The Toyota Way Fieldbook phần 4 docx

We have seen many peopleattempt to use the Standardized Work Combination Table for all jobs, but using it to analyze a single operator who does not utilize automatic equipment is awaste

Your initial impression is of the waste! If we ask the question regarding the jobdepicted in the figure we might get the answers: “It is a mess,” and “Look at thelong distance between operations,” or “The operator has to crisscross his workpattern.” These are observations of the waste Once the waste is understood wecan ask: “Is there a better method?”

As you progress through the improvement cycle your use of the StandardizedWork Chart will change The initial effort to achieve standardization and elimi-nate waste within a single operation shifts to creating operations that are alignedand balanced with other operations in the flow This alignment is achieved bydesigning jobs that are aligned to a common pace known as takt time (explainedbelow)

4 6

Page of

Job Name

Group

1 1

2

2 2

3

3

Safety Standard

In-Process Stock

Quality Check 23

2 3 3 1

1 5 1

Part Name:

Part #:

Work Time

5 1

B Bracket Stiffener

Brace 9

Standardized Work Combination Table

As the name implies, this table (also called the Standardized Work CombinationSheet) is used for analyzing jobs that have combined work The intent is to showthe relationship in terms of time of two or more activities that occur simultane-ously It is used primarily for operations that have a combination of manualoperations and automatic equipment, but it can also be used for operationswhere two or more operators work together on the same product at the sametime For example, a good application for this tool would be if an operator loads

a robotic welding station and pushes the start button, and the robot welds whilethe operator unloads and loads another station We have seen many peopleattempt to use the Standardized Work Combination Table for all jobs, but using

it to analyze a single operator who does not utilize automatic equipment is awaste of time and effort You will not learn anything from this analysis excepthow to fill out the form

Figure 6-5, above, depicts an operation with an automatic cycle robot Theshortcoming of using a simple Standardized Work Sheet analysis in this case isthat it does not show what happens after the robot cycle is started There will

TIP

Focus on the Work, Not the Operator

One advantage of documenting the work flow and showing it tooperators is that it removes the “fault” for a poor method fromthe operator If you see waste and point it out to operators, theywill likely explain why it is necessary (defending the method,which they own) If you diagram the work and show operatorsthe diagram, they are likely to respond, “Look at the poor workpattern We should change that!”

TIP

The Operator Is Your Most Important Resource

The Toyota Way philosophy is that the operator, not the machine,

is the most important asset The machine serves the person, notthe other way around Toyota believes that it is disrespectful to theindividual to waste his or her value by waiting for a machine tocomplete its cycle The Standardized Work Combination Table isused to gain an understanding of the man/machine relationshipand to effectively utilize the human asset

likely be the waste of waiting by the operator The operator may perform cellaneous tasks to “keep busy,” such as getting the next parts ready or “organ-izing” the work area (we observed one operator neatly restacking every part inthe bin, which looked nice but was of no value) It is not clear what the cycletime of the robot is The Standardized Work Combination Table (Figure 6-6) isuseful for this situation.

mis-Figure 6-6 shows the same job depicted on a Standardized Work CombinationTable Read it by following the work elements one by one from left to right, andyou can see where in the cycle the operator walks to perform the next workelement In this example the operator picks up Bracket A in one second, walks

to the machine in two seconds, loads Bracket A in six seconds, walks to get thenext part in two seconds, and so on By Step 11 all of the parts are loaded intothe robotic welder, and you see by the dotted line that the machine cycles for 23seconds

3 1 23 12

Takt Time

76 Operation Time (Seconds)

Wait Time

Figure 6-6 Standardized Work Combination Table with one robot

This is a fairly simple job in terms of the operator-machine interface Morecomplex jobs may have an operator who moves within a cell and operates three

or four machines Like the Standardized Work Chart, the Standardized WorkCombination Table converts the work into a visual format so the work/walk/waittime relationships can clearly be seen (the waiting time on this job should be thefirst improvement target!) The waiting time occurs after the operator startsthe robot cycle This time should be utilized for additional value-adding activity.Figure 6-7, below, shows the same job with the addition of a secondary task

by adding loading and unloading of a second automatic operation Notice thatthe operation time “wraps around,” meaning the machine operates beyond thetakt time relative to the start time of the operation The important thing to note

is that the second robot completes its cycle before the operator is ready to return

to reload it (the robots have an automatic unload feature, which is common in

Figure 6-7 Standardized Work Combination Table with two robots

1 2

1 2 10

Start Robot cycle

Pick up battery tray and

Takt Time

76 Time Elements

Toyota) In Toyota’s view, it is acceptable to allow a machine to wait for theoperator, but it is not acceptable to allow the operator to wait for the machine.Remember, the operator comes first.

