Today’s post is from Tony Ferraro, on behalf of Creative Safety Supply based in Portland, OR (www.creativesafetysupply.com). Tony strives to provide helpful information to create safer and more efficient industrial work environments. His knowledge base focuses primarily on practices such as 5S, Six Sigma, Kaizen, and the Lean mindset. Tony believes in being proactive and that for positive change to happen, we must be willing to be transparent and actively seek out areas in need of improvement. An organized, safe, and well-planned work space leads to increased productivity, quality products and happier employees.
Unfortunately, waste is something that is all around us. However, even though waste is common it does not make it any more acceptable. When businesses implement lean tactics in order to enhance productivity and efficiency, the elimination of waste is usually one of the biggest challenges, yet offers the highest rewards when done effectively. The elimination of TIMWOOD can help save your business time and money, while also helping to add value and increase customer satisfaction. When we mention eliminating TIMWOOD, we are not talking about eliminating a particular employee or person. Instead, the mnemonic TIMWOOD refers to the elimination of seven different wastes. When it comes to productivity, the sad truth is that only about 5% of employee work time each day is spent on value added tasks that actually benefit the customer. However, knowing that statistic, it leaves many of us wondering “What are employees doing with the other 95% of daily work time?” Some may insist the rest of the time is spent on waste or tasks that essentially add no value to customer satisfaction. In order to combat unwanted losses in productivity and waste, we must first identify and understand TIMWOOD and how the elimination of the seven wastes can make a difference.
What Does TIMWOOD Stand For?
Many people choose to use mnemonics in order to help them quickly and easily identify multiple items. The mnemonic TIMWOOD is also used for that purpose. Let’s take a look at each letter and how it contributes towards the elimination of waste.
- T- Transport: Even though product transportation is virtually unavoidable, the time and distance are both controlled variables. Many times products are moved multiple times before reaching their final destinations. However, each time a product is moved it runs the risk of being lost or damaged which in turn eliminates value.
- I – Inventory: When working towards lean, it is important to avoid an abundance unused and unsold inventory that just sits around on shelves or in storage. Whether the inventory is of parts, partially finished products, or finished items, the more inventory there is, the higher the loss in value since funds are tied up in unsold goods.
- M – Movement: This waste is similar to transportation waste, but instead of focusing on the loss of value with products in transport, this waste focuses on transportation or movement equipment. When trucks, hauling vehicles, and other movement devices are used for unnecessary long amounts of time and for unneeded tasks the value goes down while the opportunity for damage increases.
- W – Waiting and Delays: When products are sitting in limbo, somewhere between the start and finish of production they are not adding value to the business and are thus creating waste.
- O – Overproduction: The waste of overproduction has been considered one of the worst wastes. Money is wasted because businesses must pay employees to manufacture the parts, find places to store them, inventory them, etc. All of these are redundant costs that could be avoided.
- O – Over Processing: Over Processing basically means to do more to a product than technically needed, and if a product is not 100% perfect it is rejected and therefore wasted. Even though businesses aim to provide customers with high quality products that operate as intended, small imperfections that would not impede function, use, or aesthetics should not be automatically disposed of and reworked.
- D – Defects: Defects do not add value. When products are created with a defect that hampers the function they must be reworked and remanufactured. This causes a waste in production, materials, and other resources such as electricity and machine wear and tear.
Waste is Avoidable!
With the right amount of dedication and drive, anyone can succeed with the elimination of waste. However, the first step is to identify the areas of waste so tactics can be implemented to revamp processes and practices to help reduce waste and start improving productivity. The best part is that any business can benefit from waste removal; TIMWOOD is not geared only towards industrial or manufacturing businesses as it can also be effectively implemented in nearly any work environment.
Flow is a concept that lean teaches about how a product/service moves from beginning to end. When the product/service stops there is a disruption in the flow. This is when inventory starts to build between two steps in the process.
With the functional mentality, people only worry about optimizing each machine, without regard to the flow. The thought is, “I have to run this machine as fast as I can and get as much product out as possible.”
The hard part for people with this mentality to understand is the product/service will only move as fast as the slowest operation. No exceptions. Period.
Take a simple process like doing laundry at home. My dryer is always slower than my washer, so when I have multiple loads of laundry to do nothing moves faster than the time it takes to complete a dryer cycle.
