Too often, companies are quick to implement new equipment in order to meet increased customer demand for products, without maximizing the utilization of their current equipment. Equipment changeover time is one area of the business that is often ignored and companies accept long changeover as a part of doing business. The changeover time of equipment can be a Hidden Factory just waiting to be uncovered. It is very common for equipment changeover from one product to the next product, to take a couple hours for completion. Companies often make several product changeovers per week, consuming hours of potential production time. If we could somehow reduce the changeover time from hours to minutes, we could have a dramatic effect on providing additional production capacity. This is what Dr. Shigeo Shingo discovered while helping to develop the Toyota Production System. Dr. Shingo terms his discovery SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Dies), and it prescribe that changeover time should be less than ten minutes for a given product.
What does SMED Involve?
Companies can systematically reduce changeover time on their equipment by following a simply four step method.
SMED Four Step Process
Finally, after completing the SMED four-step process a new changeover standard can be developed using the remaining internal and external steps. The new changeover standard should prescribe the changeover sequence and operators required to complete the changeover on the equipment.
For most companies that have not participated in any formal changeover reduction process on their equipment, applying the SMED approach typically reduces the changeover time by 50% when first applied. By continuing to work as a team, planning changeovers, practicing, being innovative and standardizing changeover methods equipment changeover times can continue to be reduced. Companies should strive to achieve the goal of single-minute changeover times and recapture the loss capacity due to long changeover times.
What are the benefits of running your business systematically?
The ISO family of standards (ISO 9001, AS9100, AS9110, ISO 14001, etc.) provides guidelines for conducting and managing business systematically, efficiently and effectively.
There are several elements that can affect the time to complete an Improvement Project (IP). The following is a partial list than can influence the time to finish a project:
As GB/BB concludes their training, they are assigned an IP that they would facilitate and take to fruition. Some belts think that Lean Six-Sigma (LSS) is about using as many tools as possible for each phase of the DMAIC methodology. This is where the coach can provide feedback on what tools make sense to use and provide a direction on the next steps.
The coach can also lead the facilitations of the first kaizen events and have the belts participate on the event, and learn from it, so that they can lead such event.
The coach does not need to be an expert on the process but needs to have a vast experience on the DMAIC or DFLSS methodology. The coaching sessions should not be prescriptive, meaning guiding the belt step by step, but rather should be treated like a sounding board where the belt can bounce ideas.
Coaching should take place on a biweekly basis and should last for about one hour. The coaching is more efficient if the belt provide information before each coaching session.
The bottom line is not to overlook coaching sessions.
Do you use coaching in your company? Have you seen a difference in the impact of project completed?
Manufacturing is an exceedingly important industry sector in our state – maintaining our strength is a key economic driver. We’ve rewritten the rules regarding ROI on conferences. Gone are the days when you spent three days out of the office only to return with fragments of useful information. Join us this coming February for an informative day of learning that impacts every facet of your business!
When implementing Lean transformation projects one concept that I have always included in the training material is R=Q X A:
(R)esults = the (Q)uality of the solution times the (A)cceptance.
Recently I have worked on a large transformation project that includes a significant quantity of classroom training and Rapid Improvement Events (RIE) over several months. In the past there have been some disappointing experiences with companies that seem to want to implement Lean only to go through the motions - and ending up in a place where they could not sustain the improvements they made. The culture of the company that I am currently working with is very traditional and relatively resistant to change. The management is knowledgeable of the benefits that can be achieved by using Lean practices but they are reluctant to make significant changes. My working partner and I are helping the RIE teams develop Lean processes. We agree the changes the teams have come up are low risk and are very doable. In fact, since we began working with this company we have always agreed that common Lean techniques such as cellular flow could be applied to almost all the customer’s value-streams.
However my partner and I do disagree significantly on our approach.
