The Best Candidates for a Kanban System?

I had the pleasure of speaking with Steve Cimorelli this month. He recently published a second edition of his book Kanban for the Supply Chain: Fundamental Practices for Manufacturing Management, and I had a lively discussion with him about materials requirements planning (MRP) versus kanban pull techniques and the importance of synchronization.

One general question I asked him was: "Which component parts or products are the best candidates for a kanban system?" Here is his answer:

Kanban works best when applied to parts with stable and repeatable demand. An effective way to quantify stability is to determine the mean (average) and standard deviation of daily or weekly demand for all parts under consideration, then calculate a “coefficient of variability” or CoV (CoV = Standard Deviation / Mean) for each part. Parts with a small CoV have more stable demand patterns than those with large CoV values. Another useful criteria is frequency of usage because frequently used parts tend to be more stable than infrequently used parts. Creating a scatter diagram of these two values on a simple Excel chart, can help you visualize where to "draw the line" on CoV and frequency rules. Finally, ABC class codes, which allow parts to be categorized according to both cost and demand, can add additional perspective to the equation. Many companies find it useful to set CoV, frequency, or other criteria differently by ABC code because A-items have a much higher impact on inventory investment than do B-items or C-items.

What do you think of Steve's advice? What type of parts or products have worked best for you in a kanban replenishment system?

Process Problems -- Just Five Types?

I recently spoke with Kicab Castaneda-Mendez, who recently published a book titled What's Your Problem? Identifying and Solving the Five Types of Process Problems, about root cause analysis and his definitions of process problems. I asked him specifically: "How is reducing process problems to just five types a breakthrough in process improvement? What are the key benefits?" Here is his complete response:

Typically, root cause analysis is taught by explaining a variety of tools that requires users to gain considerable experience before being able to apply them correctly in the proper settings. To provide practice, tools are often taught without context which results in users not knowing when to apply them. A third common condition is when problem solving is taught as a sequence of expansions and contractions, specifically in finding root causes and solutions.

By reducing all process problems to just five types based on the cause, we eliminate the need to search for what the cause is. Since these specific causes can be addressed in time-proven ways, the search for solutions is also reduced. The result is that we can significantly simply process problem methodologies to a three-step procedure:

• Identify the type of problem,
• Find the root cause (where it occurs -- we know what it is), and
• Address the root cause.

We benefit in several key areas: vastly simplified teaching, learning, applying, and mentoring. Because virtually every adult has solved these types of problems using the proven techniques, we can easily create lessons that build on this knowledge without burdensome language. With training time reduced by as much 50% to 80%, students can go through multiple cycles of practice on the three-step procedure on all problem types versus at most one cycle of other methodologies on one problem.

Isn’t that what process improvement is all about: increasing quality while reducing costs and time?

What do you think Kicab's methodology? Do you think all process problems can be reduced to just five types?

Robert "Doc" Hall is Inducted!

Everyone here at Productivity Press was quite happy to hear and read that Doc Hall was inducted into IndustryWeek's prestigious Manufacturing Hall of Fame. I can say, without exaggeration, that the understanding of Lean methodologies and the growing popularity of Lean implementations and Lean culture could not have been imagined without Doc. He published his first groundbreaking book, Zero Inventories, in 1983.

I first met Doc Hall about 10 or years ago at an Association for Manufacturing Excellence (AME) annual conference. Doc has not only been a wealth of knowledge since, but his engaging personality and quick-witted demeanor has always made a novice like myself feel welcome to ask any questions or seek insight on any particular topic. Doc has an uncanny knack to say a lot with a little, and always offered clear and concise explanations. What often appeared complex to me was often neatly simplified after hearing Doc speak on the topic.

Back in 2009, I had the pleasure to assist in the development and publication of Doc's book titled Compression: Meeting the Challenges of Sustainability Through Vigorous Learning Enterprises. This forward-thinking book discusses how we will have to adapt to do more with less as demand increases while resources dwindle and become higher-priced commodities. He shows how the Toyota model, the most successful and enduring manufacturing system ever implemented, can be applied and adapted to help identify roots of problems, eliminate waste, and create a new vision along with the path to realizing that vision. I hope all the readers of this blog will join me in congratulating Doc on this great honor.

Happy holidays to all!

The Production Preparation Process (3P) -- A True "Game Changer"?