Production Capacity Sheet

The Production Capacity Sheet (not shown here) indicates the capacity of ery in the process You must consider the cycle time of the equipment, that is, howlong it takes to process each piece, but also factor in planned downtime duringtool changes and changeover times It is most applicable to machining opera-tions that involve tooling wear and tool changes, but applies to operations such

machin-as injection molding and stamping, where changeover times must be ered It is a useful tool for identifying bottleneck operations

consid-The document used is very similar to capacity planning processes used

by most manufacturing engineers to specify equipment for purchase Theprimary purpose is to determine if the machinery has capacity for the pro-duction requirement Calculations are based on the available run time, thecycle time per piece, and time lost due to tool changes or other changeoverrequirements

Some Challenges of Developing

Standardized Work

Aside from an attempt to develop standardized work based on the myths tioned earlier, other challenges include attempts to standardize an entire “job,”versus task elements of the job, and attempting to standardize a task that has vari-ation built in Much of the work we see in companies today includes a variety

men-of tasks that are performed by a single individual

For example, an employee may have a task to build a certain product Inaddition he or she will also retrieve the materials necessary and deliver thefinished goods to the next operation The task of building the product is fairlyconsistent and easy enough to document, but what about the other tasks? Theyoccur randomly, or once every so many cycles How would you weave thesetwo distinctly different tasks together into one Standardized Work Sheet? Theanswer is that generally you don’t The work elements needed to build the prod-uct constitute the primary task (and the value-adding operation), and it should

be standardized creating the most efficient, repeatable method Within Toyota,operators do not typically retrieve their own materials nor transport finishedproduct because these activities take away from the value-adding activities Thetransportation of materials would be standardized for the person responsiblefor them, such as a material handler

In Chapters 4 and 5 we discussed the need to isolate variation so that dardization may be achieved The following case example illustrates the challenge

stan-of standardizing a task with built-in variation In these cases, before the task can

be standardized the variation must be separated or isolated from the remainingportion, which can then be standardized

Case Example: One Job, Three Different Tasks

The “job” in this case example is to operate two automatic screw

machines, which cut and machine long bars of steel into discrete metal

parts The operator’s work includes three distinctly different tasks The

variation inherent in the three tasks makes the job nearly impossible to

standardize

The first task is to perform in-station quality checks and serve the

machine (removing metal chips and moving finished product) The

operator is required to perform a specific number of part inspections

each hour The inspections are repeatable in nature, and the task is

repeated within a one-hour time frame (a standard cycle time)

The second task involves loading raw material as needed This task is

also repeatable in nature, but the cycle time varies, based on the part

being produced and the cycle time of each part produced The time

variation is between one and two hours

The third task is to set up and change tooling when worn and between

product changes This portion of the job is not repeatable within

several hours, and the frequency of this event is highly variable

The tasks range from fairly repeatable and consistent to very variable

and inconsistent When blended into one job, it is not possible to

determine a repeatable pattern that can be standardized To complicate

matters, each operator is responsible for two machines If one machine

is in setup and the other needs material, the machine in setup will wait

If both machines are in setup simultaneously, one machine will wait for

attention In many cases this lost time exceeded several days If both

machines were operating normally, the first task was not enough to fully

occupy the operators’ time and they had considerable waiting time This

scenario created waiting time for both the operator and the machine.

To isolate variation, the work tasks were reassigned The first task was

assigned to one person who was now responsible for servicing 10

machines and performing the quality checks The loading of material

was assigned to one operator who was responsible for 10 machines,

and the setup responsibility was assigned to two people for all 10

machines This reassignment “freed up” an operator, and the team

leader role was created to provide additional support to the line

The reassignment also provided additional advantages, such as two

people working simultaneously on setup activities, thus reducing the

overall setup times This reduction facilitated the reduction of batch

sizes, increased the run frequency, and reduced the overall inventory

The team leader position ensured that each position would be filled

every day and the output would be consistent Andon signals were

added to the machines to notify the material feeder before the machine

ran out The andon also included notification of impending setup and

tool changes These signals allowed the operators to prepare for

upcom-ing tasks, verifyupcom-ing the readiness of tools and material before the actual

need These changes increased the overall output of the operation by

“dinged” on an ISO audit or because every change to the processwill require a laborious effort to update the paperwork Onecompany we observed removes all standardized work docu-ments prior to an ISO audit and replaces them afterward (toappease the lean auditors) Whether standardized work is in fact

a controlled document per ISO requirements depends uponinterpretation

Remember that standardized work is used as an analysis tooland establishes a baseline for continuous improvement It is not anoperator instruction, and it is not provided to the operator as atraining tool (see myths, above) Management uses it to audit andverify the general steps of the job, and as such, it should be up todate If you do make standardized work a controlled document,create a simple system that allows it to be “a living document” andmakes it easy to change (e.g., one level approval process)

