U
U
U
N
N
N
I
I
I
V
V
V
E
E
E
R
R
R
S
S
S
I
I
I
T
T
T
Y
Y
Y
O
O
O
F
F
F
G
G
G
R
R
R
O
O
O
N
N
N
I
I
I
N
N
N
G
G
G
E
E
E
N
N
N
F
F
F
AAACCCUUULLLTTTYYYOOOFFFE
E
E
CCCOOONNNOOOMMMIIICCCSSSAAANNNDDDB
B
B
UUUSSSIIINNNEEESSSSSSMaster Thesis in Technology Management
Evaluation of the NEPA MNA
By Lars D. Körner
s1823973
Submitted for the degree: Master of Science in Technology Management
Date of Submission: 20.09.2009
Supervisor 1: Dr. Jan Riezebos
Supervisor 2: Dr. Warse Klingenberg
E-Mail address: Lars.Koerner@gmail.com
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTI thank the following people for their help, time, effort and support:
- Jan Riezebos, for supervising my thesis and providing valuable feedback;
- Warse Klingenberg, for being my co-assessor and his useful feedback;
- The NOM, for arranging the companies to execute a case study
- The managers and employees of MetaalPlus, Meijer Plaatbewerking and Miedema for their cooperation in the case study and their feedback on the MNA, especially Eric Micklinghoff, John Oost, Mark Peereboom and Hendrikus Boers
- Colin Herron, for the interview, the support by answering my questions and the great information he provided during his visit in the Netherlands.
- Heidi, Julia and Niels for their feedback on my thesis
A
BSTRACTIn order to improve the competitiveness of regions around the North Sea against low cost countries, the European project “European Regions for Innovative Productivity” (ERIP) was started. The goal of the project is to develop and test a Lean Change Methodology for small and medium size enterprises (SME). As a starting model, a methodology developed by the North Eastern Productivity Alliance (NEPA) in England was chosen, with which significant improvement could be achieved in almost 300 companies. But due to a focus on bigger companies, the applicability of the NEPA methodology to SME needs to be tested for the usage in the ERIP project. The NEPA approach implies, next to a training methodology, a lean assessment tool (scan). The scan is used to identify problems in the production process and to assess the current level of lean tool implementations in a company. It consists of three parts: the Productivity Need Analysis (PNA), the Manufacturing Need Analysis (MNA) and the Training Need Analysis (TNA), which need to be assessed in detail on their suitability to SME and for a use in the ERIP project. This thesis contributes to the overall testing by evaluating the MNA part of the scan.
T
ABLE OFC
ONTENTS Acknowledgement ...2 Abstract ...3 Table of Contents ...4 List of Tables ...6 Abbreviations...8 1 Introduction ...10 2 NEPA Methodology...12 2.1 NEPA Scan...12 2.2 Improvement Plan...13 2.3 Lean Implementation ...13 2.4 Measurement of Success ...13 3 Research Design...14 3.1 Research Problem ...14 3.2 Research Methodology...16 3.3 Source selection ...173.4 Assumptions and Constraints ...17
3.5 Research Summary ...18
4 MNA Analysis...19
4.1 MNA Execution Procedure and Purpose ...19
4.2 Comparability of Results...20
4.3 SME and MTO ...21
4.4 Redesign...22
5 MNA Tools ...23
5.1 Organisational Safety Requirements ...24
5.2 Effective Team Work ...26
5.3 Five S (5S)...28 5.4 Kaizen...30 5.5 Standards ...36 5.6 Problem Solving...39 5.6.1 PDCA...39 5.6.2 Five Why’s ...40 5.6.3 Gembutsu ...40
5.6.4 Advanced Problem Solving Skills ...40
5.7.2 5S ...44
5.7.3 Making problems visible ...44
5.7.4 Posting standards ...45
5.7.5 Setting targets...45
5.8 Skill Control...48
5.9 Achieving Quicker Changeovers – SMED ...50
5.10 Total Productive Maintenance & Production-Led Maintenance...53
5.11 Statistical Process Control...56
5.12 Flow Process Analysis...58
5.13 Failure Mode and Effect Analysis ...61
5.14 Measurement Systems Analysis...64
5.15 Poka-yoke – Error Proofing ...64
5.16 Work Measurement Techniques...66
5.17 Value Stream Mapping (VSM) ...70
5.18 Carrying out Lead time Analysis ...72
5.19 Just-in-Time ...74
5.20 Supplier Evaluation...76
5.21 Summary of Redesign ...77
6 Verification of Test Results and Tool Selection...79
6.1 Execution Procedure ...79
6.2 Person-Dependency ...79
6.3 SME and MTO ...82
6.4 Further Results ...82 6.5 Tool Selection ...82 7 Conclusion ...85 8 Further Research ...87 References ...88 Appendix ...92
A Case Company Descriptions ...92
B Original MNA ...94
L
IST OFT
ABLESTable 1: Original MNA Organisational Safety Requirements ...24
Table 2: New MNA Organisational Safety Requirements...26
Table 3: Original MNA Effective Team Work...26
Table 4: New MNA Effective Team Work ...28
Table 5: Original MNA 5S...28
Table 6: New MNA 5S...30
Table 7: Original MNA Kaizen ...31
Table 8: New MNA Kaizen ...36
Table 9: Original MNA Standards...36
Table 10: New MNA Standards...39
Table 11: Original MNA Problem Solving...39
Table 12: New MNA Problem Solving ...42
Table 13: Original MNA Visual Management ...43
Table 14: New MNA Visual Management ...47
Table 15: Original MNA Skill Control...48
Table 16: New MNA Skill Control ...50
Table 17: Original MNA Achieving Quicker Changeovers...50
Table 18: New MNA Achieving Quicker Changeovers ...53
Table 19: Original MNA TPM & PLM...53
Table 20: New MNA TPM & PLM...56
Table 21: Original MNA SPC...56
Table 22: New MNA SPC...58
Table 23: Original MNA Flow Process Analysis ...58
Table 24: New MNA Flow Process Analysis ...61
Table 25: Original MNA FMEA ...61
Table 26: New MNA FMEA ...63
Table 27: Original MNA Poka-yoke ...64
Table 28: New MNA Poka-yoke ...66
Table 29: Original MNA Work Measurement Techniques ...66
Table 30: New MNA Work Measurement Techniques ...70
Table 31: Original MNA Value Stream Mapping...70
Table 32: New MNA Value Stream Mapping...72
Table 33: Original MNA Lead Time Analysis...72
Table 36: New MNA Just-in-Time ...76
Table 37: New MNA Supplier Evaluation ...77
Table 38: New MNA Split based on test...80
A
BBREVIATIONSCONWIP – CONstant Work In Process
DTI – English Department of Trade and Industry ERIP – European Regions for Innovative Productivity ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning
ETW – Effective Team Working
FEB – Faculty of Economics and Business FMEA – Failure Mode and Effect Analysis HR – Human Resource
IT – Information Technology JIT – Just-In-Time
KPI – Key Performance Indicator LT – Lead Time
MAS – Manufacturing Advisory Service MNA – Manufacturing Need Analysis MTO – Make-To-Order
NEPA – North East Productivity Alliance
NMUK – Nissan Motor Manufacturing Ltd., United Kingdom
NOM – Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland OEE – Overall Equipment Effectiveness
OSH – Occupational Safety and Health OSR – Organisational Safety Requirements PDCA – Plan-Do-Check-Act
PLM – Production-Led Maintenance PNA – Productivity Need Analysis