I move a load of laundry from the washer to the dryer and start the dryer. Then I add another load to the washer and start the washer. The washer always finishes at least 15 minutes before the dryer. Instead of taking the laundry out of the washer and piling the wet clothes in a laundry basket, I let them sit in the washer. Knowing the dryer is the slow part of the process, it would do me know good to start another load of laundry in the washer because it still won’t end before all the other loads have finished in the dryer.
This is how we should look at the flow of our processes at work. It does no good to buy equipment or change the process to speed up a part of the process that is not the slowest step. In the end, the product/service is still being completed at the same rate.
What is the dryer in your process?
New followers of the blog can use this as an opportunity to read posts they might have not seen in the past. While, long time followers can use this as an opportunity to re-read some of the top viewed posts.
This post will count down the 10th thru 6th most viewed posts of 2012. Enjoy!
10. Guest Post: Selling Lean to People That Don’t Want It (July 2011) – This is a post from Joe Wilson before he became a full-time author at Beyond Lean. Joe talks about ways to sell lean to people who are not bought into the benefits of lean.
9. Making Leader Standard Work Visual (June 2011) – Previous Year Ranked #8 – An example of a visual board from a group I worked with. The board makes the tasks and if they were completed by the managers visual.
8. Dilbert Leading Transformation (July 2010) – Previous Year Ranked #10 – The Pointy-Haired Boss wants clear responsibilities and employee engagement.
7. True Mentoring (May 2012) – This is my take on true mentoring versus fake mentoring that goes on in business today.
6. Comparing Lean Principles to the 14 Toyota Principles (July 2010) – Previous Year Ranked #5 – The first part of a three part series where I compared the lean principles I learned from the Lean Learning Center to the Toyota Principles. This post covers the first five Toyota Principles.
My next post will count down the Top 5 viewed posts of 2012.
Last week, I caught a blog Why Apple Has to Manufacture in China. I read hoping to find some practical reasoning as to why it was critical that Apple manufacture in China. I read the post twice and I couldn’t find any reason it was critical for Apple to manufacture in China.
The post does say labor cost is not a reason to manufacture in China.
It is not an issue of labor costs. In fact, labor costs play a very small role in the equation — both for Apple and for Timbuk2.
The post compares Apple to Timbuk2, a company that makes custom bags. Two different business models, Timbuk2′s custom production versus Apple’s mass production. Here is what the post has to say about this.
Timbuk2 manufactures in the US because it produces custom-made bags, orderable through its handy web site, and customers ordering custom bags cannot wait for weeks for a bag to come from China by boat, while shipping by air is expensive and there would still be some uncertainty due to customs clearance. A very similar logic lies behind fashion retailer Zara’s choice to manufacture in Europe, also an expensive location in terms of labor costs. Of course, Timbuk2 does also produce many bags in China but these are mass-produced, non-customized bags, sold wholesale at a fraction of a price of a custom bag, and they are not time-sensitive.
Apple does not produce custom products and so it does not need to deliver quickly — all of its products are standard and mass-produced; just like the standardized bags for Timbuk2, so there is no reason to stay close to end-customers. Moreover, Apple does not change its assortment often — the new iPhone will probably be for sale for another year or two.
There is no need for mass producers to be close to the end-customer?! Really? So it is OK to spend a couple of months to get new phones to the U.S. or pay for air freight (which is quite expensive), if there is a defect in a batch of phones? Not in any business model I know of. That delay risks the loss of customers and costs the company more money than is needed because of the big batches that may have to be reworked or thrown out. Also, when the life-cycle of a product is coming to an end it may cause more phones to be thrown our or discounted because of the large batches.
The post is contradicting itself because it says cheap labor is only a small part of the total cost, but then does not take total cost into consideration when looking at all the freight and inventory and possible obsolescence costs.
So why else is it important for Apple to manufacture in China?
Apple is a huge company and as a New York Times article published in January this year details, its production volumes and often unpredictable engineering changes require manufacturing flexibilities and engineering capabilities on a scale that is simply unavailable in the USA.