Auditing the Standardized Work

As mentioned, it’s a common myth that standardized work is posted so theoperator can refer to it while doing the job At Toyota operations, standardizedwork faces out toward the aisle, where the operator cannot easily see it It is forthe benefit of the team leader and group leader who are responsible for audit-ing the standard work

Isn’t auditing a coercive type of management practice that reinforces the view

of standardized work as the framework of a rigid bureaucracy? In an adversarialenvironment, auditing anything is the basis for conflict and tension But in an envi-ronment where the focus is on eliminating waste to better serve the customer,auditing standard work is a way to maintain stability of the process It is a coop-erative venture between management and the worker Operators often deviatefrom the standardized work because of a problem (creating a “work around”).Management audits uncover the root problems and ensure that they are correctedquickly and standardized work is re-established

TIP

Allow Time for Adjustment to the New Method

A change in the work method (standardized work) will require anadjustment period The body becomes “habituated” and will tend

to return to the familiar pattern For example, if you change from astandard-shift car to an automatic shift, you will reach for the shiftlever unconsciously (and it will not be there!) It is necessary to pro-vide continued support as the operator adjusts to the new method

Two things trigger an audit at Toyota First, a problem: What caused a defect?What is causing an operator to repeatedly get behind? Often, observing the oper-ator through several cycles compared to the standard work will reveal thesource of the problem Second, it may simply be time for the audit Toyota has

a standard work auditing schedule, much as they have a schedule for tive maintenance You don’t need to wait for the machine to break down beforeyou maintain it at Toyota Similarly, you don’t need to wait for an operator error

preven-to audit the standard work

Auditing allows for the discovery of deviation from the standard method

We often erroneously conclude that the operator is at fault when a deviationoccurs Upon investigation, we may find that the deviation is due to a malfunc-tioning piece of equipment or a problem with the product The reason for theaudit is to find the cause of the problem and to correct it

In many Toyota operations there’s a visual system set up for auditing the

stan-dard work Each work group may have a visual board with cards called a kamishibai

board (story book) At NUMMI, group leaders check one process each day forcompliance to standardized work, watching work cycles This brings them to eachjob at least once per month The cards contain questions they complete on the per-formance of standardized work and the accuracy of the standardized work docu-ment Discrepancies are noted and countermeasures described on the card There

is a card slot for every process in a team The cards are moved to a correspondingadjacent vacant slot once the check has been performed When a problem is noted,the card is turned with the dark side facing out, indicating that something needscorrection Assistant managers check the boards each day to verify that the checksare being made properly They randomly select a card from the board, obtain thestandardized work and conduct a check of a process with the group leader Thereare approximately 90 boards throughout the shop

Now compare this to many companies that “have” standard work A standardwork sheet is filled out and posted, perhaps by an industrial engineer If theyget really fancy, it may have photos of the work steps It is posted so the opera-tor can see it No one does anything with it, but it looks good to visitors, whocan say, “They look lean.”

Standardized Work as a Baseline for

Continuous Improvement

After the initial standardization of tasks the real fun begins We should now ask,

“Where is the next level of opportunity?” This is where the answer becomesmore complex We must reconsider our primary objective—to get more value-added activity with less cost, or in other words, to make more parts with fewerresources Before running off and making improvements, however, we shouldfirst understand what will be done with the gain It is important to always makeimprovement based on need, rather than because improvement is possible.Improvement will always be possible!