POLCA – Paired-cell Overlapping Loops of Cards with Authorization QCD – Quality, Cost and Delivery
RPN – Risk Priority Number
RuG – Rijksuniversiteit Groningen / University of Groningen SDCA – Standardise-Do-Check-Act
TQC – Total Quality Control TQM – Total Quality Management VSM – Value Stream Mapping WIP – Work in Progress
1 I
NTRODUCTIONThis master is part of the university project “Lean expertise voor Noord Nederland” in cooperation with the regional development organisation “Investerings- en Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij voor Noord-Nederland” (NOM). This local project is a sub-project of a European sub-project called “European Regions for Innovative Productivity” (ERIP), in which regions in Belgium, England, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands cooperate to develop a new Lean Change Methodology. The joining parties are knowledge institutions, development organisations and the industry in the form of small and medium enterprises (SME) and bigger companies. The project is funded by the European Union.
The purpose of the ERIP project is to develop and test a lean approach to implement improvements within the production processes of SME, because SME in Europe search for optimisation of the production process to improve their competitive advantage over low cost countries. But the known lean methods are mostly tailored for bigger companies. Currently, no valuable and usable Lean Change Methodology exists that is applicable to SME in the partner regions and beyond. The new methodology will be developed by the participating regions and companies based on best practices. The combination of knowledge, expertise and experience of partners around the North Sea should provide an approach for this region to design a future framework for the implementation of lean methods to improve their cost structure and their performance (NOM Website, 2009).
For the Netherlands, the NOM and the University of Groningen (RuG) will work closely together in the program. The NOM organises the program and handles the application to the regional businesses. The role of the RuG, represented by the Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), is to evaluate the methods used in the project. Next to the NOM and the RuG, local companies with lean expertise will contribute to the project. With this method a valuable combination of practical experience and theoretical knowledge in the field of productivity improvement can be achieved; this could also provide advantages to more companies in the region (NOM Website, 2009).
a larger number of companies. Therefore, the NEPA developed a methodology to facilitate this transfer. This approach includes a lean assessment / scan tool and a framework for intensive training, which are described in chapter 2. This NEPA approach will be the starting model for the other regions in their lean projects.
In the first part of the ERIP project, the NEPA methodology is evaluated; the scan tool is especially assessed and adapted to the needs of SME and ERIP. The scan consists of three sub-parts: the Productivity Need Analysis (PNA), the Manufacturing Need Analysis (MNA) and the Training Need Analysis (TNA). The PNA investigates the current manufacturing conditions and identifies the key processes, problems and productivity measures. The MNA assesses which (relevant) lean tools are already used in the organisation and to what extent. Finally the TNA assesses the existing knowledge in the company about the required and/or used lean tools (Herron and Braiden, 2006).
2 NEPA
M
ETHODOLOGYTo initially create a common understanding for this research, this chapter will describe the NEPA methodology in general.
The idea of the NEPA concept is to transfer lean knowledge from productive and successful companies to other companies and industries. The idea is based on the premise that many manufacturing problems are universal. That means that solutions for the problems can also be similar independent of the industry or company type (Herron and Hicks, 2008). To facilitate this transfer of solutions, the NEPA methodology consists of four major phases – an initial lean scan to document and assess the starting status, the development of an improvement plan, the actual knowledge transfer plus the implementation of improvement and a final scan to measure the success.
2.1 NEPA SCAN
In the first phase the current lean status of a company is assessed. Consultants perform the scan to identify the objectives for improvement activities (Herron Interview, 2009). The NEPA scan tool used contains three steps, as described earlier.
The PNA is designed in the form of a matrix, which connects processes and problems of a
company with key performance indicators (KPIs) and fundamental lean tools. The outcome
of the matrix is a structured overview of the connections between the four categories. Each relation receives a score, which leads to a priority list of problems and processes (Herron and Braiden, 2006). This enables a company to identify the most urgent problems, which they should tackle first.
The second step of the scan is the MNA that will be evaluated and improved in this paper. The original MNA can be found in Appendix B. The MNA is a list of eighteen general lean tools, like Kaizen, 5S or problem solving, which assesses the current level of application per tool in a firm at the beginning of a NEPA improvement project. For each of the tools, one or more questions ask about the implementation level of the tool in the company. Each question gets a score from 1 to 5 in relation to the extent of implementation. The scores are illustrated in a bar chart.
different levels of competence, because depending on the function and the tool, different levels of skills are required.
The overall goal of the scan is to get a quantifiable overview of the actual lean status of a company. The PNA provides an overview of problems and gives them a priority. The MNA and TNA quantify the level of tool application and lean knowledge in the business. Based on the scan result, action plans can be customized for each company.
2.2 IMPROVEMENT PLAN
In the second phase of the NEPA approach an improvement plan is developed, based on the initial scan results. This includes the definition of appropriate goals, tools and actions as well as the determination of required data and resources. Therefore, a company’s change agent, additionally required personnel and functions are assigned. Change agents are employees of the company that will be in charge of the organisation and implementation of the change project in their company. Therefore, they are highly involved in the development of the improvement plan supported by experienced consultants (Herron and Braiden, 2006).
