A LEAN IMPLEMENTATION AT TOMIN METAAL
Research on the critical success factors influencing a lean implementation
University of Groningen
Faculty Economics and Business Master of Technology Management
Author: A.J. Dijkstra
Student number: 1334085
Date: 26-08-11
Albert Einstein on solving problems
“You can’t solve current problems with current thinking. Current problems are the result of current thinking.”
Tom Peters on organizational change
“Implementation is the last 99%”
Ayn Rand on reason
Preface
My internship and research at Tomin Metaal embodies the finalization of my Master of Technology Management. It has been an interesting journey.
First of all I would like to thank Jelle Postma and Jannes Slomp, not just for their input, patience and guidance during this research, but even more so for the interesting and often lengthy conversations that often did not even broach the subject of lean.
Also I would like to thank Johan Maas, who gave me the freedom and trust to actively participate in a lean implementation process.
Abstract
This research was initiated by the managing director division industry and retail at Tomingroep B.V. in Hilversum. Their metal department, Tomin Metaal, is at a critical point. A choice is made to attempt to implement lean manufacturing. In literature several critical success factors are described that influence the success of a lean implementation. At first glance many of these critical success factors seem not to be present at Tomin Metaal.
The main research question that arises from this is:
In what way does Tomin Metaal take the required critical success factors into account when implementing lean manufacturing?
To start off a brief literature study is done on lean manufacturing and on the critical success factors in specific. Then a description of Tomin Metaal is given to shed light on their current situation and to give insight where they are on the road towards lean. After this a description of the lean implementation process and its outcomes is given. Followed by an analysis of the influence of the presence or absence of the critical success factors on the different stages of the lean implementation process and vice versa.
Answering this research question it can be said that Tomin Metaal took notice of the absence of several of the critical success factors but failed to address this leading to an unsuccessful lean implementation. It can be concluded that for a company in the early stages of development towards a lean enterprise it is worthwhile to take the critical success factors into account. And after being aware of the presence or absence of the critical success factors it is a matter of getting started, knowing that by doing so the critical success factors will be come more and more present.
Index
1 INTRODUCTION ... 6
1.1 AREA OF RESEARCH... 6
1.2 INCENTIVE FOR THIS RESEARCH... 6
1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE... 7
2 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ... 8
2.1 MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION... 8
2.2 CONCEPTUAL MODEL,SUB-QUESTIONS AND DESIGN OF THE PAPER... 8
2.3 METHODOLOGY... 10
3 THEORY ... 12
3.1 LEAN MANUFACTURING... 12
3.2 FACTORS INFLUENCING LEAN IMPLEMENTATION... 15
4 INITIAL SITUATION AT TOMIN METAAL ... 24
4.1 TOMINGROEP IN GENERAL... 24
4.2 TOMIN METAAL... 24
4.3 THE SITUATION AT TOMIN METAAL... 26
4.4 INFLUENCE OF THIS SITUATION ON THE CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS... 30
5 THE LEAN IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AT TOMIN METAAL ... 31
5.1 PRELIMINARY PHASE... 32
5.2 OUTCOMES PRELIMINARY PHASE... 35
5.3 IMPLEMENTATION PHASE... 36
5.4 OUTCOMES IMPLEMENTATION PHASE... 46
6 INFLUENCE OF THE CSF’S ON LEAN IMPLEMENTATION AT TOMIN ... 47
6.1 INFLUENCE OF THE CSF’S ON THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE LEAN IMPLEMENTATION.... 47
6.2 INFLUENCE OF THE DIFFERENT LEAN IMPLEMENTATION PHASES IN THE SPECIFIC CSF’S... 52
6.3 CONCLUSIONS... 55
7 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ... 56
7.1 CONCLUSION... 56
7.2 FURTHER RESEARCH... 58
REFERENCES ... 59
1
Introduction
This chapter will give a brief introduction on the topic of this research. The first paragraph will explain the area of the research. In the second paragraph the reason why this research was initiated will be explained. And in the third and last paragraph the objective of this research is addressed.
1.1 Area of research
In today’s global market producing cost effective is essential to stay competitive. In pre-global times the economy selling price model was selling price = cost + desired profit. In this model the company determined the selling price. In today’s global market this simple formula has been replaced by profit = selling price – cost, where the customer or consumer now determines the selling price. This model is significantly different, since the company now has to focus on reducing costs to create profit. In other words, an important way companies can control their profits is by controlling their costs.
Another important way to stay competitive is to fulfil the clients needs better than the competition.
Lean manufacturing is a tool to do this. It focuses on reducing various types of waste (e.g. overproduction, waiting, transport, extra processing, inventory, motion, defects and under-utilised human resources). This research focuses on the implementation of lean manufacturing.
1.2 Incentive for this research
Implementing lean manufacturing helps a company to realize operational excellence, continuous improvement and reduction or elimination of waste and non-value adding activities (Womack et al., 1990). This means that going lean can substantially improve the performance of a company (Cagliano et al., 2004).
improvement. A staggering 75% of these 636 companies said that they made little to no progress. Merely 2 % said they successfully implemented lean manufacturing. This shows that, although lean is a proven method to create a better performing company, many companies fail in successfully implementing it.
Also at Tomin Metaal an effort has been made to implement lean. The company is actively participating with the Lean Operations Research Center (LO-RC) at the University of Groningen. Also the employees had several courses about lean and an improvement session on the factory floor immediately resulted in a significant reduction of costs and lead-time. However there was no real follow-through and therefore no continuous improvement. This
becomes evident in the interviews that were done by Aldert van der Stoel on the 15thand 16th
of April, 2009. In one of the interviews the production manager says he estimates that the half-day improvement session resulted in earning an extra forty to fifty thousand euros, simply by reducing waste. This success however didn’t trigger an incentive to structurally and continuously improve the production process.
Because many companies, Tomin Metaal amongst them, suffer difficulties implementing the lean philosophy, clarity is needed on the implementation process and (especially) the factors influencing it.
1.3 Research objective
In this research a lean implementation process at Tomin Metaal will be studied, from preparing the organisation for the implementation to executing the first changes in the production process. The goal that is pursued during this study is to shed light on factors that are critical to successfully implement lean manufacturing at Tomin Metaal. When this goal is achieved it should give Tomin Metaal, but also other companies, a clear view on how to realize continuous improvement.
The objective of this research is therefore:
To gain more insight about the impact of the presence or absence of critical success factors and to assess the way in which Tomin copes with these factors.
