Learning SMED (Quick Changeover) Through Simulations

Many studies show that a guided practical application is more effective than just PowerPoint presentations. That holds true when teaching Lean tools and concepts. However, finding good Lean simulations has been difficult. Here are some of the available resources that you can use to teach SMED:

  • SMED DIE simulation game: This Slideshare shows a nice, simple and practical version of a SMED simulation game. I learned this simulation from the Kaizen Institute Europe team few years ago. It really helps to explain the SMED steps very well. Since then I have been using this simulation with good results. It usually takes about 2-3 hours to go through all the steps. You can purchase it. An alternative metal version of this simulation game is also available in Slideshare but you would have to build your own.
  • SMED printing simulation video 1: This video shows an alternative version, a little more complex though, but still simple and practical. I learned about this video last week thanks to Laszlo Sipos. 
  • SMED printing simulation video 2: This version developed by a UK-based team appears to be a fun but a little more complex option. Jose dos Reis Vieira developed a SMED printing simulation that resembles the previous simulation. Here are two videos: Before and After

Breakdown into elements during
a SMED kaizen event
Regardless of the simulation kit you have, use it to teach the SMED process in a way that relates to the actual application in your workplace. Simulations are simplified versions of actual problems which objective is to prepare teams to do the real thing efficiently.

A well conducted SMED simulation should explain the "WHY", the "HOW" (SMED steps) and should link to the actual condition in which it would be used. For instance, how to break a changeover process in elements and how to identify internal and external elements are two critical steps that require additional experience and explanation.

In the picture to the right, the SMED simulation was used to explain how each element should be identified using strips of paper and what information should be written down during a kaizen event conducted in a plastic molding facility.

If you know of any other simulations or resources for SMED simulation, share your experiences. I would like to know them and share with others!

Few more good ideas for SMED simulation: 7/22/2014
Here some good ideas for SMED simulations I learned from some of you after initially posting this blog
  • The dragster: Here is a video of this very fun SMED simulation game shared by Jules Attard. Although in Spanish, you can still have a good sense of the simulation.
  • Changing a car wheel: David Reid suggested to use an actual car to change a tire as he has done to teach SMED. I can see the benefits of doing that: you can always find a car and you might need to learn how to change a flat tire! However, I do have concerns about keeping this simulation safe for the participants. Changing a tire requires safety precautions and good tire alignment and balancing job after the simulation. So I found this fun short video that shows SMED using a tiny car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqlcBUsr5tE     
I look forward to hearing more of your experiences.

Here an interesting video showing the Pit stop: Pit stops 1950 vs 2013

3 comments:

Practical rules to make problems visible while avoiding drawbacks

Many leaders recognize that making problems visible is important practice in successful organizations. It is a core kaizen (continuous improvement) principle practiced by companies such as Toyota (Post: TIEM tour...), Autoliv and Medtronic (Post: What can we learn...) It is one of the 14 Toyota Way principles identified by Jeff Liker after studying Toyota for several years and it is also included in the Shingo Model as a part of continuous improvement dimension. However, most of the efforts to apply this principle fail. I know too many organizations fill of artifacts (e.g. whiteboards, dashboards) of good intentions but lack of understanding how to start making problems visible.

The rational and emotional side of making problems visible
Making problems visible appeals to people's rational and emotional sides or in Aristotle's terms to logos and pathos.

From a rational perspective, problems visibility brings out factual evidence which opens the way for rational argumentation. We can't fix something that we don't "see" or agree as a problem.  In the book "Persuasive Communication", the authors discovered supporting evidence matters the most to influence attitude change when people is highly involved (p.132)

From the emotional side, making problems visible creates a number of emotions within people. In many cases, people feel uncomfortable and thus sets a sense of urgency for action. However, making problems visible can backfire if it is not properly done. It could create perverse behaviors such as defensiveness, blaming or even punishing others. A common reaction when a problem is exposed is to focus on finding someone responsible, "who dropped the ball?", instead of looking at the process (method, machine, material.)

How do we make problems visible and avoid drawbacks?
Here some key rules for making problems visible:
+ Start with agreeing that "making a problem visible" is necessary behavior for your company. Before hanging boards and filling walls with problems within your organization, make sure you are not the only one who believes that making problems visible is important for your company. Discuss about it, answer their questions and work on how it should be done. A very ineffective approach is to force people to agree on your beliefs even if you have good ones.  
+ Define what a problem is. While this might appear trivial, defining and agreeing upon what constitute a problem is a critical step to make problems visible. A simple way to define a problem is "any condition that do not meet the standard or expected condition." In this way, creating standards is necessary condition to make problems visible and then solving them (see blog about standard work and improvement cycle)     
+ Lead by example: Make your problems visible first. Regardless if you lead a small department or the whole organization, start with you. Make your direct area of control the example or "model" of putting in practice the principle. If you are a Lean coach or manager supporting your organization Lean Six Sigma deployment efforts, you must make your problems and activities visible to all. Keep in mind that teaching by example is a key principle on your coaching activities.
+ Start simple. Making problems visible is a learning process that better starts as simple as possible. Instead of looking for the perfect board or wall, start with a solution that is simple, practical and easy for other to understand. For instance, start with a small or very limited number of problems and information about them. As you and your team gain experience on making problems visible, your solution will change.