Exactly my point about inventory above. The post goes on…
In China, by contrast, manufacturers can deploy thousands of collocated engineers to introduce needed changes overnight, and large supply of labor allows to ramp up and ramp down capacity quickly. There is simply no factory capable of employing 250,000 workers day and night in the USA, surrounded by flexible and capable suppliers. So the location decision isn’t really about labor costs — it’s about manufacturing risk and where that risk is best managed.
Because Apple has bad processes upstream, it is OK to disrupt the lives of thousands with no regards downstream to fix the problem. Reminds me of the saying, “A mistake by you, does not necessitate an emergency by me.” Again, raising the cost to produce.
- Mass producers don’t need to be near the end-customer
- Disrespect for people is OK when fixing a problem you created
Apple may be on top of the hill today, but 2-5 years from now they won’t be. As competitors, like Samsung, close the gap managing cost is going to grow more important. Fixing your processes so engineering changes are not needed overnight and locating close to your end-customer so when you do have an engineering change you don’t have tons of inventory to dispose of is a great way to manage your cost.
Have you heard that one before?
Lean thinking says the inverse is true. “The lower the inventory on-hand the better the serviceability rating and on-time delivery rate.”
How can this be?
I have read studies and heard others talk about the lean perspective. Even more compelling, I have implemented and witnessed the lean thinking perspective be proven right time and time again.
Traditional thinking of more inventory is better seems to make sense, but what happens is the inventory is never of the right product needed at that time. The economic scales of mass production says to produce a lot of the product when running it to minimize setup and overhead costs. Following this thinking means the company does not switch over and start to produce Product B early enough and is out of stock on Product B when ordered but there is an abundance of Product A in the warehouse.
Lean thinking produces just the amount of each product needed so when it is ordered there is enough and overall there is less inventory.
I watched as assembly line employees got upset because we took 80% of their component inventory away from the assembly line storage. The assemblers thought they would never have enough product to keep the line running. We explained they would have only 2 hours of component stock at the line and the line would never shut down. By the end of the third day, the assemblers were happy with the new inventory system because they had more space, but more importantly they had the right components at the right time. They reduced the time the line was down waiting on components by 90% compared to when they had a ton of inventory at their finger tips. This occurred one-by-one across all five assembly lines in almost exactly they same manner.
Less inventory does deliver better serviceability and on-time delivery rating.
This does not mean just go out and reduced the inventory without a plan just to reduce it. It is being mindful of what is needed, when and how to get it there on-time. It is easier to see what is there when there is less.
What is your experience with reducing inventory?
If you are a Big Ten or PAC-10 college football fan, I am not referring to the Rose Bowl. I am referring to Over Production. The granddaddy of all types of waste in the lean world.
Transportation, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Over Production, Over Processing and Defects. These are the 7 types of waste.
Why is Over Production the granddaddy of them all, because Over Production can lead to more of each of the other 6 types of waste.
Transportation: If you are over producing then you are transporting more product then you need to transport. This could lead to paying for more trailers then you need affecting the bottom line directly.
Inventory: This is the direct result of over production. If more is produced than needed, the extra product goes into storage and sits and waits until it is needed if ever.
Motion: Storing all the extra product in inventory takes up more room. This means a bigger space is needed to do the same amount of work which leads to all the extra motion around the inventory. If you put 10 skids between two machines instead of two skids then when the operator moves between the two machines there is an extra 8 skids of distance to walk.
Waiting: If the product is not needed, it goes into inventory where it sits and waits. Waits to be sold. Waits to be finished. Waits to be thrown out.
Over Processing: The excess product can be reworked into a similar product with a few modifications. This over processing what is needed to get the product right would not have happened if there was not excess product to modify.
Defects: Storing inventory can lead to crushed boxes destroying product or product that becomes outdated and must be thrown out.
Over production is the worst of the worst. As hard as it might be to shift the mentality, it is better to see people standing around than it is to watch them produce more than is needed in order to look busy.
New followers of the blog can use this as an opportunity to read posts they might have not seen in the past. While, long time followers can use this as an opportunity to re-read some of the top viewed posts.
This post will count down the 10th thru 6th most viewed posts of 2011. Enjoy!
10. Dilbert Leading Transformation (July 2010) – Previous Year Ranked #3 – The Pointy-Haired Boss wants clear responsibilities and employee engagement.