At a recent conference, I had the chance to speak with Drew Locher about the Production Preparation Process (3P), and how it is used. Drew recently co-authored a book titled Unleashing the Power of 3P: The Key to Breakthrough Improvement with Dan McDonnell. I asked Drew: "How does 3P provide a real breakthrough? And, how does it function within a Lean initiative?" Here is Drew's full response:

3P can provide breakthrough results since it is foremost a methodology for innovation.  First, one needs a clear problem statement of a problem that should be resolved.  This can be the function that a new or existing product is expected to perform. Then, two key principles are used to expand people's creative thought process. "Biomimicry" is where examples of that function are identified in nature.  Why nature?  Nature has already solved countless problems over millions of years. This principle also helps people "get out of their box" and expand their thought process. The next principle is "Seven Ways" -- Do not simply identify one possible solution, identify seven. This stretches the creative process. The creative process ceases when people converge too quickly on a possible solution, and perhaps overlook a better one. At some point, those examples from nature are translated to possible human-made solutions, and the best elements of the seven ways are combined to form a better solution.  A third principle is rapid simulation -- to make the "fuzzy" as tangible as possible, as early as possible.  This provides the means for rapid learning cycles, which improves the solution that results.

As for "fitting in" with Lean, think of 3P as kaizen on steroids.  Instead of making incremental improvements on existing products or processes, 3P is intended for major redesigns of either or both simultaneously.  Therefore it must be fully supported by leaders in terms of the commitment of appropriate resources to insure success.  It is not for the weak of heart!  The underlying principles, however, can still be applied in many business contexts.  Consider an example of a cellular/flow kaizen event on an existing process and where major change is not possible. A team should be encouraged to consider multiple alternative cell or flow line designs for the purpose of identify a better one.  And the team should rapidly simulate proposed designs using simple materials.  In this way, the "spirit" of 3P is maintained though the exact methodology is not necessarily followed.

What do you think of Drew's explanations? Have any of you used 3P at the front end of the design process? Do you believe 3P is key to designing market-changing products?

Here is a video of Drew speaking directly about his new book:

What Differentiates a Lean Initiative in a High-Mix Environment?

Mike Elbert authored a great new book titled Lean Production for the Small Company, which explains how to adapt Lean initiatives for high-mix/low-volume environments. I recently spoke with Mike and asked him some questions, namely "What really differentiates a Lean initiative in a high-mix environment?" I'm including his complete response here:

Many people believe that Lean Production is only viable for large high volume producers -- those who produce few variations of their product. Lean concepts and methods, however, were actually developed by Toyota for their high-mix production environment. Companies such as machine shops, sheet metal shops, printing shops, and medium sized companies of all types with lots of different products or product variations with small production runs of each product are all good examples of a high-mix environment. What differentiates a high-mix environment from a low-mix environment is the number of product variations that must be produced all within a short period of time.

To implement lean into this type of environment takes some planning but can easily be done. Remember that flexibility on the production line is important and quick change over of machine tools, stamping dies, molding machines, printing machines, and assembly lines is essential. First, implement a program to reduce change over time of each machine or assembly line. Take a look at your current change over times and think carefully and brainstorm what you could do to reduce the time by 20%. Second, create a simple scheduling system for these machine and assembly areas. A scheduling system (as described in chapter 12 of Lean Production for the Small Company) using a simple visual display of removable production cards for each product will be very efficient, flexible and work very well.

Do any readers here work in high-mix, low-volume environments or job shops? What have been your experiences with Lean initiatives? What have been your main difficulties?

Righting the Wrongs of Organizational Measures

Mark Nash and Sheila Poling recently published a book titled The Right Measures: The Story of a Company’s Journey to Find the True Indicators of Its Success and Values. I spoke to Sheila on the phone and asked her: "What is the relationship between all the measures that an organization compiles?" Here is her response:

Organizations, regardless of type -- private sector, public sector, or non-profit -- should identify what they value as the overall goals of the organization.  The goals at the top (or strategic goals) are where most of the effort is focused.  Yet, to truly measure success, you must have Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).  KPIs are a type of performance measurement and are used by an organization to evaluate its accomplishments.  Typically KPIs are used to evaluate an organization’s success in terms of making progress toward, and ultimately achieving, its strategic goals.  KPIs should be the basis for all other measurements within the organization.  For long-term success, you need to have your key measurements linked, with direct relationship to the KPIs, from the bottom to the top of the organization.  

In the fictional story in our book, Max Housholder explains to the management team at M.E. Burdette Company how the measurements that are used to report success are related.  Relying on his life experiences, Max talks about how a construction crew and a homeowner each use the same tape measure to determine the individual success of their own goals in building a house and how in the end it is all related.  The differences in the measures lie in their detail.  All the measures are connected, linked or aligned to the ultimate goal of building the house. "Each of you in this room needs to find your tape measure. Find your sixteenth of an inch. Then connect the dots. You’ll see how it fits with the eighth of an inch, and then the quarter, half, and then the inch. As you move up your corporate structure, you’ll then start seeing how all the inches fit together to form a foot and more. If you don’t figure out how to tie the entire organization together through measurement, you will never be able to sustain success."