If you continue to reduce setup time, for example, what will you do withthe additional time? Is it important to drive down batch sizes, to increase flex-ibility, or do you need the volume? Too often we see companies “do setupreduction” and reduce the time significantly, but there is no plan for using thefreed up time, and the setup times slowly creep back to the original level Thissame phenomenon applies to other “improvements.” When improvements aremade, you must change the process so that sustaining the improvements isnecessary for continued success The improved level must become the newstandard, and the excess removed If there is no need to sustain, any gains willnot be maintained

Takt Time as a Design Parameter

Many people get confused about the difference between takt time and cycle time.Takt time is not a tool It is a concept that is used to design work, and it measuresthe pace of customer demand In terms of calculation, it is the available time to pro-duce parts within a specified time interval divided by the number of partsdemanded in that time interval The number you get tells you, for instance, that apart needs to be produced every three minutes to satisfy customer demand Seemstraightforward? Yet takt time is often misunderstood And determining it for linesthat produce a variety of products with varying demands, becomes a tricky issue Here’s an example: If the available operation time for one shift is 400 minutes,and the demand for the product is 400 per shift, the time allotted per piece (takttime) is one minute for each part The cycle time of each operation needs to be oneminute or less on average to meet the demand If the cycle time (actual time tocomplete the tasks in a single job) is greater than takt, the operation will be abottleneck and additional time will be necessary to meet the production schedule

If the cycle time is less than takt, there will be overproduction or waiting time

A major challenge that arises is determining the customer demand In mostcases (unless you are a supplier to Toyota) the demand varies significantly Howcan takt time be determined when the demand varies? You must understandthat takt time is a “reference point” for designing the work, and consider whatthe effect of an incorrect reference point will be

The first thing to recognize is that cycle times—the time necessary to completethe task—do not vary significantly if they are standardized Using our exampleabove, the machine cycle time is 23 seconds and the operator work and walktime is 56 seconds The combined cycle time is 75 seconds and varies only to theextent that the operator can load the robot faster now and then This means thatthe output from this process will be fairly consistent provided there are no lossesdue to equipment downtime If the demand varies significantly, what effect doesthis have on the operation? None The operation cycle time will not vary morethan a few seconds If demand increases, how will the requirement be met? Theoperation time can be increased (e.g., using overtime if the demand does notincrease too much) The utilization of takt time will not change this reality

TIP

A New Standard Requires a Learning Period

It is not uncommon to see a slight drop in performance as peopleadjust to the new method Do not rush to “go back to the old way.”Continue observing to ensure that the method is being followed asplanned and that any minor adjustments are made immediately

So how do we determine the demand and takt time? Select a demand

num-ber that will be sufficiently high enough to meet the need most of the time For

example, suppose the demand varies from 10,000 to 20,000 per month but theaverage is 16,000 per month Which number should you choose? It depends onthe situation, but generally we advise a higher number Here’s why Let’s suppose

we use the maximum: 20,000 If we calculate a takt time, we will get a lower

num-ber (less time allotted per piece) We compare the takt time to the cycle time to

determine the discrepancy Selecting a higher demand number will create a larger

discrepancy The relevance of the discrepancy is only related to the amount ofimprovement necessary to achieve the takt rate, and the improvement potential

is based on the waste that exists in the operation

When presented with this dilemma, a Toyota sensei would respond, “Noproblem,” meaning that the pool of waste is large and the needed improvementcan assuredly be made The only risk of setting a demand level too large is thatthe amount of effort needed to achieve the takt time will be greater You do notwant to waste effort by falsely inflating the demand number (driving takt down),but it is not a major problem If a process is improved beyond the actual need,the resources can be reduced or additional sales can be pursued

The takt time serves as a common “beat” for all operations in the value stream

An operation balance chart is a powerful visual tool for seeing how cycle timescompare to takt In some cases it can be used for answering “What if?” ques-tions about the capability of the process Figure 6-8 shows an operation balancechart that was used to compare cycle times in a value stream to takt time In thiscase the company wanted to increase production in order to meet possibleincreased demand that was only roughly estimated They wanted to know how

Line 1 Cycle Times

Figure 6-8 Operation balance chart to compare cycle times

much of a change would be needed to meet a hypothetical takt of 90 secondsper part We see that two operations are currently over that estimated takt time.

If these two operations were improved, how much improvement would

be necessary before the next balance “plateau” is reached? Figure 6-9 shows thenext plateau Several other jobs have a cycle time of approximately 60 seconds.Reducing the two jobs to 60 seconds would allow the entire value stream to flow

at a rate of one part every 60 seconds Does that mean we should immediatelypursue this goal? In fact if we do this and the takt time based on actual demand

is greater than 60 second we will be over producing—the fundamental waste.After reducing the time it took for the two operations, it was determined thatthe actual takt rate necessary to meet the demand was 80 seconds This allowedfor “rebalancing” the operations and reducing their total number In this case, afterreducing the time it took to grind and buff, the total amount of work across alloperations added to 645 seconds If we divide 645 seconds of work by the takt

of 80 seconds, we get a total of 8 operations at the takt time, compared to theoriginal 12 Thus, we could reduce one-third of the operations by rebalancing tothe 80-second takt If this were manual processes, it would equate to 4 feweroperators (note: these “extra” operators could be used to develop a team leaderstructure as outlined in Chapter 10) It is interesting to note that if we balanced

to the faster takt of 60 seconds, 11 operators would be needed (645/60
10.75).Thus, going faster can cost more (provided it was not necessary to go faster).Use takt time to help make decisions about how the work will be designedand which improvements need to be made to meet the need If you select a takttime that is too high, you will not meet the production need, which is worsethan choosing a number that’s too low and exceeding the need (provided you didnot add resources to meet the false need) It is always easier to stop production