+ Align your problems to the overall companies values, goals and targets so you efforts support your organization strategy. A common mistake is to focus on the wrong problems or passing upstream or downstream problems that at the end will affect negatively your organization performance even though it might appear your department or area performs better.
+ Make it a part of a problem solving management process. You won't fix problems by just making them visible. Fixing problems requires purposeful and coordinated efforts by people usually in different areas or functions. So making problems visible must be a part of your problem solving management process. In other words, once problems are made visible, they must be sorted, prioritized, assigned and solved as soon as possible.  
The ultimate goal: develop problem solvers
Making problems visible is about developing people as effective problem solvers not just to solve problems (As shown in the chart above.) The ultimate goal of any lean transformation is to build a culture in which every person in the organization is engaged, capable and focus to remove anything that is not creating value for their customers.It requires to see "making problems visible" as an component of an integral management system and avoid piecemeal implementation of tools.  
5 comments:

How to avoid Lean & Six Sigma deployment mistakes


Organizations around the world spend impressive amounts of time and capital in training, consultants, books and other resources for learning and deploying performance improvement initiatives such Lean & Six Sigma. However, very few of these improvement programs actually produce significant and sustainable results. Studies show that the majority of Lean & Six Sigma initiatives failed to achieve their anticipated results despite the vast number of resources nowadays available.

 What causes this large failure rate? What can we learn to increase our own odds of success implementing Lean or Six Sigma? 

Most of the available work addressing these questions provide superficial analysis offering lists of a number of reasons without actually understanding the root-causes for failure. In this article, I reflect on the underlying dynamics that cause well-intentioned and knowledgeable practitioners to fail when actually implementing Lean & Six Sigma.

What is the Lean & Six Sigma implementation failure rate?
Data shows that the majority of Lean & Six Sigma deployment, around 80 percent, efforts fail. 
  • A Bain & Company's survey in 2008 found that 80 percent of 184 companies responding claimed that "Lean Six Sigma efforts are failing to drive the anticipated value" and 74 percent said "they are not gaining the expected competitive edge because they haven't achieved their saving targets." (2) 
  • The 2007 IndustryWeek survey identified that "only 2 percent of companies who responded to the survey have fully achieved their objectives" and "74 percentage of the responding companies admitting that they are not making good progress with Lean" (3).
  • In an article entitled "Why Lean Programs failed", Jeffrey Liker and Mike Rother, citing the IndustryWeek survey mentioned above, stated "only 2 percent of the companies that have a lean program achieved their anticipated results."(4). An assertion that does not accurate reflect the actual IndustryWeek data (see reference 3). 

 Regardless of the precise failure rate value, the key takeaway from these studies is that Lean & Six Sigma efforts fail significantly. If you are involved or will be in Lean or Six Sigma efforts read this post. It might help you.  

It is important to recognize that when Lean & Six Sigma initiatives fail, they don't abruptly disappear. Typically, these programs gradually fade away starved by the lack of resources. In some cases, their formal extinction is the official announcement of a new performance improvement initiative. In most cases, it is a slow process in which people are relocated little by little to other activities or eliminated from the organization.    

Lean & Six Sigma popularity  
Lean & Six Sigma are currently the most two popular performance improvement approaches worldwide. Their relevance can be recognized by measuring the market demand for Lean & Six Sigma professionals. In 2011, it was identified by The Avery Point Group (5) that "the combined demand for Lean and Six Sigma talent has almost doubled, rising by over 90 percent versus last year's recession levels." A much faster recovery than other occupations.

The reason given to this dramatic increase is that "companies are seeking Lean and Six Sigma talent as a way to help their organizations better leverage their performance during the ongoing recovery." Moreover, IndustryWeek (2007) identified that "nearly 70% of all plants in the U.S. are currently employing Lean Manufacturing as an improvement methodology."(3) In addition, recent large investments in applying Lean in leading organizations such GE (6) shows that industry leaders recognize their relevance as performance improvement methodologies.

Lean & Six Sigma have reached other industries beyond manufacturing including service sectors such Healthcare, Banking and IT. 

Lean & Six Sigma abundance supply
The abundance and quality of  resources available to learn and implement Lean and Six Sigma is impressive. For instance, a search in Amazon.com results in over 3,200 book titles related to Lean Six Sigma. Nowadays, top-notch organizations such the American Society for Quality (ASQ), Shingo Prize, Associations for Manufacturing Excellence (AME), Lean Enterprise Institute (LEI), Kaizen Institute (KI) among many others offer a large and comprehensive supply of training courses, videos, certifications, plant visits and professional services about Lean & Six Sigma. 

With all these abundance and diverse supply of Lean & Six Sigma resources, access to quality knowledge in terms of material and experts can't be a main reason for the large number of unsuccessful Lean & Six Sigma implementations.      