Her response lead me to the follow-up question: How do a company's measures affect its performance? Sheila summed up her response with:

One of the characters in our book says it best -- Chris Anselmo speaking to the management team says: "The things you measure are a reflection of your organizational values. And these values are the fundamental building blocks that shape your company’s vision and action. You measure what you value. Measures directly influence how people work. In turn, how people work affects organizational results.  This is a big interlinked circle of events wrapped around the culture of the organization.  When we talk about the culture of an organization, this is at the heart of that culture.  The organizational values drive what we do as an organization.  When we measure what we value, it affects our behavior...."

What do you think of Sheila's response? Does your company measure too much or too little? How do your measures affect your company culture?

Team Building Using the Workforce Engagement Equation

Jamison J. Manion published a book titled The Workforce Engagement Equation: A Practitioner’s Guide to Creating and Sustaining High Performance, and I recently had the chance to ask him a few questions during a phone conversation. I wanted to know why he developed The Workforce Equation.  Specifically, I asked him: "What value would practitioners gain from investing their time to learn standardized approach to team building outlined in The Workforce Engagement Equation?”  Here is Jamison's response:

The pace of change in today’s world is staggering; it’s hard to keep up with all the technological advances.  To remain competitive organizations are incessantly driven towards process improvement.  Practitioners in every field must continuously sharpen their skills to remain relevant.  What’s more, every field is becoming more and more specialized.  People aren’t just programmers anymore; there are programs just for mobile apps, programmers for the healthcare industry, industrial drives, PLCs, ERPs and CRMs, etc.  Every field is becoming more and more niched.  But, regardless of the industry, the human element lies at the heart of every change initiative.  Post-project analysis consistently confirms that human factors, more than any other single element, are at the root of poor performance and failed change initiatives.  So, regardless of the industry or business sector, successful change agents must understand the human variables involved in implementing change in order to effectively utilize their in-depth professional expertise. 

Where do you begin? If a practitioner wants to gain expertise in managing the human elements there is a virtually endless supply of literature about leadership, change management, communications, conflict resolution, engagement, productivity improvement, performance improvement etc.  It becomes overwhelming; people just don’t have the time.  They end up picking up techniques here and there as they have time and apply whatever they can.  Like the old adage says, 'The solution to any problem you face is the one you happen to know.'  It’s all very piecemeal.  Consequently project success relies too heavily upon chance and circumstances – hoping that the problems that arise fall within the solution set available.  Speaking for myself, I became very frustrated that so much of the advice available was overly simplistic, nonspecific non actionable, and redundant.  I wanted a solution I could apply in my own practice on real-world problems and projects. 

Analysis of the research and personal experience observing how people learn, how teams form, what drives behavior, and how people make the transition from involved to engaged, revealed some consistent behavioral patterns.  To simplify the patterns I built upon the work of past practitioners and applied systems thinking to define the five stages of organizational development that resulted in The Workforce Engagement Equation:

Forming à Focusing à Committing à Sustained Performance à Renewal

Each phase represents a juncture where the team will either successfully navigate the situation to move to a higher, more cohesive level of group dynamics and operational performance or they’ll stumble, experiencing confusion, frustration, and lower productivity. 

Each stage requires appropriate management and leadership interventions to simultaneously satisfy the needs of both the project and the team.  The comprehensive change management approach addresses:

·       People Needs

·       Effective Management Responses

·       Effective Leadership Responses

·       Tools and Techniques to Employ

Understanding the logic model prepares practitioners to recognize the patterns and empowers them to adapt their response to successfully navigate the phase.  Regardless of the industry or the size of the team, understanding The Workforce Engagement Equation will equip practitioners to achieve success more consistently and in shorter time. 

What do you think of Jamison's response?  How often have you been frustrated by the human factors involved in project management or process improvement?

The "Preceptor" and the Lean Transformation

Conrad Soltero and Patrice Boutier recently published an interesting book titled The 7 Kata: Toyota Kata, TWI, and Lean Training that explains why a mix of the skill sets that Training Within Industry (TWI) and the Toyota Kata (behavior patterns) teach is the ideal recipe to boost organizational synergies and enhance any Lean transformation.

In this book, the authors introduce a term -- preceptor -- that might be unfamiliar to readers of Lean literature. I asked Conrad if he could expound on how exactly he and Patrice define this term, and here is his repsonse:

After working in a healthcare environment, I became curious about its use in that industry sector. After a deeper understanding of its use in healthcare and delving a bit into the word’s origins, Patrice and I became convinced that it was an important concept that would convey a proper meaning for the English reader.

Any organization preparing for a Lean journey must understand that what they’re actually undertaking is an organizational transformation -- a true renovation of their entire culture. As creatures of habit, we know that transformation at this level is not trivial and many managers will be asked to not only do things differently, but quite possibly to lead for the first time in their careers.