2.3 LEAN IMPLEMENTATION
After the finalisation of the superior change plan, it must be ensured that all required resources are available before training and execution can start. Change agents and the first group of employees will receive training for the relevant tools (Herron and Hicks, 2008). They will participate in Kaizen workshops (See 5.4) guided by experienced consultants, where they elaborate and execute detailed improvement activities. During the follow-up period, the companies will be supervised by the consultants to maintain the momentum of the continuous improvement process.
2.4 MEASUREMENT OF SUCCESS
3 R
ESEARCHD
ESIGN3.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM
Due to new context of ERIP, two major questions regarding the NEPA design and purpose of the MNA were discovered in an initial analysis.
The first question deals with the suitability of the current MNA for SME. The ERIP project focuses on SME employing up to 150 people (NOM Website, 2009). But the NEPA testing in 15 companies described by Herron and Hicks (2008) implied no small companies (50 or less employees) and just one with less than 150 employees. Even when considering the European definition of medium size enterprises with 250 employees (European Commission, 2003), just five of the 15 companies fulfil these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of the MNA should be tested in detail for the use in SME. This applies to the selection of tools in the MNA as well as the questions in the questionnaire. Furthermore, according to Conner (2009) the majority of SME in the U.S. manufacture to customer order (Make-to-order – MTO). Those companies produce a broad range of products, often irregularly in low quantities (Conner, 2009). Additionally, they regularly produce (for them) new products upon special customer request according to customer specifications (Hendry, 1998). This requires high production flexibility and can also mean the dictation of suppliers for materials or components (Nicholas, 1998). In the Dutch industry sector, about 98 % of the companies employ less than 150 people (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2009). Due to a similar grade of industrialisation to the US, it is assumed that also in the Netherlands the major part of the SME manufacture to order and not to stock. This assumption is also supported by statements of Dr. Jan Riezebos, who has been conducting research in the MTO SME environment at the RuG for several years. Having such a high percentage of MTO structures in the big target group of SME, the suitability of the MNA for those companies is important for the accuracy and relevance of the scan results, which will influence the overall outcome of the entire project.
improvement activities (ERIP Partners, 2009). As in the NEPA project, the indicators for the success are changes in the KPIs. But to identify a potential correlation between KPI changes and applied tools, the MNA will also be used to compare the level of tool application at the different measurements. This might help to identify effective tools, which would be beneficial for future implementation projects and other companies (ERIP Partners, 2009). Thus, to compare the score of different measures in a company or between companies and countries, the results need to be more unambiguous. But from my first impression, the MNA requires a lot of lean experience to be executed properly, because the MNA just asks in several cases for the complete application of a tool. But many of the concepts of the assessed tools are quite broad with an unclear outline and a proper implementation implies many aspects. That makes it difficult to determine whether or not a concept is fully implemented, since the questions in the MNA do not define the assessed outline of each tool, but assume the same understanding of all assessors. This makes it is highly dependent on the executing person. My appraisal is supported by Colin Herron, one of the developers of the NEPA tool. He stated that the NEPA scan tool in its actual design is only executable by highly experienced lean experts, because it requires a lot of tacit knowledge. Eric Micklinghoff, the project leader for the ERIP project in the Netherlands and a former lean consultant, shares this appraisal too. Hence, the high person-dependency influences the outcome of the assessment and makes it less consistent for comparison if the scan is executed by different people.
Thus, the two major aspects, suitability for SME/MTO and the unambiguity/comparability of the results caused by the person-dependency, influence the value of the MNA outcome for the ERIP project as illustrated in Figure 1. Therefore, the goal of this research is to adapt the MNA to a more person-independent design as well as to the requirements of SME with MTO structures. The purpose of the paper is formulated as the following research question:
How can the MNA be adapted to be less person-dependent and to the requirements of small and medium size make-to-order companies?
MNA Person
dependency Suitability for SME
/ MTO
Based on the conceptual model four research sub-questions are formulated to answer the main question. These questions will be answered as the paper evolves:
1. What are the main characteristics and purposes of the original MNA in the context of NEPA and ERIP?
2. How does the new questionnaire have to be designed to require less tacit knowledge for better comparable results?
3. Which aspects are relevant for the implementation of the assessed lean tools in respect to SME and MTO?
4. Which issues of SME and MTO are not covered by the MNA?
3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The following research is based on literature research plus an interview with one of the NEPA methodology developers, Colin Herron, and a case study in three companies.
Initially, the available articles and the thesis of Colin Herron regarding the NEPA approach were studied to become familiar with the NEPA concept and the MNA in particular. Additionally, Colin Herron was interviewed during his visit in the Netherlands in June 2009. The purpose of the interview was to reveal the exact goal and execution procedure of the MNA, because the information about the MNA in the papers dealing with the NEPA approach are quite general and further explanations in the form of a manual is not available. The literature study and the interview are used to answer the first research sub-question. Furthermore, Colin Herron kindly agreed to answer questions during the entire research.
In order to answer the second and the third research sub-questions, broader literature research is conducted to identify a way to reduce the level of required tacit knowledge. Next, the main aspects of the included lean tools are investigated to identify potential constraints of the tools in respect to MTO and SME. Based on that information, the MNA is redesigned.
plausible or not. Afterwards, the data per company is compared and discussed with the interviewees to see if and where high deviations between the answers of the different employees occur. The discussion should reveal why the results deviate. Additionally, the companies should give feedback on the understandability, usability, and missing aspects of the tool, which will be used to improve the MNA. To increase the value of the test, the new MNA is tested in companies with different lean implementation experience. In suitable cases, some observations in the case companies will be used as examples in the tool discussion.
3.3 SOURCE SELECTION
The description of the NEPA methodology is mainly based on articles by Herron and his co-authors, Braiden and Hicks, and the information from the interview with Herron.