Since this organization has proven to be very conservative, I have taken the approach of supporting the limited changes they approve whereas my colleague continues to try and persuade them to embrace larger changes. In some cases his approach has intensified their resistance. I see it as a “human relations” issue. I agree that the company will get better results with more significant changes, but since management is very conservative I support their limited approvals. So far this has worked well and is continuing to improve. Once the employees gain experience with the limited changes they are taking more initiative to continue improving their processes. The teams have actually continued the changes to some processes to the point we originally estimated could have been achieved by making the larger change initially. I think either approach could be the most appropriate depending of the situation. I would like to hear from others who have had similar experiences and your success using one or the other approach:
A) Accepting a limited amount of change to begin with, relying that the small successes will help continuous change become part of the culture
B) Pushing for higher expectations and risk that larger changes will be resisted or not approved.
Which has worked better for you?
How to get Results: R=Q x A
According to OSHA slips, trips, and falls constitute the majority of general industry accidents. They cause 15% of all accidental deaths, and are second only to motor vehicles as a cause of fatalities. It’s no secret that slip, trip and fall accidents increase substantially during the winter months. However, Slip, Trips and Fall incidents during inclement weather are preventable if we have a system in place to assess and manage the risks.
The system should identify the outdoor areas used by employees/ pedestrians most likely to be affected by water and ice, for example: – building entrances, parking lots, walkways, shortcuts, sloped areas and areas constantly in the shade or wet.
The following are recommendations to help guard against Slips, Trips and Falls during inclement weather:
Always try and wear the best non-skid shoe possible, especially paying attention to the type of weather you will be exposed to. Shoes that have worn, slick soles should not be worn. Avoid high heels during inclement weather. Select something that has a large surface area, which has good traction. If you work in an area where there is a lot of water, then pay special attention to brands that have superior anti-skid properties.
Action should be taken whenever wet/freezing temperatures are forecasted. Local weather stations and their web sites are a great source of information.
When setting out on the journey to become a Lean organization, companies often miss the true importance of utilizing Value Stream Mapping. Often companies overlook implementing Step Four (Value Stream Mapping product families), as outlined in Chapter 11 of Lean Thinking. This can be a critical mistake in creating a sustainable Lean Initiative.
Value Stream Mapping should be viewed as the backbone of any Lean Initiative and process improvement endeavors. Simply picking trouble areas for improvement without examining the entire value stream of the product family or families utilizing the resource can create undesirable results long term. Value Stream Mapping provides us with the information necessary to understand the actual flow of materials, resources and information through all processes from start to finish for the family of products or services chosen. By obtaining this knowledge, we can see where flow is interrupted and where to start making improvements that increase the flow across the value stream. Simply attacking a troubled area in the process without understanding the true value stream could introduce additional WIP (work in process) and inefficiencies in the processes, thus increasing the process lead time across the overall value stream.
Value Stream Mapping provides us with a tool to start process improvement through a systematic approach. We start by mapping the current state for a particular product family from start to finish usually within the four walls of a facility. From this current state map, we apply Lean tools to create a future state map with an improve process lead time focused on eliminating waste and creating flow across the entire value stream. This future state map dictates where and what type of Kaizen Events (Improvement Events) will be required to meet the future state map objectives. The results of our future state map implementation are evaluated against the performance metric objectives developed for the future state value stream. The future state accomplished through our deployment of Kaizen Events is now our current state for the value stream. A period of evaluation should be performed and the value stream mapping process repeated to create a new future state map. This process could take place several times in the journey to become a World Class Company. Typically value stream mapping plans should be developed with implementation to be completed within (6 -12) months. This process is repeated for all value streams across the organization to achieve world class improvement results. The true value in value stream mapping is the creation of process improvement plans that can be implemented systematically across the company with sustainable results.
According to Masaaki Imai in his book Gemba Kaizen – A Common Sense, Low-Cost Approach to Management, management’s two major functions are maintenance and improvement of processes. A basis for both is establishing standards.
Standardization is required to build a viable quality system. If you choose to depend on “tribal knowledge”, improvement, consistency and continuity of processes are only as good as our memories.
I’ve learned that most people are skeptical when they’re told to expect significant financial benefits from implementing Lean.
In teams of 3, I used TMAC’s Financial Fundamentals business simulation game to teach finance to non-financial people. During the 6-hour workshop, each team manufactures and sells a common product to a single customer … me. The winner of the workshop is the team with the most income in Retained Earnings.