When we say lead, we mean the ability to: prepare their charges for the transformation, demonstrate Lean skills (7 kata), teach the Lean skills, maintain the efficacy of the skills, and have a command of the tools of Lean and Six Sigma. This depth and breadth of required improvement knowledge exceeds certifications, colored and non-colored belts, and even formal education. Once this knowledge is acquired, however, a tacit understanding of the organization’s “precepts” becomes inherent and can be more easily spread throughout the organization. Hence the word preceptor was chosen to reflect the level of commitment that the organization’s leadership must prepare for.

The use of the word preceptor seeks to translate the word sensei into a descriptive English word. We understand from martial arts that a sensei is more than a trainer or teacher. Our understanding was that a sensei is also tasked with preserving the ethic or “precepts” of the given martial style. We felt the need to not only distinguish the differences between a kata coach and a preceptor, but also sought out a somewhat unfamiliar expression that might evoke curious investigation. Our primary concern was in convincing management that their Lean transformational efforts will fall flat without their practice and teaching of the three Lean skills (improvement, one-on-one JT, and problem solving).

Are any readers familiar the term preceptor in this context? Do you agree with Conrad's use of the word in relation to the term sensei?

Applying Gemba Walks to the Service Industry

This week, I spoke with Robert Petruska, who recently published a book titled Gemba Walks for Service Excellence: The Step-by-Step Guide for Identifying Service Delighters, about the importance of "gemba walks" and their role in improving service organizations.
The Japanese term gemba roughly translates to "the place where value is created," and gemba walks in the service industry involve management visiting the point in the service process in which customers interact directly with the organization.

I asked Robert,"Why are gemba walks important for the service industry?" And, here is his complete response:

Customer expectations are always changing, and the challenge for service providers seems to be how to get ahead of the competition.  I think every company would like to delight customers, but could use some fresh ideas.   

A fabulous technique used to improve manufacturing is the gemba walk, and it is fairly new to the service industry.  The overarching goal of a gemba walk is to help companies identify new customer delighters by engaging the front lines in a creative way, thereby providing a competitive advantage. 

You may have heard about a reality TV show called “The Undercover Boss,” in which a CEO clandestinely works as a front-line employee.  It’s usually eye-opening for the CEO to experience the actual working conditions firsthand.  The important thing about this are the changes made as a result of the CEO getting out of the office.  In contrast, during a gemba walk, leadership works with a team to study an entirely different industry. 

To prepare for gemba walks, team members learn to observe an entire service experience with an eye for those subtle nuances unique to that industry.  During debriefing, the team is asked what happened during those “moments of truth” that could potentially delight customers. People are then asked to look outside of the box, innovate, and to come up with better ways of providing exceptional experiences for their own customers.  This opens the door for engaging the heads, hearts, and hands of people who represent the “face” of your company. Most importantly, leadership asks what was learned from all of this and what could potentially be incorporated into their own service portfolio. 

Most people want to do a good job, and gemba walks is a great tool that can be used to improve the service experience for your customers.

Do any readers in the service industry have experiences with gemba walks? Were they successful? Did they lead to innovation and eliminate waste?

Where is Lean and Six Sigma Going?

I recently read a very engaging article by Alan Nicol titled What Are The Futures Of Lean And Six Sigma? over on the Manufacturing.Net site. Essentially, Mr. Nicol sees Lean continuing to expand and having "an on-going evolution." He believes Lean's most powerful strengths are: "1. It attacks an enemy we can all perceive. 2. It is a relatively simple methodology that is reasonably adopted and executed by most anyone; it does not require great skill other than some proficient problem solving."


One point I found quite interesting -- he posits that "Lean has almost utterly failed to succeed where the greatest waste exists, in the office. This is because, having been born on the manufacturing floor, Lean-thinking people tend to try to apply manufacturing solutions to office waste." What are your thoughts on this view? Do you see "office Lean" initiatives as failing  up to this point?


In addition, Mr. Nicol states that "the next Lean movement or revitalization will occur in the 'transactional' realm." I agree with this prediction, but I'm surprised he didn't mention the growing trend of organizations incorporating "green thinking" into their Lean initiatives. I've read about some positive results in the "Lean and green" movement, and I'm wondering what readers here see for the future of Lean initiatives that consider sustainability not only from a technological angle, but from public policy concerns.


Mr. Nicol believes that Six Sigma will "diminish." I think he makes a very insightful point in regard to its failure: "... the specialized team approach fails to change the cultural behavior of the business and its management. In order for Six Sigma to manifest significant improvement, the business must change the way it makes decisions." What are your thoughts on this? One of the criticisms of Six Sigma is that it relies on expensive experts, but never changes mindsets on the operator level.


I find David Rogers' book titled The Future of Lean Sigma Thinking in a Changing Business Environment quite perceptive on this topic. He especially provides some inportant information on the impact of e-commerce on Lean initiatives.