Line 1 Cycle Times

when the output is too high than it is to get more out if it’s too low When indoubt, choose a higher demand and a lower takt time.

Importance of Visual Controls

The use of visual controls is the most important step in the process of ing standardization Unfortunately, it is also the aspect of a lean process that ismost often belittled We frequently hear, “They are just doing 5S.” Perhaps this

develop-is due to the examples of vdevelop-isual control most often cited, namely, markings onthe floor to indicate the location of trash containers and other items in the workarea, which are viewed as “silly” and perhaps insulting to the intelligence ofemployees Another example is signs that are used to identify the proper location

of items or the type of material stored in a location Managers and employeesoften respond with, “We all know what belongs there.” However, when asked

to identify specific conditions such as the standard quantity, the minimum or

maximum, or the supplying operation, the response is usually less certain.Figure 6-10 demonstrates that the primary reason for visual control is todefine the desired “normal” state (standard), and then to quickly recognize any

Unable toverifyadherence

Not Defined orVisible

Variation ofProcess

Unable to

correctvariation

DesiredMethod

The Desired Method is

“in our heads” and

“everyone knows it”

deviation from that standard As we have seen, there are many different fications, procedures, and requirements within every work area It is virtuallyimpossible for every employee to remember all of these, and a written descrip-tion of each in a notebook would be impractical for instant recognition

speci-One common condition is that people believe they “know” the standards, andany visual representation is redundant and unnecessary Upon closer evaluation it

is simple to determine the true awareness of standards Ask different employees toexplain the specific method to be followed Is it possible for you to determinewhether it’s happening as it’s supposed to be? The case example below on paintline loading illustrates that without the ability to quickly and easily verify adher-ence to standards, the abnormality will not be detected and will continue

The following case example illustrates what happens when standards are

“known” but are not visually displayed

Case Example: Creating Visual Standards with a Paint

Line Loading Pattern

This case example refers to a paint line that has three different color

paint booths The main line branches into three lines to supply all three

booths Given this branching from one main line, it is critical to the flow

of product for the correct mix of product color and model to be loaded

on the line to prevent overloading any booth and clogging the line

Observation of the paint line (standing in the circle) revealed that

product flow to one or two paint booths was often blocked by an

over-load at the other This caused the entire over-loading process to stop, and the

total line stoppage time was substantiated by the system data This issue

was especially critical since the paint system was the constraint operation

for the entire facility (it is the only operation in the plant through which

all product passes), and the system was above maximum capacity.

The paint department manager and the loading employees agreed

that the product had to be mixed properly on the line and even agreed

on what the mix was supposed to be Each person noted, however, that

“they” don’t always follow the rules (The mysterious “they.” Who are

“they”?) A closer review of the agreed-upon mix revealed that the

desired method (not a defined standard yet) was vague and general

It included descriptions such as, “No more than two of this type per

hour,” and “This product is supposed to follow one of these three

models,” and “No more than six of this color per hour.” It was clear

that trying to memorize this proposed sequence would be nearly

impossible (there were many variables) If it were possible to

memo-rize, it’s likely that the only people who could accomplish that would

be those who do it every day This is a problem if a regular employee

is absent, and it’s impossible for anyone outside of that group to easily

understand

A team of three people who knew the process was assembled to develop

a loading pattern that would meet all of the required constraints

regard-ing color and model mix It took this team nearly three days to finally

determine a pattern that met all parameters and conditions With this

level of complexity, imagine the difficulty in memorizing such a pattern!

Is it any wonder that the operators were not “following the rules” when

the rules were so difficult to define?