The main characteristics of the lean tools are extracted from specialised lean books, such as Shingo for SMED (1985) or Imai for Kaizen (1986), or from classic general lean books as from Nicholas (1998) and Liker (2004) because they provide widely known and accepted definitions. For each tool, several sources are consulted to include aspects of different authors. The exact used references per tool can be found in the text and can also help MNA executers find additional information about the tools in case questions arise.
For a further theoretical discussion on operationalisation and the suitability for MTO SME, critical aspects from books and relevant articles are used. To find relevant papers, the article search engines PiCarta from the University of Groningen and Google Scholar are used. Also references in other articles are uses as additional sources.
All descriptions and lists of main characteristics will be paraphrased, often shortened and make no claim to be complete. But to ensure the accuracy of the description for the case study, the descriptions of the tools will be verified against the occurrence of the tools in the participating companies during the testing phase. The complete list of books, articles and other sources used can be found in the references.
3.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS
Although the purpose of the new version of the MNA is to postulate less tacit knowledge of the lean tool, the ERIP partners (2009) have concluded that the scan will also be executed in the future by lean experts because of the lack of expertise in the SME. But the designers of the original MNA have decades of lean experience, first and foremost Colin Herron, who has more than 30 years of practical, theoretical and consulting experience in the field of lean. Furthermore, the development of the methodology was the essence of his dissertation. Therefore, he has all the background information that was gathered and considered for the design decisions. This knowledge will be unlikely for any other future assessor. But a good understanding of the lean philosophy and detailed knowledge of the tools can be assumed because the future assessor will be classified as an expert by the ERIP partners. Therefore, he should at least be familiar with standard lean literature, as Nicholas, and should have some years of practical lean implementation experience. Furthermore, the assessing person should have a good benchmark of successful and good tool implementations to evaluate the situation in a company critically and accurately. Nevertheless, I do not expect every assessor to be equally familiar with all tools, because some tools as FMEA or Work Measure Techniques were also more difficult to find in the common publications. For the involved from the company, a broad and detailed overview of their entire company’s processes and lean activities is required. Additionally, a basic understanding of the lean philosophy should exist.
Although intensive literature research is conducted and a case study to test the new MNA is performed, the new proposed version of the MNA will not be final. The whole ERIP project will take several years and involve hundreds of companies and more or less lean experienced people in six different countries. All of them might have additional needs, expectations and ideas for the MNA. Following the idea of Kaizen, the MNA can and should be continuously improved.
3.5 RESEARCH SUMMARY
4 MNA
A
NALYSIS4.1 MNA EXECUTION PROCEDURE AND PURPOSE
NEPA Procedure
According to Herron the execution of the original MNA takes an experienced assessor 1-2 days depending on the complexity of the manufacturing processes. In order to conduct the survey, the assessor follows a plant tour and performs interviews or workshops with the senior management to determine the current level of adoption of the lean tools. Required details for accurate planning of activities for new tool implementations were investigated later during a three day diagnostic activity. This is not part of the MNA (Herron and Braiden, 2006).
ERIP Procedure
The intention for the new MNA is still that it can be performed within 1-2 days. The MNA should also be executed based on information gathered from interviews with management and employees and from a factory tour plus the investigation into relevant data, e.g. recorded data from statistical process control, skill control documents, etc.
NEPA Purpose
Herron stated in the interview (2009) that he uses the MNA for two purposes. First, to assess the implementation status of the lean tools expressed in the ratings. This goal is also described in the article by Herron and Braiden (2006). Based on MNA and TNA the consultants should see which tools are already known and in use. This will ease the further implementation of the tools or introduction of tools, because interventions can be started at the right level (Herron and Braiden, 2006). Secondly, Herron uses the MNA as a tool to discover the discrepancy between management appraisal and his own cognition regarding the application of lean tools (Herron Interview, 2009). This goal is his personal interpretation and not described in the articles. It gives him additional useful information about potential problems related to management’s understanding of the production processes and closeness to the shop floor and therefore possible lean implementation issues.
ERIP Purpose
management with his own appraisal, based on his benchmark of dozens of companies and several years of his own implementation experience (Herron Interview, 2009). But due to the fact that this goal is not mentioned in the papers on the NEPA approach, I will not take it as a goal for the new MNA in this thesis. Furthermore, Herron named it as a secondary personal goal, which allows him to identify organisational problems. But the problem analysis in the NEPA approach should rather take place in the PNA than in the MNA phase (Herron and Braiden, 2006).
Furthermore, in the ERIP context the MNA will be used for a new, additional purpose. By also performing the MNA again at the various measures per company, a correlation of the implementation level of lean tools and the achievements measured by the KPIs might be identified. This can indicate the relevance of a lean tool to certain KPIs. This is not only relevant for the company to visualise their progress, but also for the whole ERIP project. The quantification of the achievements and the Tool-KPI correlation is important for the academic research that is conducted in the context of ERIP. It indicates the performance of tools and the whole methodology in the regions and is a foundation for comparing the different regions. Eventually, the cumulated measurement of the success of the improvement projects is used by the European Union to judge the legitimacy of the project funding.
4.2 COMPARABILITY OF RESULTS
Person-dependency
As described, the context and purpose of the MNA will change for the ERIP project in comparison with the NEPA project. More people will execute the MNA in the future in different countries and the ERIP project will shift the focus on SME. Furthermore, the MNA will be executed three times in every company at different stages of the improvement project to measure the progress of the tool implementation with relation to the changes in the KPIs. Therefore, the results should be person-independent to be comparable over time.
But as described in the research problem, it is diagnosed that the design of the current MNA requires a lot of tacit knowledge to be executed. 20 of the 26 questions in the MNA ask simple for the level of complete implementation of a tool or for the application of major sub-concepts, which still require detailed knowledge about the complex sub-concepts.
Differentiation
take month or even years. Additionally, four questions have a hierarchy in the answers, which might cause problems, if parts of a higher level are implemented and parts of lower level are missing. Therefore, intermediate implementation states or progress in the implementation might not be identified if the different aspects of a tool are not investigated separately. This would reduce the value of the MNA outcome in respect to the identification of progress and the correlation of KPI changes and tool implementation.
4.3 SME AND MTO
The suitability of the MNA in respect to SME and MTO depends mainly on the suitability of the assessed tools to SME and MTO. Therefore, the selection of tools and the underlying reasons for the compilation are analysed. Afterwards each tool is assessed individually on its suitability for SME and MTO. This will be done in the following chapter.