2
Research design and methodology
Here the research question is addressed. From the goal mentioned in the introduction we can formulate the main research question. To guide and restrict the research 5 sub questions are formulated.
2.1 Main research question
In the introduction the objective of this research was mentioned:
To gain more insight about the impact of the presence or absence of critical success factors and to assess the way in which Tomin copes with these factors.
To reach this objective the following main question has to be answered:
In what way does Tomin Metaal take the required critical success factors into account when implementing lean manufacturing?
2.2 Conceptual model, sub-questions and design of the paper
To clarify the main question the different aspects of it are put in a conceptual model (see below).
Figure 1: Conceptual model
In the first chapter it is mentioned that the ultimate goal of Lean is cost reduction (the final grey box at the right in the conceptual model). This does not mean that implementing lean does not have many different objectives, such as improving client satisfaction and improving
Old situation at
Tomin Metaal Lean implementation process
Outcomes Cost
employee satisfaction. We call all the changes caused by lean implementation (positive and negative) “outcomes”. However, in this research it is believed that the ultimate goal (the reason why we want all these positive outcomes) is cost reduction. This statement can best be described with an example. E.g. lean implementation could focus on improving the quality of a project with the goal of a higher customer satisfaction. Companies want higher customer satisfaction, so that they will get more clients. They want more clients so that they can produce on a larger scale. Producing on a larger scale means cost benefits, so cost reduction. Hence, our ultimate goal. However, this final goal is beyond the scope of this research (as indicated by the dashed red line). The duration of this research at Tomin Metaal was too short to be able to conclude whether the efforts towards lean had any effect lasting effect on cost reduction. There is some brief information on cost-cutting and short-term benefits, which will be given in the chapter of outcomes.
This research looks into the white blocks of the conceptual model. The first part of the research is to deduct the critical success factors for lean from the literature (upper white box). The following sub question is formulated for this objective “What are the critical success
factors (CSF’s) for a lean implementation? (chapter 3)
Once the CSF’s are known the first step is to look at the situation before Lean implementation started (white box at the very left). This is a necessary part of the research, because to know what has changed one has to know what the situation was at the start. Again, a sub-question has been formulated for this step “What was the situation at Tomin Metaal before the Lean
implementation started?” (chapter 4)
After a brief description of the old situation, the research concentrates on the lean implementation process (white box in the middle) and its outcomes (white box to the right). As described above various outcomes will be discussed. The sub-question formulated for this is “How did the development of the lean approach at Tomin Metaal take shape and what were
the outcomes of the implementation of the lean process?” Having answered this question, it
which specific CSF’s had an influence on some of the stages of the lean implementation process. This can be seen in the conceptual model by the arrows pointing down. This part of the research is formulated in the following sub-question “To what extend does the success or
failure of the Lean implementation process at Tomin Metaal depend on the presence or absence of the specific critical success factors?” (chapter 6)
Each of the sub questions will be addressed in their own chapter. To summarize, the following sub questions will be answered:
1. What are the critical success factors (CSF’s) for a lean implementation? (chapter 3) 2. What was the situation at Tomin Metaal before the lean implementation started?
(chapter 4)
3. How did the development of the lean approach at Tomin Metaal take shape and what were the outcomes of the implementation of the lean process? (chapter 5)
4. To what extend does the success or failure of the lean implementation process at Tomin Metaal depend on the presence or absence of the specific critical success factors? (chapter 6)
Finally, after having answered the sub-question, the conclusion to the main research question will be given in chapter 7. In this chapter is also room for advise on further continuous improvement efforts at Tomin Metaal and suggestions for further research.
2.3 Methodology
In this paragraph the methodology of this research will be explained. Part of it has already been discussed above, where an explanation is give of how the sub-questions will be answered. Below the methodology is explained more in-depth.
The methodology used in this research is action-based research. Action based research is a recognized form of experimental research that focuses on the effects of the researcher's direct actions of practice within a participatory community with the goal of improving the performance quality of the community or an area of concern (Wikipedia, 2011).
of the production bureau and communicating the objectives and benefits of lean to the employees at Tomin metaal (for a detailed overview of my activities and involvement in the lean implementation process at Tomin metaal see chapter 5). In addition, in order to evaluate and analyze the progress of the lean process, interviews with members of the production bureau and a number of employees at Tomin metaal were held.
3
Theory
This chapter will begin with brief explanation on the origin of lean, lean principles and implementing lean manufacturing (paragraph 3.1). The theory part ends with factors influencing lean implementation found in literature, the so-called critical success factors (paragraph 3.2). Especially this second part addresses the first sub question.
1stsub question:
What are the critical success factors for a lean implementation?
3.1 Lean manufacturing
As mentioned above the paragraph will address the origin of lean, lean principles, implementation of lean manufacturing and critical factors influencing lean implementation. 3.1.1 Origin of lean
Some of the early principles of lean can be found in Frederic Winslow Taylor’s book on the principles of scientific management (1911). In this book Taylor said:
“And whenever a workman proposes an improvement, it should be the policy of the management to make a careful analysis of the new method, and if necessary conduct a series of experiments to determine accurately the relative merit of the new suggestion and of the old standard. And whenever the new method is found to be markedly superior to the old, it should be adopted as the standard for the whole establishment."
Here we see one of the first steps towards lean manufacturing. Henry Ford (1863-1947) continued the road towards lean by focusing on several types of waste, design for manufacture and standardisation. But although progress was made, the improvements weren’t really continuous.
(Japanese for “improvement”) teams and Taiichi Ohno brought the two themes together and added pull production, creating the TPS (Feingold, 2008).
3.1.2 Lean principles
Lean focuses on value. Poppendieck (2002) mentions four basic principles of lean thinking. 1. Add nothing but value (eliminate waste)
2. Center on the people who add value
3. Flow value from demand (delay commitment) 4. Optimise across organizations
The Lean Enterprise Institute (www.lean.org) has a similar view on lean. They mention the
following five principles. 1. Identify value
2. Map the value stream 3. Create flow
4. Establish pull 5. Seek perfection
The Lean Advancement Initiative (http://lean.mit.edu) recognizes 6 phases.
