stages.
1.self organizing
2.self implementing
3.self managing
4. self directed work team
one thing is very much important in implementation of SDWT- what will be the empowerment level of teams or on which level you would like to empower your team. if that is clear the hurdles becomes very less.pl let me know what further can i help you on SDWT.
Dear Dan, would like to share the simulation of benefits of layout and line balancing . you can please send it to my id- taskhirnoori@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
|
07/18/2012 10:41 AM
|
|
|
Lawrence
We do agree. The point you make about the term "self-directed" is valid and does mislead many who are just starting. That is why I prefer to used well trained and empowered teams who understand the vision, mission, values and goals of the company and the team they belong to. Then they are supported by everyone in the company.
I am negatively biased with the term after having watched so called self-directed work teams spend time on where to store the mops and how to assign locker space, etc. One large company I worked for had and OD Director began implementation of self-directed work teams by having the teams consider topics that were only important to the team and not related to the organization that employed them.
Ron Turkett
|
|
|
|
|
07/18/2012 01:43 PM
|
|
|
Ron,
I absolutely agree with you here. I remember watching a "self-directed" team self destruct once. They literally handed the keys and control of a machining cell over to the operators with little or no training. The first thing the people did was try to figure out what was important to them since management hadn't adequately communicated what was important to the business. So they decided to buy new furniture for the break room and potted plants to place around the machines. (Automatic Screw Machines I might add.)
In the next few months, they ran the cell the best way they knew how. With literally no business training and an almost total lack of guidance from upper management, the work was subsequently outsourced "because the cell wasn't competitive." Sad, and entirely preventable.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
07/19/2012 10:01 AM
|
|
|
Dan:
I agreee 100% with what you are saying- this is how you trully begin to get sustanability in an organization. They take more ownership and resposibility and are more at cause in their work environment. Are you willing to share your Eagle Rock Basket simulation?
Thanks CEJJ
|
|
|
|
|
07/19/2012 10:02 AM
|
|
|
Dan,
If you will send me an email at LMMIller@lmmiller.com I will be happy to share the basket exercise.
To Ron and others, of course how you implement anything, with SDWT or any other method, determines whether or not it will succeed. Any good idea can be done poorly.
At the risk of being accused of crass commercialism, I have Lean Team Management training manual that is available on Amazon. I have also just recently re-written it for healthcare. Please see my website at www.ManagementMeditations.com.
There is a chapter on team maturity. Teams need good leadership and management, just like an athletic team. They key to developing teams is to recognize their stage of maturity and that maturity is defined by the degree to which they take responsibility for managing and improving the important performance for which they are responsible. As they take what I call "performance initiative" the manager backs off and lets them make more decisions and become more self-managing. Just as the parent observes the teenager and to the degree to which he or she makes good decisions, decides to do their homework on their own, the parent changes her behavior to allow more self-direction.
You have to "raise" self-directed teams just as you have to "raise" young people. Writing a team charter, developing a scorecard and visual display, defining roles and responsibilities within the team, learning the skills of problem-solving and facilitation, motivating and solving human performance problems, are all elements of building a strong team. Teams need coaches. Working with my healthcare client in Canada this year, or Merck for many years, there is an internal team of coaches who coach every team in the organization. We find it easy to understand that a world championship athletic team still needs a coach, so to do great teams in the workplace.
Cheers,
Larry Miller
www.ManagementMeditations.com
|
|
|
|
|
07/20/2012 10:13 AM
|
|
|
All -
I will ask authors of the layout/balance simulation if it is shareable I did not write it, not sure if we purchased it, or when.
Larry -
I use very similar analogies taking about teams - need to grow the system, you cannot construct it. A group in Great Britain ('Cement Heads') took a manual on raising a child and replaced 'child' with 'employee' resulting in a very realistic training manual - use patience, coaching and guiding, create challenge and reward progress, etc..
Looking forward to being in touch...
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
07/20/2012 12:45 PM
|
|
|
Dan, your question reminded me of an observation a person made many years ago, as follows:
"We trained hard - but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reoganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.
Gaius Petronius, A.D. 66
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
07/20/2012 12:46 PM
|
|
|
Dan, around 1992 empowered work teams were considered to be the basis of a new culture. Here are some of the things that were written at that time about this new culture.
The basis of this new culture was a refined description of a work system that emphasized:
1. Teamwork
2. Participative management
3. Multi-skilled workers
4. Continuous training
5. Commensurate compensation
6. Broad based job descriptions
7. Alignment of company and employee goals so that each could realize benefits
What did companies do to develop this new culture?
1. Removed levels of middle management
2. Increased remaining manager's span of control
3. Integrated quality and production activities at lower levels of the organization
4. Designed jobs that were boader than in the past
5. Combined planning and implementation responsibilities
6. Designated teams, not individuals, as the unit responsible for performance. Note that this team approach follows many Japanese company approaches these days.
