Progressive Lean: The Overall Idea of It
Geez....two months since my last post? How lazy can a guy get? I don't even have much in the way of good excuses...I've been busy but not that busy. (I've managed to fit any number of computer Hearts games and a fair amount of blog reading into that same time.)
Anyway, you didn't come back here to hear me moan about my own delinquencies, did you?
In my last post...can you believe it was two months ago?...I promised to cover my new approach to implementing lean. As you read through these articles, you'll see that there's not a great deal new about my new approach. I mean, you won't see much in terms of revolutionary thinking and certainly very little in the way of new methods. The approach is strongly informed by (but not identical to) the Progressive 5S approach, which I did not originate. All that said, the approach, as a comprehensive way of implementing the full array of lean tools and concepts is unique, so far as I can determine. (In fact, the names of the five stages are copyrighted...by me!)
Before I get into the approach itself, though, I want to give you a bit of background as to why and how I came up with this approach.
In the archives of this blog is a pretty comprehensive and complete description of my former approach to implementing lean. It started with Leadership Planning, then went on to carrying out a series of action events that usually focused on 5S, then setup reduction, then Value Stream Mapping and problem solving. The action workshops would focus on specific areas or work centers within the plant. The hypothesis was that the team would learn how to implement 5S in those few areas, then spread it farther through the organization on its own. (My clients don't have budgets that allow them to pay me to facilitate action events enough to cover the entire plant, even for a small plant.) I noticed that this didn't happen often enough.
The same was true for set up reduction; we'd run a few action events for reducing the setups on a few machines. Those work centers would show substantial improvement (in most cases) but the company didn't pay me to conduct more of the action events nor would they run them on their own (which was the idea to begin with).
Those events were, too often, scheduled so that there wasn't adequate time to really implement all of 5S or set up reduction. Sort would go well as would Shine. Straighten would be pretty much just tidying up (everyone would be getting tired after all that Sorting and Shining.) Standardize through visual controls? We can make labels and paint lines on the floor another time. Sustain? We'll sweep every Friday afternoon.
Now, of course, part of that was my fault for not insisting on more time but those of you who work in smaller shops know what the response would be if the consultant were to say: "We'll need to schedule four consecutive days for this one event. And, yes, the work center will have to be shut down. And, yes, we'll need all three shifts to attend all four days."
So....after a year or so, a plant would have 5S in several places but not across the shop, successful setup reduction efforts but only on some work centers and maybe a smattering of other tools.
But here's the thing that's odd....generally, at that point, the company would be very happy with what it had accomplished...but not me. Senior managers would say, "Things have improved quite a bit. Thanks, Rick." I'd be thinking, "But we're not nearly done!" (I had one client, several years ago now, that never got past 5S. That was a case where they did have the budget to pay me to conduct lots of 5S events...and that's what they did. I nearly begged them to move on to other tools but they didn't even want to do setup reduction and never touched value stream mapping. They were so pleased with the improvements they saw via 5S that they just didn't want to move on.)
So, I was in a quandary...my clients liked the results of my former approach better than I did.
There was another impetus behind my new approach; to explain this one, I need to make reference to the literature on implementing lean. Regular readers of this blog and my posts on AME Group at LinkedIn know that one of my issues with most (all?) the books and articles on lean is that few (none?) of them tell you how to get started. Or as I like to put it, "You finished reading the book today...what will you do on Monday to get started?" I read books about hoshin kanri, pull systems, takt times, heijunka, visual factory, etc., etc. and the benefits of those tools just like you do. Can you point to just one of them that gave you a clear idea as to what, exactly, you needed to do to get started? What to do on Day One, then Day Two and so on? If you can, honestly, let me know about it. (The closest I've seen to that idea is "Creating a Lean Culture" by David Mann.)
Even my own approach suffered this fault a bit. I think telling managers that, first, you're going to plan and then you're going to implement 5S was an improvement over most of what was out there (Create a Value Stream Map so that you can establish takt times and create your very own kanban board and heijunka box!!!) but still, as I've found out, even 5S isn't a slam dunk (as evidenced by the fact that few of my clients continued to deploy it when the action events I conducted for them stopped).
So, my own approach was working for clients but not to my own satisfaction and there wasn't much out there by way of help? What was a conscientious consultant to do? The only thing he could do....stumble blindly across the answer. More about that in my next post.
Anyway, you didn't come back here to hear me moan about my own delinquencies, did you?
In my last post...can you believe it was two months ago?...I promised to cover my new approach to implementing lean. As you read through these articles, you'll see that there's not a great deal new about my new approach. I mean, you won't see much in terms of revolutionary thinking and certainly very little in the way of new methods. The approach is strongly informed by (but not identical to) the Progressive 5S approach, which I did not originate. All that said, the approach, as a comprehensive way of implementing the full array of lean tools and concepts is unique, so far as I can determine. (In fact, the names of the five stages are copyrighted...by me!)
Before I get into the approach itself, though, I want to give you a bit of background as to why and how I came up with this approach.
In the archives of this blog is a pretty comprehensive and complete description of my former approach to implementing lean. It started with Leadership Planning, then went on to carrying out a series of action events that usually focused on 5S, then setup reduction, then Value Stream Mapping and problem solving. The action workshops would focus on specific areas or work centers within the plant. The hypothesis was that the team would learn how to implement 5S in those few areas, then spread it farther through the organization on its own. (My clients don't have budgets that allow them to pay me to facilitate action events enough to cover the entire plant, even for a small plant.) I noticed that this didn't happen often enough.