So far we have covered three key points:
  1. Lean & Six Sigma deployment failure is quite high around 80 percent. It is a real problem
  2. Lean & Six Sigma are the most well-know performance improvement methodologies. Leaders and large number of companies recognize their value.
  3. Lean & Six Sigma  resources are ubiquitously available. There is not lack of learning resources about Lean & Six Sigma.   
The list of common reasons for Lean & Six Sigma failure
A common approach for many lean practitioners is to provide a list of top 5 or 10 reasons why Lean & Six Sigma deployment efforts fail. Most of these lists include the follow reasons:
1. Senior management's lack of commitment/understanding of Lean or Six Sigma
2. Senior management's unwilling to accept that cultural change is often required for Lean to be a success.
3. Lack of Lean/Six Sigma skilled people in the right positions. (7)
4. The company has chosen Lean as their process improvement methodology when a different process improvement program -- or none at all -- would have been the better choice.
While these are great checklists, they do not really explain the interaction that really happen within an organization that make or break a Lean, Six Sigma or any performance improvement deployment. It is like stating "we must have air in your tires for your car to run properly". However, if you understand how air pressure relates to your tires and interacts on how you run your car, you can make better decisions when your tires are under or over inflated. In the same way, "senior management's lack of commitment" is an obvious reason for most performance initiatives to fail. However, the question here is "why would senior management not commit to continuous improvement initiatives?" If anything, I ask you to look into the interactions that affect your organization and the success of its performance improvement initiatives.

In my next post "Beyond the check lists for Lean Six Sigma failure or success", I would discuss the most common dynamics that really make or break a performance improvement initiative. Until then, the force be with you.  

Important note: The ideas above are built on my own experience and the experience and studies of outstanding practitioners such Jim Womack, Mike Rother, Nelson Repenning, Jeffrey Pfeffer, Robert Sutton and many others from MIT and Stanford. 

References:
28 comments:
Labels: , ,

What is the Auto Quality Matrix?

I learned about the Auto Quality Matrix from our friends in Kaizen Institute Europe. As any lean tool, you need to understand it in the context of a system instead of just copy and paste. Here some key points if you are interested on implementing it:

What is it?
A visual display of where the defect are created and where they are detected.

Why to use it?
It is part of a quality management system to quickly identify the source and prevent defects from moving downstream.

How to use it?

 Here is an example:




4 comments:

Creating Leaner Value Streams: Are the pacemaker and the bottleneck the same?

When designing leaner value streams, one key step is to define where to locate the pacemaker. However, a common misconception is to believe that the bottleneck process is the pacemaker. While a pacemaker could coincide with the bottleneck process, they mean different things.

What is the bottleneck? 
The bottleneck is the constraint process in your value steam that defines your actual throughput capacity. The bottleneck will define if you can or cannot meet your customer demand.
For instance, if you have four processes as shown in the figure to the right, the bottleneck is process 2. Notice that the takt time is greater than the bottleneck. If the bottleneck cycle time (the highest cycle time in your value stream) is greater than the takt time, then we are not able to meet customer consumption. If it is lower, then you have overcapacity (waste).   
What is the pacemaker?
The pacemaker is the single scheduling point in your value stream. It sets the mix of products to produce in order to meet customer demand. Because it is the scheduling point, the pacemaker is then the point in which push flow starts and pull ends. 

So what is the difference?
The difference between pacemaker and bottleneck is about what question you are trying to answer:  
  • Can we meet customer demand? Answer this question by comparing the bottleneck throughput to the required throughput. In other words, we compare the takt time to every process cycle time, including the bottleneck process, to ensure that the consumption rate can be satisfied with the production rate.
  • Can we use flow in our value stream? Ask this question at each process, starting at the end of your value stream and going upstream, to identify the pacemaker. If the answer is not, then that specific process is the  pacemaker. 
In conclusion, bottleneck is about throughput while pacemaker is about flow and pull.
Working on the right problem at the right time
Value stream design not only requires to focus on the right problem, but also to do it at the right time and following the right order. Start with takt time to balance each of the processes, including the bottleneck, with two objective: (1) you are able to meet demand (enough capacity) and (2) remove unnecessary resources (too much capacity). Only when this first step is completed, you can focus on creating flow by setting your pacemaker.  

Why is the pacemaker important? 

By having only one scheduling point we stop overproduction as no more material will be released.  It is like putting only one "driver" and linking our processes so each of them run at the same speed instead of having several "drivers" at different speeds. With the pacemaker, our value stream  is not only simpler, but also less expensive (we only need one driver!) and creates less work-in-process (which could be related to the distances between each truck.)

Theory of Constraints and the Lean Pacemaker 
Here is an interesting link about TOC and Lean in which pacemaker and bottleneck are also discussed: http://lssacademy.com/2007/04/19/toc-bottleneck-versus-lean-pacemaker_19/ 
3 comments:

Kaizen Culture: The Secret to Sustained Success

Sharing this post that explores how Jabil has turned to a Lean manufacturing philosophy to sustain competitiveness and build a company culture focused on continuously driving out waste.

Jaime Villafuerte in Chihuahua, Mexico

Kaizen Culture: The Secret to Sustained Success
Posted on October 2, 2013
Published on Aim Higher, Jabil's blog
2 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)