The team developed an ingenious visual loading board that depicted

the pattern, requiring the operators to move a color-coded magnet

indicating the completion of the task The operators responded

favor-ably because the requirement was defined and clear and they did

not get yelled at for not “following the rules.” The line stoppage was

reduced considerably, and the number of completed units (each unit

included several subcomponents) painted per day rose from 80 to over

110 As the operators gained a deeper understanding of visual standards,

they made several enhancements to the board, further clarifying the

requirement and incrementally leveling the mix (detailed in the next

chapter)

Standardization Is a Waste Elimination Tool

Developing standardized work is the first step It not only provides a standardway of doing the task, but the process of doing the analysis will reveal wastethat should be eliminated as part of developing the standardized work Whenstandard work is developed and operators are properly trained, regular auditsare needed to check on whether the standards are being followed, and if not,why Operators should be encouraged to suggest changes that will improve theprocess and be reflected in revisions to the standardized work

Once standards are developed, the standard condition should be visually played so deviations from the standard will be obvious The paint case exampleillustrates the power of making a visual standard that was visible and under-standable to everyone Visual indicators by themselves become powerful toolsonly when used for visual control, showing the contrast between the standardand the actual situation (Figure 6-11) Following the standard as defined “clearsthe clouds” and improves flow and overall performance Toyota places a highimportance on the use of visual controls to support the adherence to standards

dis-We cannot stress enough the need to “make it visual.”

Able to verifyadherence toStandard

Make StandardVisible

DiscoverDeviation

CorrectDeviation

Standard

Report

Deviation

Clear and Understandable

Figure 6-11 Visual standards support adherence to correct methods

Reflect and Learn from the Process

As always, begin these exercises by “walking the flow” with yourcurrent state map in hand If you’ve begun implementing improve-ments and have established some defined connections, you havecreated standards as well Begin to envision the future state and

to draw the defined connections on a future state map

1. Has customer demand been determined and takt time culated?

cal-a. Identify the method currently used to monitor ment of the takt rate at each operation

achieve-b. Is it possible to see and understand this standard? If not,identify a corrective action necessary to create a visual stan-dard of takt time and add these items to your action plan

c. Is performance to the takt-rate standard being measuredand recorded? If not, add this item to your action plan

d. Inability to consistently achieve the takt rate is an indicator

of instability Identify the causes and necessary corrections

to reduce instability and to achieve the standard (takt rate)

at least 85 percent of the time

2. Defined, dedicated, and controlled connections betweenprocesses serve as agreed-upon expectations of performance(standards) between a supplier process and a customer pro-cess Review your connections and answer these questions

a. Is there visual awareness of the standards?

i. What is the expectation?

ii. When is it supposed to be done?

iii. Who is supposed to do it?

iv. How do you know if it has been successfully pleted?

com-b. What is the current ability to achieve the standard (satisfythe customer)? If the performance is below 85 percent, iden-tify necessary steps to improve performance, and make aplan to implement it

3. Identify an operation that does not consistently achieve thestandard Stand in the circle, and observe the following con-ditions

a. Is the work method repeatable? (If it’s difficult to ment the work steps because of constant interruption, it

docu-is not repeatable.) If not, ldocu-ist the causes of variation andcorrective actions necessary to stabilize the process

b. Is the work process interrupted more than 10 percent ofthe time because of equipment issues or quality-relatedproblems? (Don’t overlook small issues such as difficultyloading or unloading a fixture.) Make plans to correct theissues that interrupt the process

4. After the major issues have been resolved and the process isreliable and stable, stand in the circle to study the job andidentify waste

a Use a Standardized Work Sheet to document the steps ofthe job

b. Draw a diagram of the work area and where each step isperformed

c. Note the waste, and develop plans to improve the workprocess to reduce the waste

d. Use the Standardized Work Sheet to diagram the proposedchanges and show the waste elimination as a reduction oftotal cycle time.

e. What effect did the reduction of waste (and a cycle timereduction) have on the overall work balance and flow?

5 In the reflection questions in Chapter 5, you measured the cycletimes for each operation Identify the processes in the valuestream that inhibit flow (cycle times that are over takt, or thatare higher than the others), and target them for waste reductionusing standardized work as an analysis tool

The Leveling Paradox

The Toyota Way is full of paradoxes, and one of the most counterintuitive is theleveling paradox: that slow and steady can beat fast and jerky, like the parable ofthe tortoise and the hare [which the older Toyota Production System (TPS) mastersoften cite] The tortoise lumbers along slow and determined while the hare sprints,runs out of breath, and takes a nap We see a similar trend all the time in the waypeople work Work, work, work to meet a deadline, and then coast for a while.Toyota would always prefer a slow and consistent pace of work