MNA Tool Selection
In order to select the tools for the NEPA methodology, the developers have chosen a solution and not a problem-oriented approach (Herron and Braiden, 2006). According to Pavnaskar et al (2003) more than 100 lean tools are already present in various scientific publications and the number is continuously growing. These tools are not systematically linkable to production systems and their problems (Pavnaskar et al., 2003). Hence, to select the right tool for a company is difficult and time consuming, because detailed knowledge about all available tools is essential. Therefore, the NEPA approach pre-selected tools that have proven their value in the sample companies, namely NMUK (Herron and Braiden, 2006). Furthermore, almost all tools can be found in widely excepted lean or business books like Nicholas (1998), Liker (2004) or Womack and Jones (1996), in which several case studies of successful implementations can be found. Many tools are used by Toyota itself, and the application of some tools in other companies and industries can also be found in the related sources. This approach of pre-selected tools eliminates the difficult selection phase and relies on tools that have proven their efficacy in several scenarios (Herron and Braiden, 2006).
4.4 REDESIGN
Goals
Based on the above analysis, I can outline the following goals for redesigning the MNA:
- The MNA should be still executable within a maximum of two days
- Person-dependency should be reduced
- Differentiation for the status assessment should be increased
- The questions need to consider to the needs of SME and MTO
Redesign Procedure
To reduce the person-dependency and to increase the differentiation of the assessment, the concept of operationalisation is used. This means that abstract constructs must be translated into something concrete and observable to make it measurable. This also includes the exact outline and limitations of the assessed concept (University of New England, 2000).
To do so, in the next chapter the main characteristics of each tool are identified from literature. Those characteristics or, in some cases, common examples of applications are used to create the new questions for the MNA. This should decrease the person-dependency and the amount of required tacit knowledge, because the aspects that should be considered are explicitly defined in the questionnaire and more observable. It should also ensure that always same aspects of each tool are taken into account, independently of the assessor. The new questions will also focus on single aspects of the tools to create a more differentiated picture. The purpose is to enable the determination of an intermediate implementation grade of a tool in comparison to the total implementation postulated by the original MNA. Furthermore, the described characteristics will be used in the discussion of the lean tools to assess the suitability to MTO SME.
5 MNA
T
OOLSThis chapter will first shed some light on the main aspects of each tool. After each tool description, the suitability of the tool for SME and MTO is assessed briefly. Potential problems in respect to SME and MTO are discussed and possible partial or alternative application approaches will be proposed if the tool is not generally applicable. Finally, a short analysis of the original MNA questions will be done and the topics for the new questions are outlined. To help the reader’s understanding, the original questions are shown in a table in the beginning of each section. After the analysis the newly developed questions are also shown.
Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that the MNA just assesses the level of application and does not recommend the application of any tool to a company. Every company will have its own characteristics, culture, problems, fears, resistance and many more influencing factors. So, not all tools might be useful in every company or not all elements of a tool might be feasible or important in every situation. And again, many of the concepts are quite comprehensive, which also means that in some situations new creative solutions and uses of tools can be found that are not mentioned in the following descriptions.
The discussion will also leave out cultural aspects. This means that no judgement is made as to whether or not certain elements of tools are appropriate within the Dutch or any other culture.
5.1 ORGANISATIONAL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
Item Level 1 2 3 4 5 Organisational Safety Requirements Application of the Statutory regulations and Organisational Safety requirements Statutory regulations and organisational requirements practised in up to 20% of production areas Statutory regulations and organisational requirements practised in up to 40% of production areas Statutory regulations and organisational requirements practised in up to 60% of production areas Statutory regulations and organisational requirements practised in up to 80% of production areas Statutory regulations and organisational requirements practised in over 80% of production areasTable 1: Original MNA Organisational Safety Requirements
The first tool in the MNA is Organisational Safety Requirements (OSR). OSR specify legal, statutory and additional safety requirements, e.g. from insurances, to prevent accidents or health damage of people in the work area. The European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) concluded in one of their surveys a positive correlation between safety improvements and, among others, productivity, costs and morale. Therefore, this is an important topic in the ERIP and lean context, because there is a possibility to improve the company’s performance. To give a better impression about what is meant in detail with OSR, some topics from the safety checklist of the Bavarian Ministry of Environment, Health and Customer Protection are chosen as an orientation point and outline.
Depending on the workplace and the type of work, specifications on working conditions will change (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, 2008). Examples are the obligation to wear goggles or to follow hygiene rules. Therefore, if safety regulations are applicable, legal and additional requirements should be visible, known for every workplace and followed by everybody (employees and visitors). Signs are an important medium and should be installed with high visibility in all relevant areas, especially at entries to the respective areas.
A second significant field and example is the declaration and handling of dangerous, toxic or other harmful materials (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz, 2008). Again, highly visible signs and warnings should be present. Materials must be stored in proper containers and in safe places and people should be aware of risks, handling rules and measures in case of accidents.
a sufficient quantity, regularly checked according to specifications and highly visible and easily attainable. Also machines and other equipment should be safe and checked regularly.
Regarding the organisation, someone should be responsible for safety issues, continuously improving safety, and someone must watch and help people to follow the rules. Regular safety instruction presentations and trainings such as fire drills or first aid should be held to create awareness and involvement of employees. Audits can help to assess and improve the safety standards.
SME / MTO
Because of the complexity of this topic, this part of the questionnaire does not aim for completeness. It also does not have the goal of functioning as a safety audit or make safety auditions obsolete. It just gives an initial insight into how much attention a company pays to OSR. It uses some important examples that should be applicable within the large variety of participating companies and industries. This means that the company size (SME) and method of manufacturing (MTO) do not have any influence on the applicability of this topic.
Redesign
The original MNA generally asks for the level of application of the statutory regulations and OSR. This assumes detailed knowledge about the included issues. But lean experts are not necessarily experts in safety issues. Due to the lower level of presumed experience in OSR, the new MNA will ask more specific questions about general issues from the examples above. The examples include the visualisation of safety information, declaration of dangerous goods, structural and operational issues, such as fire exits and organisational matters, as well as responsibility. In those examples, overlapping of OSR with visual management exists. Due to the specific use in OSR, this visualisation will be part of the OSR section in the MNA.