Phase 0: Adapt lean paradigm Phase 1: Prepare
Phase 2: Define value
Phase 3: Identify value stream Phase 4: Design production system Phase 5: Implement flow
Phase 6: Implement total system pull
Type of loss / waste Symptoms Possible causes Key tools & techniques
Overproduction
Producing sooner, faster or in greater quantities than is needed by the customer
Too many parts are produced Parts are produced too early Parts accumulate in uncontrolled inventories
Long manufacturing lead time Poor delivery performance
Long changeovers driving large batch sizes
Use of an economic algorithm to determine batch sizes Poor scheduling
Confusion over schedule priorities Unbalanced material flow Prioritisation of equipment utilisation as a key metric
Just-in-Time (continuous flow processing, Takt, pull systems levelled production)
Changeover reduction or SMED (where changeovers are driving batch sizes)
Waiting
Idle time (for people or machines) in which no value-adding activities take place
Operators often wait for materials or information
Operators stand and watch machines run
Operators often wait for unavailable machines
Lon in-process delays Low productivity
Long manufacturing lead times
Large batch sizes upstream causing material shortages
Poor supplier delivery performance Poor machine condition Poor scheduling Poor labour utilisation Lack of flexibility in skills
Flexible labour systems (including standardised work)
Just-in-Time (continuous flow processing, Takt, pull systems levelled production) Strategic maintenance Supplier development
Transportation
Unnecessary movement of materials Multiple handling or movement of parts Excessive handling damage Long distances travelled by parts between processes
Long manufacturing lead times High indirect costs due to storage space and material handling equipment required
Sequential processes physically separated
Poor layout
High inventories; same part often held in multiple locations
Continuous flow processing and pull systems
Workplace organisation
Over-processing
Effort that isn’t required by the customer and adds no value
Performing processes that aren’t required by the customer Redundant approval requirements Higher direct costs than competitors
Over-engineered processes Product design
Unclear customer specification Excessive testing
Inappropriate policies or procedures
Production preparation Standardised work
Inventory
Any parts or materials above the minimum required to deliver what customers want when they want it
Obsolete stock Cash flow problems Lack of space
Long manufacturing lead times Poor delivery performance Extensive rework needed when quality problems are identified
Overproduction
Poor forecasting or scheduling High levels of safety stock because of frequent process or quality problems
Purchasing policies Unreliable suppliers Large batch sizes
Just-in-Time (continuous flow processing, Takt, pull systems, levelled production) Standardised work Supplier development Strategic maintenance (where process problems are driven by equipment issues)
Statistical process control (where process problems are driven by quality issues)
Motion
Unnecessary movement of people or materials within a process
Searching for tools or parts Excessive walking by operators Double handling of parts Low productivity
Poor layout of workplace, tools and materials
Lack of visual controls Poor process design
Workplace organisation Continuous flow processing Motion kaizen
Standardised work Visual management Rework
Repetition or correction of a process
Dedicated rework processes High defect rates
High material costs because of spoilage levels
Low productivity Large quality or inspection departments
Poor-quality materials Poor machine conditions Unstable or incapable processes Low skill levels
Unclear customer specifications
Statistical process control Autonomation Strategic maintenance Supplier development Standardised work Variability
Any deviation from the standard or nominal condition
High levels of scrap or rework Large quality or inspection departments
Recurring problems that are patched up with quick fixes
Output measures that show an unacceptable level of variation (e.g. quality)
Unstable or unpredictable processes Incapable processes
Poor quality materials or supplied parts
Low shill levels
Statistical process control Autonomation Supplier development Standardised work
Inflexibility
Response to demand variability issues that arise as a result of customer demand
Unable to react quickly to changes in customer demand
High levels of overtime Periods of under-utilisation
High inventories Long changeover times Poorly balanced work Low skill levels Over-scoped equipment
Just-in-Time (continuous flow processing, Takt, pull systems, levelled production) Flexible labour systems Changeover reduction or SMED Working practices
Normal working practises that obstruct flexibility in the operating system
Unable to change ways of working significantly
Work frequently delayed when the right people aren’t available
Terms and conditions not configured to facilitate change
Operators are highly specialised and often only one person can do a specific job
Standardised work Flexible labour systems
Table 1: Drew (2004), types of waste, symptoms, causes and possible solutions
stream of all the products or services the company has to offer. This map often shows huge amounts of waste.
The following step is to create flow and establish pull. Because of this the company can produce continuously in smaller batch sizes. This enables the company to produce on customer demand much faster.
The last step is optimising or seeking perfection. This last step however has no ending. After successfully completing the earlier steps the involved parties should realize that there is no end in reducing waste and that this is a continuous process.
3.2 Factors influencing lean implementation
When implementing lean there are circumstantial factors that can be important and sometimes essential for success. In this paragraph and overview of key success factors is given and a selection to be measured in this research made. The paragraph starts with a broad description of critical success factors as identified by different authors, followed by a more workable list of general (critical) factors. Further on in the paragraph the factors will be explained.
A research by Achanga et al. (2006) identifies 4 critical factors for a successful lean implementation. These are (1) leadership and management, (2) financial capabilities, (3) skills and expertise and (4) organisational culture. Interviews showed that leadership and management were perceived as the most important factor, being mentioned by 50% of the managers as biggest critical factor. Financial capabilities is mentioned by 30%, skills and expertise and organisational culture both get 10% of the votes. The next figure shows these factors and how they influence a lean implementation project.
Figure 2: Achanga et al. (2006), Elements of critical factors for a successful lean implementation
A successfully implemented
lean project Leadership & Management
Strategy Vision
Funding Organisational Culture
Skills & Expertise People & Soft Issues
Sila and Ebrahimpour (2003) researched critical factors of total quality management across countries found in literature from 1989 to 2000. They distinguish 7 groups of critical factors. These are:
- Leadership
Keywords: Top management leadership, visionary leadership, managerial support, quality leadership, top management commitment, social and environmental consideration.
- Strategic planning
Keywords: Quality strategy, innovation, integration, vision and plan statement. - Customer and market focus
Keywords: Customer focus and satisfaction, customer analysis, cooperation with customers, service and feedback.
- Information and analysis
Keywords: Quality data and reporting, benchmarking. - Human resources focus
Keywords: Human resource management, training, workforce commitment to quality, employee involvement, empowerment and fulfilment, teamwork, performance recognition, communication.
- Process management
Keywords: Process control, process design, supplier management, CI, quality assurance, cycle time reduction, zero defects.
- Other factors
Keywords: Flexibility, culture, JIT.