The other side of leveling, besides a steady quantity of work, is a steady mix

of work In some ways this is even more difficult to rationalize In ing, if you’re making more than one type of part, say 50-50 production betweenPart A and Part B, it is natural to try to get the most production possible bybuilding large batches of A followed by large batches of B This is particularlyattractive if it takes time to set up the process to switch between A and B YetToyota would prefer to make A, B, A, B This leveled mix is closer to a trueone-piece flow

manufactur-These days, “build to order” is all the rage Companies like Dell Computerhave led the way building just what the customer orders over the Internet andvirtually eliminating finished goods inventory Unfortunately, what is good forthe assembler is not always good for the supplier Dell expects suppliers to keep

a considerable amount of inventory that the supplier is paying for in warehousesnear Dell’s assembly plant From the Toyota Way viewpoint, Dell has not solved

Leveling: Be More Like the Tortoise Than the Hare

Copyright © 2006 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc Click here for terms of use

the root cause of the problem, but merely pushed the problem backward ontoother companies This will show up in a non-lean value stream and ultimately

in higher costs and lower profits for someone—in this case the suppliers One might ask: “If Toyota is in fact lean wouldn’t they build exactly whatthe customer orders in the sequence in which they order, like Dell?” The answer

is decidedly no! Customers do not order in a stable, predictable way Yet thefoundation of TPS is a stable, leveled schedule Another Toyota paradox is that

in order to have a lean value stream, you sometimes want to hold the most sive inventory—finished goods inventory This allows you to ship to order butbuild to a leveled schedule In this chapter we will discuss the whys and hows

expen-of leveling the schedule

Heijunka Provides a Standardized Core

for Resource Planning

The term “heijunka,” as we noted earlier, means to level, or to make smooth As

with many translated words, there is some conceptual meaning lost in the lation In most lean references, the meaning is to level the product mix over aspecific time period, with the objective of producing every part every day (oreven every few hours) Customers do not typically order products in specificbatch sizes, but they’re often produced in batches The concept is to produce insmaller quantities more aligned with actual customer consumption

trans-But this is only part of the concept Pushing a process toward an ideal ness in production also pushes the process to the highest degree of flexibilityand responsiveness to changing customer demand

smooth-We have never seen a situation where customers conveniently order the samemix and quantity of parts every day If life were only that simple! Constantlychanging demand creates many issues within the value stream; namely, thealignment of resources to the constantly changing need If the demand swings arelarge, there will be a need to have higher levels of inventory to adjust to theswings Equipment capacity is limited when demand swings to the high side,and is in excess when demand is on the decline The amount of resources neededwill be higher overall—generally, set at levels necessary to meet the higherdemand, and excessive when the demand falls

The swings in customer demand create a “bull whip” effect A slight flick ofthe wrist by someone skilled with a bullwhip creates a tremendous destructiveforce at the other end of the whip Similarly, even small variations in customerdemand at the final process ripple through the entire value stream, increasing

in amplitude with each successive operation This whip effect is particularlylarge for suppliers or subprocesses, at the end of the whip This magnifying effect

creates the need for higher levels of resources (and cost) to be able to modate the wide swings.

accom-This creates a condition that makes standardized work difficult, if not sible, to implement Remember, in standardized work we’re trying to create aprecise balance of work across operations, based on the takt time, which is based

impos-on the rate of customer demand If the takt goes up and down with the bullwhip,the work balancing and standardized work swings wildly every day How is itpossible to standardize when the takt is continually changing? This is the basisfor the second form of heijunka: a self-imposed leveling for the internal benefit

of the value stream (and cascading outward to suppliers as well) This leveling ofdemand creates a standard core onto which all resource needs are attached andaligned, as depicted in Figure 7-1

Why Do This to Yourself?

Leveling your production is a self-inflicted choice We say self-inflicted because

it is a conscious choice, and there is a consequence Some negative effect comeswith the choice Leveling means precise timing and being very flexible to cyclethrough products in small batches This flexibility taxes the process Any prob-lem that causes delays will reveal itself immediately and result in a missedschedule

For example, to level by product type means making small quantities ofeach item throughout the day, which means changing over from product toproduct There is often some time associated with changing materials, changing

a fixture, and so on Changing over is lost production time If the changeoverprocess is not standardized and precise, then the large number of changeoverswill lead to lost production, and the schedule will be missed From a traditional

BASIC LEVELING

Materials Needed

Standardized

Work

Figure 7-1 Basic leveling is the core for all resource planning

mass production perspective, any lost production time is bad From an overalllean system perspective, making smaller batches is good The choice to levelwill leave no option but to reduce the time it takes to change over, which meanshaving a controlled and standardized changeover process

