We continue to add new content over at Gemba Academy.  So far we’ve covered the following topics:

• 5S Workplace Productivity. They say, “If you can’t do 5S, you can forget the rest.” Learn why 5S is far more than a housekeeping initiative as we teach you step by step how to implement and sustain 5S. This course is also available with Spanish Subtitles.

• Dealing with the 7 Deadly Wastes. You may already know what the 7 deadly wastes are… but do you know how to defeat them? We’ll show you how as we take our cameras inside Ram Technologies, a custom foam fabricator located in Mukilteo, Washington. This course is also available with Spanish Subtitles.

• Transforming Your Value Streams. Learn how to transform your value streams using lean tools and principles such as value stream mapping, takt time, kanban, error proofing, and heijunka/production leveling.

And most recently we’ve been hard at work on a course focused on Quick Changeover and SMED where subscribers of Gemba Academy have been learning how to radically reduce machine changeovers using the SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Dies) system while witnessing an actual changeover reduction kaizen unfold in front of their eyes.

Below is part 1 of this courses overview module. To see part 2 of the overview module, as well as more than 60 minutes of additional free online lean training videos, please visit Gemba Academy and sign up for a free preview account.

Please note: If you are reading this article via email or through your RSS reader you may need to click through to the website to see this video.

Again, to see part 2 of this video for free please visit Gemba Academy and sign up for a free preview account.

By Rick Foreman, Lean Development Manager

Note from Ron: This is a guest post from my friend,  frequent LSS Academy commenter, and most importantly Brother in Christ – Rick Foreman. Enjoy!

We’ve heard of the phrase, “rose-colored” glasses, but what about implementing “Lean- colored” glasses?

At what point in a cultural change does Lean become a part of our DNA or become the way we see and think?

Every once in a while we may hit on a Lean moment or event. Yet, in the pursuit of perfection or excellence, we focus on simply doing something more efficiently and improving daily through the elimination of waste (non-value added activity).

This is “kaizen,” which means small, daily improvements. True Kaizen is a key element in sustaining our culture which continues to contribute toward a culture of profitability in tough economic times.

As noted in the Hitchhikers’ Guide to Lean, everyone is responsible for Lean. I recently received this great analogy from our company’s Estimating Manager after participation in our Lean Champion Book Club meeting. It really hits on the characteristics of a Lean thinker. Let’s reflect upon our current, Lean thinking state in the journey of the Coffee Kaizen.

Here is the email with the Lean analogy:

The next chapters [of Hitchhiker’s Guide to Lean] contain good information for what they call “event Lean.”

I was getting myself a cup of coffee this morning and thought of an analogy: The coffeemaker has two pots of coffee that are half full. Both burners are turned on. Employee Number 1 never heard of Lean. He gets a cup of coffee and walks away.

Employee Number 2 has been to Lean training and participated in many “events,” but only does what he’s been trained to do. He gets himself a cup of coffee, notices both pots are half full, so he pours the remainder of one into the other and shuts off the unused burner to save electricity. He does this, not because it was his idea, but because he was trained to do this to the coffeemaker during a Lean event session.

Employee Number 3 thinks Lean: He gets himself a cup of coffee, notices both pots are half full so he pours the remainder of one into the other and shuts off the unused burner to save electricity. He does this, not because he was trained to, but because he’s always looking for ways to remove waste and noticed there was unnecessary electricity being used.

The next day the same scenario unfolds. Employee Number 1 does the same thing he did the day before, and so does Employee Number 2. Employee Number 3 does the same thing he did before, but this time also notices that it’s 4:00 in the afternoon, and he’s the only coffee drinker left in the building, so he turns both burners off after getting his cup.

The difference is Employee Number 3 will continue to make improvements without even being asked to because he “thinks” differently than the others. He’s the one you want working for you.

For Employees Numbers 1 and 2, doing the same thing they did yesterday is “normal.” It’s all they’ve been taught to do. For Employee Number 3 looking for another way to remove waste is “normal.” It’s the only way he knows how to work. Someone changed the way he thinks.

I’ve been reflecting on my earlier post this week about my “mini-kaizen” while placing labels onto CDs. As always, your comments were great.

Some folks agreed with my approach.

Nice work and you have a good looking sister in law! ~ Chad

–

This is a tough one and I do agree with parts of what Steve and David have said above.

However I personally see myself agreeing with Ron on this one with one major caveat. The assembler must be fully trained and empowered to self inspect his or her work.

Finally, I have used CD fixtures like these and must admit I find them cumbersome and clumsy to use. ~Tim

–

Ron,  I like your example as a way to continuously improve a process.
Once you are comfortable with your new process, you should make it the standard by documenting it. That should address Steve Harris’s concern (which is valid).

Also, your process improved the product because all labels would be in the proper position after application. They could be rotated in any posiiton with the initial process. ~ Ed Kemmerling

And some didn’t.

For the first time I’ve got to disagree with you here Ron (with tongue in cheek). Process sheets are an important to a controlled process, without which process improvement would be tough due to inconsistancy. I’m sure the quality of finish you achieved was admirable, but maybe not everyone could achieve that level of quality. This makes the process unstable.

I could agree if all the people involved in label application were calibrated to an acceptable level, or if the Label/CD alignment was unimportant to customer satisfaction, but changing KPI’s without an understanding of their effect on KPC’s is not advisable.

Hope the wedding goes well, keep up the good work; I always enjoy the blog. ~Steve Harris

–

Well, I have one of those “fixtures” for applying CD labels. I would be very much surprised if you maintained the consistency and quality of label application without utilizing the alignment fixture.

While I understand the desire to eliminate steps (remove CD from case, apply label, replace in case), the overall cost of your revised method is probably higher, after you “scrapped” a few misaligned labels. And do you realize that the cost of the label is significantly higher than the CD on which it’s placed? ~ David

–

Well, this is an example of how simplification can turn bad if applied without enough insight.

Those ‘fixtures’ are tools designed to ensure proper central alignment of label on the CD. Both CD’s and label’s centres fall in the empty space so it is not possible to align label manually in such a way that centres match, not to speak about keeping alignment consistently within acceptable boundaries.

CD label misalignment will cause CD to ‘wobble’ while rotating in CD drive, having the effect of noisy operation, erroneous readings and excessive drive wearing.

Your mini-kaizen will have very bad influence to customer satisfaction and possibly cause real damage to their equipment.

Learning from counter-arguments

I hate to break it to those of you who agreed with my methods… I learned little from you. Of course I still appreciate you and would be lying if I didn’t admit to getting a little tingly feeling when I read your words!

However, for those of you who offered counter-arguments to my approach I learned a great deal.

You see, I was quite sure my approach was superior… and, honestly, still think it might be if things like excellent training and self-inspection are in place. But what your comments made me re-think was how “sure” I was about things.

You see, I jumped to an improvement and probably didn’t turn the PDCA wheel quite as well as I should have.

For example, perhaps I could have found a way to improve the “fixturing” method before completely abandoning it. Maybe I could have used SMED principles and done some steps “externally” before production started.

And while my hands are pretty steady… I wonder how steady would they be after 8 hours of work? Again, all the more reason to find a way to make the fixture method work.

Sadly I don’t place labels onto CDs for a living so I doubt I will get a lot of opportunity to really perfect the process… but I did learn from the experience and, most especially, I learned from all of you.

Thank you!