Kaye and Anderson (1999) wrote an article on the ten essential criteria to acquire and keep continuous improvement. These ten essential criteria they mention are:
1. Senior management commitment and involvement.
2. Leadership and active commitment to continuous improvement demonstrated by managers at all levels.
3. Focusing on the needs of the customer.
4. Integrating continuous improvement activities into the strategic goals across the whole organisation, across boundaries and at all levels.
5. Establishing a culture for continuous improvement and encouraging high involvement innovation.
7. Focusing on critical processes.
8. Standardizing achievements in a documented quality management system. 9. Establishing measurement and feedback systems.
10. Learning from continuous improvement results, the automatic capturing and sharing of learning.
In a similar vein, an article by Fryer, Antony and Douglas (2007) discusses a number of critical success factors. This one is particularly interesting since it is about critical success factors for continuous improvement in the public sector and although Tomingroep is officially no public company, it still resembles it in many areas. Key critical success factors mentioned were:
1. Management commitment. 2. Customer management. 3. Supplier management.
4. Quality data, measurement and reporting. 5. Teamwork.
6. Communication. 7. Process management.
8. Ongoing evaluation, monitoring and assessment. 9. Training and learning.
10. Employee empowerment.
11. Having aims and objectives that are communicated to the workforce and used to prioritise individual’s actions – a corporate quality culture.
12. Product design.
13. Organisational structure.
Rubrich (2004) has a more practical view on critical success factors. He mentions 10 factors that influence lean implementation. He identifies some of these factors as essential for a successful implementation, others as just important. This second group of factors help a successful implementation, but missing one factor can be compensated by others and is survivable.
The factors Rubrich mentions are:
3. Middle management / supervisor buy in 4. An understanding that lean is about people 5. Customer focus
6. Sufficient improvement measurements 7. Lean leadership
8. People measures aligned with company goals
9. Using more then just kaizen events as the sole improvement mechanism 10. Bonus pay systems
According to Rubrich (2004) the first two factors (top down management support and communication) are essential and will result in failure of the implementation if not addressed. From the literature-review the following 9 critical success factors emerged as central for the lean implementation process:
1. Top down management support 2. Communication 3. Strategic planning 4. Customer focus 5. People focus 6. Process focus 7. Lean leadership
8. Middle management / supervisor buy in 9. Sufficient measurements
Description of the factors:
Top down management support
This view is shared by Boyer and Sovilla (2003). They state that management failing to stand behind trying to implement lean will result in (un)intentional sabotage of the attempt. Top management has to communicate the change to the entire organisation and should actively try to create interest for the lean implementation.
Support is also important for a less obvious reason. It is essential that the employees feel that top management respects their effort. Lack in this matter can demotivate employees and often leads to failure of the lean manufacturing implementation.
Kotter (1996) also emphasizes the important role for top management to guide the organisation in the transition phase to lean manufacturing. He mentions five change implementation conditions that must be met before change can begin. These are:
1. Creating a sense of change urgency
2. Creating / developing a company change guiding coalition or alliance
3. Developing a vision of the required company future state and a strategy to achieve it 4. Communicating the vision and strategy to the entire workforce
5. Creating an environment in the company where associate empowerment can evolve
Communication
When implementing lean the need for communication will grow. This goes for the implementation itself as well as for the actual lean company.
This is due to (Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2003) two factors:
1. Effective communication is important across and between functions and work units to ensure that customer requirements are addressed and that an environment of trust and knowledge sharing is created. Examples are cultural communications, top-down and bottom-up communication and organizational leaning and communications.
2. Lean manufacturing itself needs to be communicated inside and outside the company. Examples are communication of lean manufacturing and communication of improvement information.
Strategic planning
According to Salaheldin (2009) strategic factors have the potency to play a crucial role in the successful implementation of lean.
The organisation’s strategic aims and objectives should be used to identify and prioritise continuous improvement activities across the whole organisation, across functional boundaries and at all levels.
Self-assessment techniques using a recognised model (e.g. the European business excellence model or Baldridge Award criteria) should be considered to help identify improvement areas across the organisations and promote a holistic approach to continuous improvement.
Customer focus
When implementing lean it is important to keep a focus on why you’re doing it. Without customer satisfaction it is impossible to seriously compete on a global market. Henry Ford once said: “It is not the employer who pays the wages. Employers only handle the money. It is
the customer who pays the wages.” Employees should work together trying to achieve this
common goal. Keeping customer satisfaction in mind can help direct the company in the right direction when reducing or eliminating waste.
Another important aspect is that companies have a tendency to view customer satisfaction as something costly, as in a higher level of customer satisfaction costs more money. Obviously this differs for various companies, but in many cases a higher level of customer satisfaction leads to a reduction of costs. Some of the factors causing this are repeated sales and a reduction of after sale costs.
People focus
Lean is often wrongly perceived as a technical solution. People not rarely think that an organization can become lean by implementing new techniques, automated equipment and robots. In the surveys done by the Lean Enterprise Institute from 2005 to 2009 middle management resistance, supervisor resistance and employee resistance are found as big obstacles to lean implementation. Lean is about people.
Typical about successful lean companies is that they work in teams, there is a company wide effort to reduce waste and everybody is dedicated to making a quality product.
- taking initiative is encouraged.
- everybody is accountable for the end result.
More concrete is Kaye and Anderson (1999). They name 4 specific areas: 1. Employee involvement
2. Employee empowerment
3. Team work and establishing improvement teams 4. Training and development
Sila and Ebrahimpour (2003) add fulfillment to that list.
Process focus
According to Kaye and Anderson (1999) all major business processes should be identified and documented. Also it should be known how the process contributes to the overall aim of the company, the process customers and suppliers should be clear, the process should be benchmarked and all non-value added actions should be eliminated.
Lean leadership
Lean leadership has a great influence on whether an implementation project will be successful. There is a big difference between telling your employees what has to be done and showing them what you want done. This is different from top down management support in the fact that lean leadership is not about actively supporting lean, but more about showing that you’re actively supporting lean. Change is difficult at the best of days. People need to be inspired.
Middle management / supervisor buy in
Middle management and supervisor buy in is important for a successful lean implementation. According to a survey done in 2007 by the Lean Enterprise Institute middle management buy in is the leading obstacle to lean implementations.
Jack Welch (2003), former CEO of General Electric, has an interesting view on this issue. He distinguishes 3 types of employees, namely A, B and C players. These types apply to all levels of the organization. Here we will explain these types.