Tool Question or Statement Unit 0 1 2 3 4 5
Organisational Safety Requirements
Safety signs and additional safety requirements are present at the work floor.
Work Areas 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Organisational
Safety Requirements
Hazardous materials are always labelled, transported
and stored according to regulations
Materials 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Organisational
Safety Requirements
Emergency exits are highly visible and easily accessible
Organisational Safety Requirements
Work machines, tools and safety equipment such as sprinklers, fire extinguisher, eye washer, etc. are present in
a sufficient quantity, certified and regularly checked
Machines,
Equipment 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Organisational Safety Requirements
Someone is in charge for
safety and related issues Departments 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Organisational
Safety Requirements
Employees are regularly informed and trained for the regulations and also First Aid
Employees 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Organisational
Safety Requirements
Safety audits are done
regularly Equipment Building, 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Organisational
Safety Requirements
The number of accidents in the
last year total number of accidents > 12 10 - 12 7 - 9 4 - 6 2 - 3 0 - 1 Organisational
Safety Requirements
Safety information and the number of accidents posted
and up to date on the work floor
Building,
Equipment 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Table 2: New MNA Organisational Safety Requirements
5.2 EFFECTIVE TEAM WORK
Item Level 1 2 3 4 5 Effective Team Working Number of teams practising effective team working techniques in the workplace Up to 20% of the work area teams practise effective team working techniques Up to 40% of the work area teams practise effective team working techniques Up to 60% of the work area teams practise effective team working techniques Up to 80% of the work area teams practise effective team working techniques Over 80% of the work area teams practise effective team working techniques
Table 3: Original MNA Effective Team Work
Effective Team Work (ETW) is a method of work organisation, where employees work together in self-organising teams. Teams require highly skilled members to fulfil the team tasks (Liker, 2004). By applying ETW, teams do not only have to fulfil their value-adding tasks, but also set and improve standards, inspect quality, solve problems, perform setups, routine repair and maintenance and motivate and train each other. In some cases, they can even perform work planning and material procurement tasks. Therefore, the responsibilities and powers of the team members must be extended. Additionally, the team members need to be trained to perform their new tasks within the new work organisation (Liker, 2004).
workers and operators on the spot, detailed analysis of problems and the development and implementation of improvement (Nicholas, 1998).
Nevertheless, the shift of tasks to the teams should reduce the workload for the support staff. It should result in less people required – meaning less costs (Nicholas, 1998). This might create fears and resistance among those employees. Therefore, Liker (2004) discussed internal and external motivations to convince and involve people, such as with a job guarantee, for example. He also stresses the importance of hiring people that will fit into the structure. They must be flexible, willing to work in teams, and handle the required tasks.
SME / MTO
Nicholas (1998) connected ETW closely with the implementation of cellular manufacturing. But according to Hendry (1998) cellular manufacturing is not always appropriate to MTO companies. When asked Herron (2009) stated that ETW section in the MNA should refer to all kind of teams in the production, independent of work cells. Therefore, the new questions in the MNA will correspond to all possible teams in the production process, e.g. in cells or departments. This makes ETW generally applicable to SME and in MTO. Although ETW will not be connected explicitly with work cells, many of the aspects described above regarding the implementation of teamwork will be considered as applicable.
Redesign
The one question in the MNA just asks for the number of teams that already practice ETW. According to Liker (2004) the implementation of ETW is highly challenging, requires several steps and can take years. Nicholas (1998) proposes to start with a pilot, to gain experiences for a rollout. By thinking of a pilot plus a rollout, asking for the percentage of successfully operating teams makes sense. But due to the complexity in time and empowerment mentioned by Liker (2004), the questions in the new MNA will also try to assess status of autonomy and carried out tasks in a more differentiated way. Thus, the one question will be replaced by several questions about teamwork, dealing with the extra tasks, the extended skill set and the organisational installation of teams.
Tool Question or Statement Unit 0 1 2 3 4 5
Effective Team Working
Cellular Manufacturing and Formal team structure is applied
to workplaces and departments
workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Effective
Team Working
Evaluation, incentive (awards and reprimand) system is based
on teams Employees 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Effective Team Working
Installed teams have the responsibility to set and improve
standards
Effective Team Working
Installed teams are responsible
for quality inspection Teams 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Effective
Team Working
Installed teams solve problems
themselves Teams 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Effective Team Working
Installed teams perform setups
independently Teams 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Effective Team Working
Installed teams perform routine
repair and maintenance Teams 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Effective
Team Working
Installed teams have further or
different tasks Teams 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Effective Team Working
Employees are trained to work at several workplaces and can perform additional team tasks
Employees 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Effective
Team Working
New staff is selected under the
team work paradigm New staff 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Table 4: New MNA Effective Team Work
5.3 FIVE S (5S)
Item Level 1 2 3 4 5 5C/5S Applying Workplace Organisation up to 20% of work areas have completed 5S/C up to 40% of work areas have completed 5S/C up to 60% of work areas have completed 5S/C up to 80% of work areas have completed 5S/C over 80% of work areas have completed 5S/CTable 5: Original MNA 5S
5S is a concept of housekeeping for the workplace to improve efficiency, safety and morale by standardisation and cleanliness (Imai, 1997). The following list, summarized from the book “Gemba Kaizen” (1998), will give a short explanation of this concept and the five Japanese ‘S’ terms:
- Seiri – Sort: Seiri is the identification of necessary and adequate items and the removal of unnecessary or unsafe items from the work area. If materials, machines, tools, dies, storage units etc. in the work area are not used within the near future or are not used at all, they should be discarded or moved to another area, e.g. warehouse or tool magazine, to clear up the work floor. By having a cleared work area, space is freed and safety is increased.
are used to allocate fixed places for every item. So, it can be immediately seen where things belong and when something is missing.
- Seisō – Scrub: The work place, including machines, tools, floors, walls, etc., should be kept clean and neat. Tools must be put back to their fixed place. After finishing the work, the workplace must be cleaned, especially when other people use the workplace afterwards, e.g. next shift. The idea is: When things are clean abnormalities as leaking oil causing machine failure and slippery floors, loose bolts or bared cables can be discovered easily. This helps to prevent machine breakdowns and accidents.