Companies developed a semiautonomous work team approach
1. Team members were trained in the entire manufacturing process
2. Teams managed their own work pace without management assistance
3. Scheduled their own vacations
4. Had a voice in hiring/firing
5. Decided when they qualified for a raise
It was reported at that time that companies that implemented the above approach were able to realize 30-50% productivity increases.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
07/20/2012 04:52 PM
|
|
|
Sam,
Everything you wrote above I agree with and that is my experience.
While on this subject, we should remember the following quote from The Machine That Changed the World (Womack, et al):
"What are the truly important organizational features of a lean plant - the specific aspects of plant operations that account for up to half of the overall performance differences among plants across the world? The truly lean plant has two key organizational features: It transfers the maximum number of tasks and responsibilities to those workers actually adding value to the car on the line, and it has in place a system for detecting defects that quickly traces every problem, once discovered, to its ultimate cause....So in the end, it is the dynamic work team that emerges as the heart of the lean factory."
|
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 11:44 AM
|
|
|
Sam
Toyota had empowered work teams well before we started the Toyota Georgetown Plant in 1987. All of the principles you list are appropriate. The only difference I saw moving from another auto company was the decreased managers span of control This allow more depth for each manager and more attention to details. Too many companies had a span of control for first line supervisors in the range from 20 - 35 or more. By narrowing the scope and adding team leaders fast reaction and narrowed focus to support team members was possible.
Ron Turkett
|
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 11:44 AM
|
|
|
There is a book titled "Powered by Honda" that was published in 1998. One section of the book talks about Honda of America's strategy for developing a supplier in Renosa, Mexico. The following quote is excerpted from the book: "To give the Reynosa workers, whom Honda calls associates, a way to take control of the production process with which they work, to raise their own quality and productivity levels, to make their jobs easier and physically less taxing." Honda's strategy was to start the process of worker enlistment by getting the workers to first improve their own environment. The book is an easy read and supplies realistic data on the improvements in quality and productivity.
|
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 12:04 PM
|
|
|
Ron, as I remember, the reason given for increasing (not decreasing) a manager's or supervisor's span of control was to reduce their tendency to want to micro-manage. When they have only a few people reporting to them they have a tendency to want to direct all activities themselves. With many people reporting to them, they have to delegate more. Along with being to delegate more is the requirement that they train their subordonates to handle more responsibilities.
This is different from what you have stated. I'm not sure which is morec orrect or whether both approaches were actually used in industry, not necessarily in automotive exclusively.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
07/23/2012 12:08 PM
|
|
|
Donald, that sounds like a workable approach. I suspect other companies have implemented their own unique approaches. It would be interesting to hear how other companies, both automotive and non-automotive, might have done that.
Sam Tomas
|
|
|
|
|
07/24/2012 10:23 AM
|
|
|
My experience at Honda, Marysville (I was involved in the early days there) and with other plants that have gone to SDWTs, is that a span-of-control of 1-45 to 60 is normal. The Team Coordinator (was Honda's term) can manage/lead this number because they are largely self-managing and require far less direction and control.
In my view, having highly empowered teams at the first level, is an essential part of lean.
|
|
|
|
|
07/24/2012 10:23 AM
|
|
|
Sam
Both approaches have been used in industry and I have experienced both. The most successful operations used smaller span of control. For example, is a shop floor supervisor has a span of control of thirty people and four people need assistance at the same time who gets first priority? In a group leader/team leader structure that Toyota and others use a team member will get assistance with the Takt time of the process.
When applied to support staff and management functions the key is the attention to detail. The old saying the devil is in the details is true. A very broad span of control does not allow time for the details. I was criticized at one Auto Company for spending too much time on details and at Toyota initially I was told that I was not spending enough time on details and to improve the depth of coaching for my department.
Another reason for large spans of control is to meet he objective of reduced headcount. This too often suboptimises the goal of lowest total cost.
Which is better? Which Auto Company went bankrupt and which company continues to have high marks for profit and customer satisfaction and sales? In coaching transformations of companies the narrowed span of control has always helped facilitate the change.
The big difference is surface versus depth of understanding and performance.
Ron Turkett
|
|
|
|
|
07/25/2012 03:27 PM
|
|
|
Gentlemen,
Thank you for the replies, they certainly bear good reading.
Sam, you start with a 1992 excerpt of 'things that were written' - these are great findings and could help with my 'convincing' task (apologies to Mr. Shook). Do you have a reference that can be shared? Referring to 'the LEI Blogsite' for a voice of authority does not sell well. PS I copied the quote also.
Thank you also Larry and Donald for the references.
In the Span of Control, when a Team Coordinator has 45-60 folks under them, as Ron points out - is not their first point of contact the Team Leader - say, six to eight teams of eight to 10 each? The wider span of control is mitigated by the intermediary contact, who is the real 'on-the-spot' contact?
That Team Lead position is one I am not first-person familiar with, and could use some guidelines.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
>
Community >
Forums
Send to a Friend