A-players
- Passionate about their work - Result oriented
- Open-minded - Charismatic - Highly energetic
- They make stuff happen
- Usually about 10-20% of the employees B-players
- Lack vision
- Vital to the organization, because they’re the biggest group - Usually about 80% of the employees
C-players
- Produce significantly below average - Don’t deliver as promised
- Rather than A players they have the tendency to weaken new initiatives - Usually about 10-20% of the employees
players the chance to improve. He claims that if there is no improvement after about 90 days, than there will be no improvement ever.
Mentioning these 3 types is relevant because every company has some managers that rank as C players. These managers put a successful lean implementation at risk. Sometimes obvious by just refusing to do things the new way, but more so on a less visible level. For example the managers that say: “yes, we can”, but behind your back promote: “hell no, the old way was the best way”.
Not addressing this issue can be lethal for a lean implementation.
Sufficient measurements
When implementing change it is important that everybody can see a clear effect. Sometimes it feels like an improvement process is working. But until there are hard measurements of the new situation compared to the old situation, there will always be people denying that an improvement has been made. When using performance indicators or key performance indicators (KPIs), it is important that they are used in the right way.
Rubrich (2004) mentions three common mistakes. The first mistake is that the company has too many KPIs. Ranges differ depending on the company. Most have about 15 to 25 KPIs, but some manage to have over 150. In reality most companies have difficulties actively measuring these 15 to 25 KPIs. All these measurements are a distraction from the actual work. Also when there are too many KPIs, focus is lost on why they’re actually being measured. Most articles on performance measurement estimate that 10 KPIs is the maximum number a company should have.
The second mistake that is made is that the KPIs that are selected are not connected to the company goal. In this case things are being measured that aren’t really relevant.
The third mistake is only using KPIs for the factory floor and not in the office. In many company’s people have a pretty good understanding of what happens on the factory floor, but they totally disregard the office floor. This is an area where big improvement steps can be made.
It is important to use the selected KPIs and communicate them to the employees in a visible and comprehensible way. This can be done using big screens or message boards.
4
Initial situation at Tomin Metaal
In this chapter a short description is given of the Tomingroep company and its division Tomin Metaal (metal) in specific. After this the situation that Tomin Metaal was in around November 2009 is addressed. This will answer the second sub question.
2ndsub question:
What was the situation at Tomin Metaal before lean implementation started?
4.1 Tomingroep in general
Tomingroep, situated in Hilversum, Almere, Naarden and Weesp, is a company that actively tries to develop and exploit business activities that fit their personnel, namely people with some or various forms of disabilities. The company is unlike a sheltered workshop, because a sheltered workshop is (highly) dependant on government subsidies. Tomingroep does receive subsidies to compensate the reduced productivity due to disabilities. But unlike a sheltered workshop they are, like regular companies, actively trading in the market and responsible for the financial risks involved. Therefore the best way to describe Tomingroep is as a social enterprise.
The business activities of Tomingroep are varied and comprise of landscaping, facilities management, metalworking, packaging, retail and construction of buildings for sale or rental. There is also an employment agency and several initiatives to help people get back on the job market.
4.2 Tomin Metaal
light bulbs (Lemnis). Most of the work is done in Hilversum. They have machinery for sawing, cutting, punching, setting, drilling, turning and welding. The smaller location (Almere) is specialized in small batch assembly, revise and repair jobs and the production of carbon filters.
Figure 4: A Tomingroep employee bending parts for solar panel fixtures
The following figure shows part of the management hierarchy at Tomin Metaal.
Figure 5: Part of the management hierarchy at Tomin Metaal
Jelle Postma
Managing director division industry and retail
Ronald Wiersma Plant manager Tomin Metaal
Peter Atema Head of production bureau
4.3 The situation at Tomin Metaal
This part gives a general description of the situation that Tomin Metaal was in around November 2009. Information is used from observations, interviews with employees and findings from Jelle Postma (managing director division industry and retail Tomingroep) and Johan Maas (change manager Tomingroep).
Tomin Metaal is at a turning point. The managing director division industry thinks that Tomin Metaal in its current state is too big considering the money they make. They have to either scale down or expand and create sufficient growth to allow the current overhead. That last option also means a significant growth in sales volume must be realised. To do so they want to “go lean” but several attempts in the past haven’t brought the desired results. Some personnel participated in some lean workshops, a few improvement projects have been done, but after the first impulse things went back to the way they were.
As mentioned in the methodology chapter a specific methodology is used to answer the following sub-question for this chapter. The INK management model, which is basically an adapted version of the EFQM excellence model, is used. The INK model is used to shed a little bit more light on where Tomin Metaal is on the ladder towards being a continuous improving company. More specifically, it is used to measure the status of the CSF’s at Tomin Metaal. What is said here is that the position that a company has in the INK-model, is an element that influences the degree to which the CSF’s for lean are fulfilled. The goal of describing the situation at Tomin metaal is therefore, to link to the starting situation of the CSF’s.
Phase I Activity oriented Phase II Process oriented Phase III System oriented Phase IV Chain oriented Phase V Excel and transform
Leadership The direction of the company is altered ad hoc, following and reacting to problems. The leadership style is directive, top-down.
The direction of the company is focused on the arrangement of the primary process. Management is participating in the primary process
Internal and external information is used to plot the direction of the company.
The leadership style is coaching and focused on the employees and external partners.
When deciding on the direction of the company there is a focus on positioning in the chain network. Management is focused outside, while inside things are in order.
The direction of the company is aimed at being the best. Top management is focused on developing the learning capabilities of the company.
Result oriented Activities are managed based on output and finances
In the primary process measurements are being done and action is taken when discrepancies are discovered. Demands from external clients are fulfilled.
Throughout the entire organization results are measured, trends are followed and discrepancies in the target goals analysed. Measurements encompass all stakeholders.
Goal is to achieve maximum added value to the chain network. Benchmarking in the branch is one of the standard performance indicators.
Performance measurement is focused on comparison to the few other best companies and there is a continuing search for ‘best practices’. Future scenarios define the business plan.
Continuous improvement
Improvement efforts are focused on the quality of the product or service. Actions are being taken after a mistake or defect is found.
Improvement efforts are focused on the existing process. Project groups look for the causes of errors en file improvement suggestions.
Improvements are not just only small steps forward, but are also based on fundamental changes and new concepts.
Improving is an important and baked in part of the company. Innovation projects are being undertaken together with partners.