Some people do not like the fact that when you put this level of requirement

on the process there is pressure to perform And there’s some risk of missingproduction numbers Our minds are designed to naturally protect us from risks,and the purposeful creation of risk is not a natural act This is the rub of theToyota Way We must put ourselves in harm’s way, but not haphazardly Itrequires a carefully crafted system, and diligent effort and management of theprocess, to minimize the risk You must realize that when you sign up for the cre-ation of a lean process, you sign up for life If you want it to work, it’s a permanentcommitment

So, why would you do this to yourself? If we look at any typical operation,

we hear terms like “bubble” and “wave,” which refer to the change in demandand the amount of work that flows through the value stream Many managersspend time managing the waves—attempting to adjust the balance of resourcesand constantly fighting the fires that erupt as a result of the crashing waves.These managers are always looking for the day when they catch the wave andget things back to “normal.” Unfortunately, like in the ocean, the next wave isnot far behind This continuous riding of the waves diverts efforts from theprocess of improvement Management is devoting much of their time to thecontainment effort rather than the strengthening activity

Smoothing Demand for Upstream Processes

What if your demand were consistent? How would that affect your process? Theintroduction into the value stream of consistent “customer” demand signals (thequotes signify that heijunka is not the “true” customer demand) will provide asmoothing effect for all of the processes This smoothing allows for the stan-dardization of resources, which greatly simplifies planning and control

Let’s revisit our value stream model introduced in Chapter 3 and depicted inFigure 7-2, below We see that the future state value stream has a heijunka “board”

or “box.” This is a common approach to visually displaying the leveled schedule.Each slot in the box represents a specific time period (such as 8:00 A.M to 8:15 A.M.)

in which the material handler might pick up a production kanban, deliver it to thepacesetter as the next order, and pick up what was produced based on the previ-ous order In reality there are many ways to do this; for example, sometimes theorders are posted on a white board by the hour There are several variations on thetheme, but all serve the same purpose—to show the “pitch” time incrementbetween when orders are delivered and picked up, and the quantity to produce

Flow Pull

Flow Loop Flow Loop

Value Stream Customer Flow

Pull

"Voice of the Customer"

Flow Loop Customer

Value Stream

Flow Loop Pace Setter

Process Process

Supplier

"Voice of the Customer"

Figure 7-2 Future state value stream map with elements identified

during the pitch(see “Learning to See” for a description of pitch time) This is amechanism that supports the leveling process The pacesetter has a clear under-standing throughout the day whether he or she is ahead or behind.

If the value stream pacesetter follows this schedule, what happens? Thepacesetter will consume the components necessary to complete the task and

“withdraw” them from the supermarket upstream Since the pacesetter is leveled,this withdrawal will also be leveled For example, say there are three differentcomponents used for assembly at the pacesetter—call them A, B, and C—andeach is used for a different end product If the assembly of end products is leveled,the consumption of A, B, and C will be leveled That is, there will be a smoothrotation among the consumption of A, B, and C This allows for keeping theminimum amount of inventory of A, B, and C in the supermarket In contrast, ifthe assemblers suddenly spend an entire day just using part A and the supplierhad put just a part of the day’s worth of part A in the supermarket, the assemblywould run out of A and shut down So once the system is set up to be leveled,it’s critical that the leveling process is actually followed, or you will run out ofparts When production is initiated to replenish the component supermarket,the process withdraws raw materials from the supermarket, which signals thesupplier of the need for replenishment Again, if the pacesetter is leveled, thenthe signals to the supplier will also be leveled, mitigating the infamous bullwhipeffect in which the customer plant makes changes in schedules for its convenienceonly to jerk around suppliers in violent waves With leveling, suppliers will have

a good idea of what is expected of them and be able to plan with confidence.They can now balance resources to a known takt and get lean by improvingquality and operating at lower cost

We often hear companies say we cannot be level because our customers arenot level The leveled “schedule” for the first flow loop is created by productioncontrol even when the customer is not level Note that production control hastwo sources of information to create the leveled schedule There is a direct arrowfrom the customer—the build-to-order signal—and a second arrow from thefinished goods supermarket—the build-to-stock signal In lean systems this is acommon way to handle high-variety product mixes The relatively high-volumeproducts that you know customers will buy are built to stock—kept in the super-market and replenished as they are shipped to the customer using a kanban-type system The lower-variety, less predictable products are built to customerorder Production control sees the stream of real customer orders coming in andthe kanban orders from the supermarket Typically there is a third stream of safetybuffer stock that can be replenished if there are not enough real or kanban orders

to fulfill in a day Through this combination of orders, production control hasthe tools to create a leveled schedule