The same was true for set up reduction; we'd run a few action events for reducing the setups on a few machines. Those work centers would show substantial improvement (in most cases) but the company didn't pay me to conduct more of the action events nor would they run them on their own (which was the idea to begin with).
Those events were, too often, scheduled so that there wasn't adequate time to really implement all of 5S or set up reduction. Sort would go well as would Shine. Straighten would be pretty much just tidying up (everyone would be getting tired after all that Sorting and Shining.) Standardize through visual controls? We can make labels and paint lines on the floor another time. Sustain? We'll sweep every Friday afternoon.
Now, of course, part of that was my fault for not insisting on more time but those of you who work in smaller shops know what the response would be if the consultant were to say: "We'll need to schedule four consecutive days for this one event. And, yes, the work center will have to be shut down. And, yes, we'll need all three shifts to attend all four days."
So....after a year or so, a plant would have 5S in several places but not across the shop, successful setup reduction efforts but only on some work centers and maybe a smattering of other tools.
But here's the thing that's odd....generally, at that point, the company would be very happy with what it had accomplished...but not me. Senior managers would say, "Things have improved quite a bit. Thanks, Rick." I'd be thinking, "But we're not nearly done!" (I had one client, several years ago now, that never got past 5S. That was a case where they did have the budget to pay me to conduct lots of 5S events...and that's what they did. I nearly begged them to move on to other tools but they didn't even want to do setup reduction and never touched value stream mapping. They were so pleased with the improvements they saw via 5S that they just didn't want to move on.)
So, I was in a quandary...my clients liked the results of my former approach better than I did.
There was another impetus behind my new approach; to explain this one, I need to make reference to the literature on implementing lean. Regular readers of this blog and my posts on AME Group at LinkedIn know that one of my issues with most (all?) the books and articles on lean is that few (none?) of them tell you how to get started. Or as I like to put it, "You finished reading the book today...what will you do on Monday to get started?" I read books about hoshin kanri, pull systems, takt times, heijunka, visual factory, etc., etc. and the benefits of those tools just like you do. Can you point to just one of them that gave you a clear idea as to what, exactly, you needed to do to get started? What to do on Day One, then Day Two and so on? If you can, honestly, let me know about it. (The closest I've seen to that idea is "Creating a Lean Culture" by David Mann.)
Even my own approach suffered this fault a bit. I think telling managers that, first, you're going to plan and then you're going to implement 5S was an improvement over most of what was out there (Create a Value Stream Map so that you can establish takt times and create your very own kanban board and heijunka box!!!) but still, as I've found out, even 5S isn't a slam dunk (as evidenced by the fact that few of my clients continued to deploy it when the action events I conducted for them stopped).
So, my own approach was working for clients but not to my own satisfaction and there wasn't much out there by way of help? What was a conscientious consultant to do? The only thing he could do....stumble blindly across the answer. More about that in my next post.
Posted by George Bohan at Saturday, September 24. 2011 
Categories: How to Implement Lean Manufacturing
Categories: How to Implement Lean Manufacturing
The deterioration after 5S and improvement events is the most common problem with lean that I hear in smaller shops -- big ones too, for that matter. Even starting with leadership, who we know have to buy in, seems to fall flat when push comes to shove. Event-based lean can get the ball rolling, but often it falls apart, or the focus is too much on the number of events or the tools. I wonder if you have tried the "most pain" approach (undoubtedly you have) with the continuous problem-solving mindset described in Spear's "The High-Velocity Edge" (formerly titled "Chasing the Rabbit") and "Toyota Kata" by Mike Rother. Mike, in particular, gives the "What do I do on Monday" answer along with the big one on culture. -- He also has a bunch of free stuff on his website that is perhaps more practical, just search Toyota Kata. Art Smalley describes on his website how the genesis of continuous improvement at the Toyota Engine Plant was the problem of uptime. Each and every little problem was solved with a focus on keeping the right machines running the right amount of time to insure the necessary throughput. A progressive 5S approach at this point can be the way to uncover the root causes of downtime. Whatever the owner's pain, that's where to start.
How do you usually choose the starting point for applying Progressive 5S? Is it similar?
Reply to this
Thanks for the comment, Karen. (You were probably thinking I was done with this blogging gig!)
The premise of Progressive Lean is that you can't have operational excellence without organization. Period. So, while we don't altogether eschew problem solving or even conducting action workshops that focus on specific problems, we say, "We're going to get the entire place Sorted and Shined, and show we can sustain it. Then we're going to move on to Straighten and See (Visual Controls) across the entire plant and show we can sustain that. Then on to the other stuff."
My issue with the "most pain" approach is that, once that pain is gone, they tend to lose energy for more comprehensive efforts. Same way that smokers and obese people get their stents put in, then start right back to two packs and a dozen donuts a day as soon as they're back home.
Reply to this
I agree - you can't have op ex without organization. When you ask "what's really going on here?" about a process or problem, you can't begin to find out until the clutter is out of the way, things are where they need to be ("why does this process take so long?") and all the dirt is gone ("Who knew this leak was here?")
As for all the approaches - whole place or "most pain," it comes down to the will to improve, all the time, forever. You've already shown that it's rare and frustrating that people can't see it through. But we've all lost energy about something we've tried to change in ourselves or our organizations, so we can't really place blame.
All in all, I agree with much of what you are saying in your approach. Looking forward to hearing the rest of the story.
Reply to this