Learning and excelling is anchored into the company. New possibilities are being looked into and old structures are being questioned and torn down.
Transparency The production process is a black box with an input and an output. Directions are being given based on these inputs and outputs.
The production process has been mapped and responsibilities are known. The critical parts of the process are being managed.
Relationships between processes are known. Managing focus is on added value. Budgets are assigned to processes and managed by the employees responsible for that process.
The processes of the partners in the chain network are known and aligned.
Employees have insights in their contribution to the company results.
The design and management of the company is placed in a social context. Transparency and willingness to adapt are important factors in this social context.
Cooperation Clients are not partners, they decide what happens. There is an hierarchy that tells employees what to do.
Clients are consulted about specs to achieve the optimal result. Employees are consulted on operational matters.
Suppliers are involved in creating the specifications. There is an open discussion with employees on the direction of the company and their contribution to it.
There is cooperation with partners in the chain network on a win-win basis. Together a plan for the future is developed. Employees are treated as internal partners.
Strategic alliances are made stretching out into the far future. Existing cooperation is at an optimal level.
Table 2: Development phases in the INK management model (INK, 2002)
Leadership
The INK management model looks at two criteria for leadership; the direction of the company and the management style. Tomin Metaal seems to be in phase two for leadership, which states that “The direction of the company is focused on the arrangement of the primary process. Management is participating in the primary process”. Going up the phases, the direction of companies has a more external focus, looking at networks and aiming to be the best. In these higher phases there is therefore a clear and known mission, vision and strategy, describing the direction of the company. This is something that is absent at Tomin metaal.
This lack became clear at a management meeting in November. At the 18thof November 2009
a meeting was held with the members of the production bureau and the managing director division industry (Jelle Postma). The goal of this meeting was to decide the direction of the company; either scale down or expand, and to get everybody on board for the changes that are about to be made. During the meeting and afterwards questionnaires were used with the people that attended, to evaluate their view on the company. The questionnaires showed that there was no shared vision on what Tomin Metaal should become. In other words there was no clear and common mission, vision and strategy that the members of the production bureau were aware of. Furthermore, a decision on the direction still had to be taken.
The other criterium for leadership is management style. The higher you go up the phases, management focuses more on learning and coaching, and it is more focused outside. It is hard to objectively report about the management situation at Tomin Metaal. The description below is based on my opinion as an intern at Tomin metaal. At Tomin metaal management is still very much focused on the primary process. What is meant here is that the management is mostly busy with daily tasks and not with the bigger picture or middle- to longterm plans. This is seen mostly with the plant manager Tomin Metaal. Due to this focus on the primary process there is not much attention for learning, coaching and an external view.
Result oriented
measurements improve and are more aimed at benchmarking. At Tomin metaal some efforts are being made to take measurements in the primary process. When deviations are noticed, action is undertaken. The main measurements that are being conducted are product control. There are hardly any other measurements and there is therefore no clear view on how costs directly relate to the product. Also, throughput times are unknown and delivery times are only rough estimates.
As for the second criteria, the external focus, Tomin metaal does fulfil the needs of external clients. They try to be client-orientated and accept a lot of client-specific orders. They do not however, measure encompassing stakeholders and they do not do regular benchmarks.
Continuous improvement
Of significant importance for continuous improvement are key performance indicators (KPI’s). At Tomin Metaal there are few KPI’s determined and even fewer actually being measured on a steady basis. There is a culture of fear for measurements. Employees believe that measurements in the past have been used to prove they were working too slowly and now feel threatened by any kind of measurements on the shop floor. However there is a strong urge to deliver a quality product and regular checks to maintain and improve product quality are being done. Some employees are actively contemplating on how to improve the product or process. Sometimes a project group is formed to solve a specific problem, but nothing is done on a steady and regular basis.
Transparency
Cooperation
Tomin Metaal doesn’t have a specific product that they can call their own. They produce a wide variety of products for a wide variety of clients, almost all business to business. Client acquisition happens actively and passively, but the client decides the type of product. Although Tomin Metaal produces for a wide variety of clients, just a few clients realize a big part of their annual turnover. In a recent past a decision has been made to focus more on the bigger clients that ensure a steady flow of work in bigger batches, but in practice Tomin Metaal is still trying to serve all their clients. Their effort to do so is commendable, but it also disrupts the process on many levels, this due to the fact that all the small orders from different clients have to be fulfilled. All mentioned here gives an image of how Tomin Metaal interacts with clients. Basically the client demands and Tomin Metaal obliges. Cooperation goes as far that the people at the production bureau are actively involved in creating the best possible product for the client, but it is the client who calls the shots.
4.4 Influence of this situation on the critical success factors
5
The lean implementation process at Tomin Metaal
In this chapter an elaboration is given on the actions that were taken at Tomin Metaal to move towards a lean company in the period November 2009 to April 2010. The outcomes of these
actions will also be described. The aim of this chapter is to answer the 3rdsub question.
3rdsub question:
How did the development of the lean approach at Tomin Metaal take shape and what were the outcomes of the implementation of the lean process?
My internship at Tomin metal and the development of their lean approach can be best characterized by two connected phases: a preliminary (to some extent preparatory) phase and an implementation phase. The preliminary phase took place roughly from November 2009 until January 2010. During the preliminary phase an analysis of the current situation was done, the resulting information was provided to the production bureau to create broad acceptance of the changes to be made. The provision of information was in addition relevant for the development and acceptance of the lean approach. Below I will addressthe key activities that characterize the preliminary phase at Tomin metaal: the kick off meeting, the Lemnis project in Almere (see chapter 4) as well as observations about tasks and responsibilities of the managers at Tomin Metaal.
The implementation phase started on the 26thof January 2010 and lasted till March 2010. The
implementation phase consisted of a lean implementation project based on eight improvement sessions supervised by Johan Maas, an attempt to implement key performance indicators (also a part of the improvement sessions) and an attempt to formulate a shared and clear mission, vision and strategy for Tomin Metaal. The phase referred to as the ‘implementation phase’ in this theses included overlapping activities of both, planning the lean approach as well as implementing it.
5.1 Preliminary phase
In this paragraph we discuss the activities that were done in the period November 2009 to January 2010.