- Seiketsu – Systemise: The fourth step is described as “keeping oneself clean and working on the three items above daily.” (Imai, 1997) So, people should wear proper work clothes and follow the safety regulations, such as gloves, safety glasses, etc. And after reaching the status from the first three S, the new situation needs to be maintained. The management must install a system to assure the progress of the upper actions. This implies rules how often the tasks must be executed and the reservation of time in the regular day, week, month or year planning.
- Shitsuke – Standardise or Self-discipline: After the initial cleaning and organising of the workplaces as well as the introduction of a routine, standards need to be defined. Based on those standards, the situation on the work floor (and also in the offices) must be reviewed regularly. Additionally, the standards need to be evaluated and continuously improved. This should lead to a new habit and discipline for the new way of operating. Awarding good implementation of the 5S principles, a high level of management commitment and publishing information about safety or productivity improvement can help to sustain employees’ motivation.
SME / MTO
The implementation of 5S is independent of the size and manufacturing type of a company, because it deals with general workplace organisation and cleaning.
Redesign
Tool Question or Statement Unit 0 1 2 3 4 5
5S
Unnecessary items have been removed from the work floor within the last 3
months
workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S No used tools. All machines, tools and dies at the workplace have been used
within the last 30 days
workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S
Tools, dies etc. have been arranged efficiently for their usage and a dedicated
position is addressed - VM items 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
5S
All areas for materials (raws, semi, WIP, finished products, supplies, etc.), aisle,
etc. are marked on the ground and shelves, have a fixed product or product type and a minimum/maximum assigned -
VM
floor space 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
5S No materials outside the assigned areas work areas 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S
Workplace is tidied up daily at the end of the shift or more often, tools are put back
to their assigned storage place. workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S are clean, no oil or grease, etc., potential Machines, tools, dies, workplaces, etc.
defects can be seen immediately
items +
workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S regularly (daily, weekly) - found defects Machines, tools, dies, etc. are clean
are immediately reported or solved.
items +
workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S
Employees wear company working clothes and use the statutory safety
equipment at all time Employees 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S
A detailed planning exists for the regular execution of the 3 S above, e.g. daily
cleaning, weekly sorting etc.
Departments 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S Standards for 5S are defined and visible at each work place workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S
Workplaces are regularly evaluated by managers, a team or an external assessor against the defined 5S
standards
workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S Awards or reprimands are given to good and bad workplaces workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S Results of the evaluation are posted on the shop floor Departments 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % 5S Manager and office work places are also included in the whole 5S and evaluation workplaces 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 %
Standard Operations are Established up to 20% of all operations have Standard Operations up to 40% of all operations have Standard Operations up to 60% of all operations have Standard Operations up to 80% of all operations have Standard Operations over 80% of all operations have Standard Operations
Table 7: Original MNA Kaizen
According to Imai (1986) Kaizen is the central and basic concept within the lean concept. Kaizen means “continuous improvements” and implies a whole philosophy. It is an approach that requires the involvement and commitment of everybody in a company, from management to workers. The idea is that the sum of several small improvements finally will have a big impact on the overall performance.
In his book Gemba Kaizen (1997) Imai summarises his own Kaizen idea (1986) to six major concepts for achieving continuous improvement and assigned six major systems to fill the concepts with life. First a short summary of the six concepts is given. Afterwards the systems are described.
1. Kaizen and Management: One of the most important concepts in Kaizen is the
establishment of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) (see 5.5). By creating a reachable standard for operations or specifications, a defined benchmark for processes and products exists that can be used to evaluate performance and improvement. The goal of Kaizen is to constantly raise these standards to improve the company’s performance. Management has to maintain the standards and continuously improve them.
2. Process versus Results: The idea behind process-oriented thinking is that, if the process
works well and without failure, the result will be free of failures as well. By eliminating errors in the process, the quality of the output will improve automatically.
3. Following the PDCA/SDCA cycles: Plan or Standardise, Do, Check, Act is the basic principle of Kaizen. For each occurring problem a solution goal is set and actions planned. Afterwards, the solution is applied and verified. Finally, the new improved situation is defined as the new standard (see 5.6).
4. Putting quality first: Quality should always be the highest goal for everybody. Although
the goals, cost and delivery are also very important, quality is the leading factor for customer satisfaction and, therefore, the foundation for customer loyalty and sustainable success.
5. Speaking with data: Every problem identification and solution verification should be
Statistical Process Control (see 5.11) or the seven tools of problem solving that are explained in section 5.6.
6. The next process is the customer: Everybody should see the person receiving his work
as his customer. This is internal and external customers. By personalising the customer and accelerating direct feedback, the awareness for quality should be increased. The idea is, if always the following process receives the right quality, the final customer will also receive a high quality product.
The six Kaizen systems are either summarised or will be described in separate section. 1. Total quality control/total quality management (TQC/TQM): The concept implies the
improvement of the quality in every activity done in a company. As said before, Kaizen is not just result but also process oriented. So, by improving the performance at each level in matters of quality, cost and delivery the final result will also improve. This should lead to an increased customer satisfaction.
2. A just in time production system: This tool is discussed in chapter 5.19
3. Total productive maintenance: Also this tool is described in a separate section 5.10
4. Policy deployment: To use Kaizen effectively and not for its own sake, clear targets
need to be set. This includes long term strategy plus the corresponding medium term and short-term goals and activities.
5. A suggestion system: This system is the trigger and also expression of the involvement
of everybody in the company. The system helps to involve people into the improvement activities by giving them the possibility to suggest their ideas. By this, a Kaizen culture is created, employee motivation will increase, because of the improved work conditions and acknowledgement for their participation. And by involving more people – everybody with his expertise of his own job – more improvements can be achieved, which increases the overall benefits. To make the system work, employees and supervisors need the authority to implement small changes themselves and at once.