5.1.1 Kick off meeting
As earlier mentioned, a meeting was held at the 18thof November. Attending this meeting are:
- Jelle Postma, managing director division industry and retail - Ronald Wiersma , plant manager Tomin Metaal
- Jan Heeres, production leader
- Pieter Atema, head of production bureau - Hans Schoor,
- Jaques Smeer, sales manager
- Herman Guldemond, chief warehouse - Auke Dijkstra
In this meeting Jelle Postma shared his view that the company had to either scale down or expand. Continuing in its current state was not an option, because the company is not generating sufficient income to justify its overhead. After a brief explanation of what an improvement culture encompasses, the people attending the meeting were asked how they see the company. More specifically, how they would grade the improvement culture at Tomin Metaal, what they like and dislike about the entire organization, the market, the processes and the resources and where they see vulnerabilities. Also they were asked what they would like to change and where they see issues preventing improvement.
Typical result from the meeting:
The view on how much an improvement culture is happening at Tomin Metaal varies a lot. When asked to give a grade on the improvement culture at Tomin Metaal (1 being the worst, 10 being the best) answers varied from 4½ to 10 (6, 6, 4½, 10, 9 and 6).
More elaborate results can be found in appendix 1.
at least a sense of urgency felt by all that could be used to move forwards and to implement change.
Typical results from the interviews:
4 out of 7 (not including me) people who attended the meeting responded negatively when asked if they perceived the current situation as a serious one. There is not a shared feeling of urgency to address a problematic situation.
More elaborate results of all these questions can be viewed in appendix 1. 5.1.2 Lemnis project
The Lemnis project ran from the 10th of November till the 25th of November and was
1. Boxes with light bulbs were unpacked 2. Light bulb bottom was melted off and placed on conveyor belt
3. Light bulbs are placed in templates 4. Light bulbs get UV treatment
5. Light bulbs are placed in racks prior to going into 6. Light bulbs are tested and packed in boxes the oven
Figure 6: Lemnis repair process
of many of the lean traits. The lemnis project would have been a great opportunity to serve as an example to convince the production bureau at Tomin Metaal of the benefits of lean manufacturing. Sadly before this result could be achieved the client put the project on hold and although setting up the production process in a lean manner was proven more efficient, none of the employees at the production bureau witnessed this.
5.1.3 Tasks and responsibilities of the head of production bureau and the production leader Based on views from Jelle Postma and the research done by A van Dijk (2008) it was decided to shed some light on the tasks and responsibilities on some members of the production bureau, namely Pieter Atema (head of production bureau) and Jan Heeres (production leader). By interviewing them and observing their daily routine information was gathered. The document presented to Jelle Postma can be viewed in appendix 2.
5.2 Outcomes preliminary phase
My own observations, questionnaires and interviews showed some outcomes. By no account is this list complete.
Kick off meeting:
- Created awareness that the company has a problem.
- Created a sense of urgency to solve this problem.
- Failed to have everybody see this as a shared common problem.
- Was used to give a warning to the members of the production bureau that things have
to change.
- Was used to give a warning to the plant manager Ronald Wiersma that he had to
actively support this improvement project.
- Showed the members of the production bureau that the managing director Jelle Postma
was committed to this improvement project and that he was giving it its full support. Lemnis project:
- Showed (some sadly not located in Hilversum) people on the workfloor that lean
potentially created a higher outcome with less effort.
- Showed lack of visionary leadership of the production manager of Tomin Metaal.
- Showed lack of knowledge of lean of the production manager of Tomin Metaal.
- Failed to use the project as a pilot case to convince employees at Tomin Metaal on the
benefits of lean, this because the project was located in Almere and got shut down due to the client canceling the order.
- Resulted in higher output with fewer people.
Observations about tasks and responsibilities of the managers at Tomin Metaal:
- Production leader Jan Heeres was not only taking charge, but was also just working in
the production line.
- Head production bureau Pieter Atema is a black box, definitely not unskilled in what
he does but impossible to be replaced when he would be out (in case of sickness for example)
- Showed a lack of transparency
- Showed a lack of management, especially from the plant manager (for example simple
meetings were almost held at random without an agenda, no order and would often end with vague agreements or even no agreements at all).
- Gained more insight in who does what and who has actual control
5.3 Implementation phase
5.3.1 Improvement project Esdec
On the 26th of January a meeting was held, attending were Jelle Postma, Ronald Wiersma,
1. Sheet metal is picked from the warehouse 2. A punching machine is used to cut the product
out of the sheet metal
3. A bending machine is used to shape the product 4. Tubtara blind rivet nuts are installed at the assembly area
5. Further assembly is done on worktables 6. Finished solar panel fixtures are packed in large boxes and moved to the warehouse waiting to be shipped
This improvement trajectory has 2 goals, mentioned below. 1stgoal:
By doing the improvement project insight should be gained on how improving is done. The specific product involved in this improvement trajectory is important, but even more important is that by doing this improvement project Tomin Metaal will learn how to improve. 2ndgoal:
The production process of Esdec needs to improve. Last year there has been a good turnover, but the market is changing and the competition rising. Prices need to drop. If the production process doesn’t improve, than the product won’t be feasible in a matter of time.
- Throughput time and work in progress (WIP) needs to decrease 50%. - Tomin Metaal needs to produce on demand. There should be flow. - Measurements need to be done. KPI’s should be introduced.
During this first session it was decided that the improvement team would consist of Johan Maas (change consultant), Jan Heeres (production leader), Henny Zumbrink (foreman assembly), Thomas Rondeel (assistant foreman metal) and myself. Meetings would be held weekly. There would be a total of 7 sessions, not including the first meeting that was just discussed. Short summaries of these sessions will be mentioned here.
Session 1 (02-02-10)
The first session with the improvement team was used to explain several of the lean tools that we were going to use in future session. Takt time and an example of a value stream map (VSM) were discussed. Also the importance of taking measurements was addressed. Then the first lay out of the VSM was made.
Figure 9: First version of the VSM
50%, it was essential to find out what our current WIP was. Also the measurements were necessary to further fill out the VSM.
Session 2 (09-02-10)
In this session we were supposed to discuss the measurements from the foreman assemble and the foreman metal. However they said they were too busy with their normal work to be able to do these measurements. So the original plan for this session went out the window and instead we had a discussion on our roadmap for this improvement team and some ground rules for this team to function.
Output Create Flow Work methods Procedures VSM complete Takttime Bottlenecks Online / Offline Cycletime Aspect Goal
Figure 10: Sketch of the roadmap for the Esdec project
Some rules we all agreed on:
- When something is agreed on, that is set in stone. - Towards the outside we are one voice.
- Everybody in the team is equal.
- We look ahead. Things that went wrong in the past are not an issue, but something to change in the future.
Session 3 (16-02-10)
Measurements were turned in and will be noted in the VSM. Then we set on to name the problems in the VSM. Using post-it notes the members of the improvement team addressed several problems for each process.
Figure 11: VSM with problems
In appendix 3 a complete list of the problems that were mentioned during this session can be found.
Session 4 (18-02-10)
After reviewing the in session 3 mentioned problems the change consultant noticed that all of them implicated the production process. Almost none of the mentioned problems were about behavior of the employees. Also several of the in session 3 mentioned problems weren’t really problems, but were just actions that were arduous but unavoidable.
Therefore we held a discussion on where the real problems are and addressed the issue of behavior of the employees. With this in mind a new list of problems was created. This list can be seen in appendix 4.
Session 5 (02-03-10)
but because we wanted our pilot improvement project be a clear and easy example on how lean methods can improve the workplace and output we neglected that for the moment.
Figure 12: Meeting with the improvement team
Session 6 (09-03-10)
This session was an evaluation on how the Esdec project went. Since the 1st goal of the improvement project Esdec was to gain insight on how improving was done at Tomin Metaal a discussion was held on the improvement culture at Tomin Metaal in general.
The following w question were asked: “(1) Try to figure out why some obvious improvements that came out of these sessions weren’t thought of sooner and (2) what needs to happen in the future so that problems / bottlenecks will be noticed, addressed and solved? “
Some of the answers:
- (1) Not enough time / (2) More foremen
- (1) It’s the mentality of the company, negative behavior is followed by other employees, people don’t keep their promises / (2) ….
- (1) Meetings are chaotic and pointless, no decisions are made on who does what, when, how and why, ad hoc planning that is not being followed / (2) ….
Session 7
Actions taken outside the sessions
Besides these sessions some other actions were also taken. By using a suggestion box and explaining the employees of Tomin Metaal what we we’re planning to accomplish with our improvement team we hoped to gain support. Appendix 7 shows the suggestions given by Tomin Metaal employees.
Also we presented the VSM including all bottlenecks/problems to give them insight in where we saw problems and solutions.
Figure 13: Presentation of the VSM to Tomin Metaal employees
5.3.2 Implementing improvement measurements / KPI’s
manager didn’t see the importance of taking measurements or at least didn’t give any priority to it.
The people on the shop floor had a fear of any type of measurements. They were afraid the measurements would be used against them, referring to a case where a welder was asked to make a 100 cm weld and then was asked why he didn’t weld at that speed all the time. After numerous times of me explaining that the only reason for the measurements was to get a better image of what we were doing and not to punish employees for slacking, some measurements were implemented. However a reoccurring issue was that employees were too busy to write down a few measurements. Also there was some lack in knowledge on how we would easily get the some of measurements from the computers from the machines that were operated. Summarized, there was a lot of resistance.
When reporting this to the plant manager, combined with some of the steps that should be taken to implement measurements, no action was taken.
Only during the improvement sessions mentioned above when Johan Maas and me made certain measurements a weekly assignment, some employees started making regular measurements. This stopped again after improvement sessions and no structure on how to take measurements was implemented. For that matter, outside the improvement team, nobody used or asked about these measurements.
5.3.3 Mission vision strategy
Figure 14: Possible mission, vision and strategy for Tomin Metaal
Mission Tomin Metaal: (=primary function of the organization )
Creating job opportunities for people with disabilities by profitable production and assembly of metal products
Vision: (= what we would like to be )
To accomplish this mission Tomin Metaal wants to be a company that:
1. Makes products of good quality, with a high degree of delivery reliability and for a good price;
2. Is flexible and customer focused; 3. Is able to be competitive in the market;
4. Uses as much people with disabilities as possible;
5. Is actively involved in further educating and enabling its personnel.
Strategy: (= what we have to do ) Results:
- Introduce performance indicators into the company - Assess the current situation
- Introduce improvement goals aimed at lower amount of WIP, less stock and a higher occupancy of the machines
Personnel:
- Assess knowledge and abilities personnel - Work up missing knowledge and abilities in POP - Educate (internally) and guide the employees - Make employability matrix for all the employees Resources:
- Define the resources plan for the next 5 years Based on a growing turnover
Based on positioning Tomin Metaal in the market Organization:
- Neatness
Workplace optimization (everything that is needed is there, not more, not less) Clean workplaces
- Process improvement
Standardization of the processes
Improving the processes (working according to lean principles) Creating flow: minimize unnecessary actions and in-process inventory - Define improvement processes
Create improvement teams to support the management Chains:
5.4 Outcomes implementation phase
Improvement project Esdec:
- The process was changed, especially in the assembly area.
- Higher output.
- Fewer people in the production line.
- Better quality of the product.
- Shorter throughput.
- Jan Heeres and Thomas Rondeel started improvement ideas on their own, they felt
enabled.
- Showed that Henny Zumbrink, in charge of assembly, was not in control of his area.
Koen Hoetmer, the former person in charge of assembly still was. Also he wasn’t actively participating in the improvement project.
Attempt to implement key performance indicators:
- Gained more insight on output and throughput time.
- Showed an allergy for measurements on the shop floor.
- Some employees started to see the value of KPI’s and started taking measurements
- Measurements weren’t used
Attempt to formulate a shared and clear mission, vision and strategy for Tomin Metaal:
- A first draft was created.
- Interviewed the members of the production bureau on if they recognized themselves in
this draft, on which they replied positively.
6
Influence of the CSF’s on lean implementation at Tomin
In this chapter the 4thsub question will be answered.
4thsub question:
To what extend does the success or failure of the Lean implementation process at Tomin Metaal depend on the presence or absence of the specific critical success factors?
To answer this question we will use the two following tables (table 3 and table 4).
The first table (table 3) looks how the CSF’s influence the different phases of the lean implementation. The second table looks how the different phases of the lean implementation contribute to the specific CSF’s.
6.1 Influence of the CSF’s on the different phases of the lean implementation
The next page shows a table on the influence of the CSF’s on the different phases of the lean implementation. On the vertical axel we have the CSF’s and on the horizontal axel the different phases recognized in our lean implementation process. Not all of these phases can be filed under the in lean literature mentioned implementation phases. However I believe all mentioned phases had some value at some point and helped Tomin Metaal improve.