6. Small-group activities: Groups such as quality circles are the logical next step from
individual suggestions. These groups involve different skills to solve problems and more complex issues regarding quality, cost, delivery, security and so on.
press development team, 2002). The idea of Kaizen is to improve the productivity by eliminating waste within the value creation process. To ease the identification and elimination of waste Imai (1986) refers to the seven types of waste defined by Ohno:
- Overproduction: The production of products that are not demanded by customers
- Inventory: Products that are unnecessarily stored because they are not needed at this time
- Transport: Unnecessary movements of materials, including routes that are too long and additional required packaging time and material
- Waiting: Waiting for the next process step, delays in the transfer of information or delays in the process (increasing WIP)
- Excess processing: Increased processing effort because of poor or inappropriate tools or inefficient product design
- Waste motion: Unnecessary movements, such as reaching, walking, looking for parts, tools, information, etc.
- Defective products: Scrap and rework
Liker added in his book “The Toyota Way” an eighth type of waste, which reflects a central idea of the Kaizen concept.
- Unused employee creativity: The loss of improvement and opportunities by not using employees’ skills or ideas.
By focusing on the process, identifying the value stream and measuring, management and employees can discover wastes and problems or deviations from the standard. If an issue is found, an improvement can be suggested and implemented or the problem can be solved in a group activity.
necessary, e.g. to identify, allocate and coordinate required resources or in the follow-up to solve problems that arose from the new way of working (Bicheno, 2004).
SME / MTO
The Kaizen idea of continuous improvement and the six concepts are considered as applicable to all types and sizes of companies, because they refer rather to a paradigm and personal attitude than to organisational aspects. The four of the six described systems are also considered to be company size and structure independent. The applicability of the other two concepts is, as mentioned above, discussed in separate sections.
Redesign
The old MNA contains two questions about Kaizen. One is about standards, which will be discussed separately in 5.5 due to their important role in lean. The other question is quite general and relates to the usage of formal Kaizen events using the seven problem solving tools (see 5.6). From the description above it becomes clear, that Kaizen implies much more than just the execution of events. Hence, the new questions will also cover topics described by the six concepts and six systems, besides the topics that are discussed separately to avoid redundancy. The covered issues are the focus on quality and processes, speaking with data, seeing the next step as the customer, goal setting and Kaizen improvement implementation structures.
Tool Question or Statement Unit 0 1 2 3 4 5
Kaizen Processes and procedures are evaluated and in the focus of improvements, no primary focus on results processes 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Kaizen No compromises on the quality are done, even
Kaizen The next process is the customer. If the quality of a product is unsatisfactory or the product is defective, the upstream process receives immediate feedback processes 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Kaizen TQM: Kaizen activities are also applied outside the work floor, in sales, purchase, controlling, book keeping, etc. Non manufacturing processes 0% ≤ 20 % ≤ 40 % ≤ 60 % ≤ 80 % > 80 % Kaizen
Clear goals are set and communicated Goals No goals at all are defined Long term strategies are defined Level 1 + communicated to all employees Level 2 + Medium term goals are defined and communicated to everybody Level 3 + Short term and Departments goals are defined and communicated Level 4 + Personal goals and activities are defined, communicated and in real time monitored
Kaizen A suggestion system is installed. New description plus the implication of the former stages No suggestion system in place Suggestion system in place but rarely known and used by employees Suggestion system well know among employees with incentives and up to date information about suggestions Employees and supervisors can implement small changes self responsible Implemented improvements transferred to other workplaces and departments Participation in suggestion system part of salary model or personal evaluation Kaizen Small group activities: Interdisciplinary Improvement groups including all organisational levels are installed to solve problem,
Kaizen
Kaizen events take place with team including all required
skills and organisational levels, if groups
can not solve the problem without major
changes.
Kaizen Event unknown concept
concept known but never used Event(s) took place in ≤ 25 % of the site Event(s) took place in ≤ 50 % of the site Event(s) took place in ≤ 75 % of the site Event(s) took place in > 75% of the site
Table 8: New MNA Kaizen
5.5 STANDARDS
Item Level 1 2 3 4 5 Kaizen Standard Operations are Established up to 20% of all operations have Standard Operations up to 40% of all operations have Standard Operations up to 60% of all operations have Standard Operations up to 80% of all operations have Standard Operations over 80% of all operations have Standard OperationsTable 9: Original MNA Standards
Imai (1997) distinguishes technological, managerial and operating standards. Technological standards are technical specifications of products or services, e.g. quantity, dimensions, extent, value, or quality. They provide a basis for measurements and judgement. Managerial standards are rules, guidelines, policies or legal requirements for administration, for example job descriptions, accounting rules (Imai, 1997), budgeting guidelines, or codes for behaviour, communication or meetings (Bicheno, 2004). Operating standards deal with the standardisation for operations, tasks and routines on the work floor level. They are in the scope of most of the used lean books. And also in the MNA the term “Standard operations” is used in the question. Therefore, this paper will only focus on operating standards and will not discuss technical and managerial standards explicitly. Nevertheless, these topics should be considered in the action plan development in the context of ERIP, because they might also contribute to the improvement of a company’s performance.
For operating standards Imai (1997) created a list of nine “key features”, providing characteristics and advantages for the organisation1:
1. Represent the best, easiest, and safest way to do a job 2. Offer the best way to preserve know-how and expertise 3. Provide a way to measure performance
4. Show the relationship between cause and effect
6. Provide objectives and indicate training goals 7. Provide a basis for training
8. Create a basis for audit or diagnosis
9. Provide a means for preventing recurrence of errors and minimizing variability
To achieve these advantages Nicholas (1998) wrote down some “conditions for successful standard operations”:
1. Focus on the worker: The focus should be on labour time reduction and not on machine
time.
2. Job security: The improvement of standards should be done by the workers. But if they
made their own job or the position of a colleague obsolete, they would not participate. Their freed time must be used for something else, e.g. increase production, new products or the return of formerly outsourced activities.
3. Repetitive work: Standard operations work best for repetitive work, but they can also be
applied to unique work tasks. This can be achieved by finding commonalities as product families, repetitive work elements or meta-standards.
4. Level production: To operate with stable numbers of worker and work sequences the
production load should be levelled over periods.
5. Multi-skilled operators: Workers should be capable of working on different machines
within a work cell or in other areas of a company. This enables the company to meet demand at all times.
6. Team effort: Standards should be developed and adjusted by teams. The team
members (supervisors, workers or operators) need the skills and authority to establish standards and improvements.