9. Adding Inventory…A Good Thing? (March 2011) - Sometimes adding inventory might be the right thing to do based on your business. Take time to understand your business and its needs before deciding.
8. Making Leader Standard Work Visual (June 2011) – An example of a visual board from a group I worked with. The board makes the tasks and if they were completed by the managers visual.
7. Beyond Lean Joins Twitter (February 2011) – Beyond Lean announces the venture out onto Twitter.
6. Redbox Produced in the U.S. Using Lean (October 2010) – Previous Year Ranked #5 – News article about Redbox manufacturing using Lean to produce the Redbox dispensers close to it’s customers in the U.S.
My next post will count down the Top 5 viewed posts of 2011.
People are enamored with kanban systems. This can be a good thing, but all too often they don’t understand kanban systems are there to help highlight make problems visual.
The first thing almost everyone jumps to is the calculation for the minimum and maximum levels for the kanban. I have seen some formulas that would make a mathematician with 3 PhDs blush. I don’t understand the need to have a complex formula. For years now, I have used what I see as a basic quick and easy formula to calculate the min and the max.
Min = Lead Time + Safety Stock
Max = Min + (Min/2)
Lead time is the time it takes from the moment the component is ordered until it is received and ready to be used.
Safety Stock is the amount of stock to hold because of something that could occur to delay the lead time. Base this on where you are getting the parts from, how often does something go wrong, etc… For example you might hold a little more safety stock for something you purchase from a company 300 miles away versus a component that is made in-house.
If the process is working smoothly, you will receive the component you ordered right as you get into the safety stock. When the minimum level is set properly, you will feel freaked out because you believe you will run out and right about that time the components will arrive. It is a weird feeling that you will adjust to, but makes you heartbeat fast the first few times until you get used to it and trust the process.
The maximum is something a friend and I completely made up several years ago. There is no reason it has to be this. I continue to use it because so far it has worked well for me over the last decade. I always round up to the nearest full day.
Min = 2 day lead time + 1 day of safety stock = 3 days
Max = 3 + (3/2) = 4.5 round up to 5 days
The only other number that is needed is the quantity of the product used per day. This is used to translate the number of days to a quantity of the component.
1 day usage equal 500 parts
Min = 3 days x 500 parts = 1500 part
Max = 5 days x 500 parts = 2500 parts
The point of the kanban min/max levels are to get you in the ballpark. It shouldn’t be an exact science because you will probably round to nearest full carton or order quantity anyway. Plus, min/max levels should NEVER stay static. They are dynamic and change.
I wold recommend on having what you might think is a little too much inventory to start. You can always adjust your kanban min/max levels down as you understand your process. If you start with too little of inventory, you will run out of parts and people will not have faith in the new process and give up early on before it has a chance to work.
Get rid of the waste in your kanban calculation and go and see your process to understand if your kanban min/max are appropriate.
This is part of my reflections from the OpsInsight Forum in Boston.
There were a lot of technology companies presenting at the forum. The companies had a lot of pretty cool technology that could be used. AT&T presented their business mobility solutions. It was not around the iPhone. It was technology designed to bring real-time visibility to supply chain needs, inventory and performance dashboards.
I was very intrigued by what they were presenting. The lean thinker in me thought to slooooooow down. What would be the purpose of the technology? How would it help? It does no good to implement technology on something that will not drive any action.
Real-time technology for inventory, supply chain needs, and dashboards can have a negative effect. If the leadership is not in the habit of going and seeing what is happening all real-time technology will do is allow a quicker solution response without understanding what is actually happening.
The real-time technology can be a great enhancement for leadership that is in the habit of going and seeing. The quick alert of an issue can allow them to get to the area to witness the problem before it disappears. Since the leadership sees the problem in real-time they have a better understanding and can have a countermeasure in place quicker.
Without the real-time technology, the leadership may not find out about the issue until it has disappeared which means they have to wait for the issue to come up again in order to understand the problem or spend time recreating the issue. The team loses time before they can have a countermeasure in place.
If the leadership does not have the go and see mindset then all the real-time technology in the world will not help change the behavior. Technology is a wonderful thing, but “with great power comes great responsibility.”
As I look for ways to improve, I am inspired by other lean thinkers and bloggers. I see what they are trying and look to how that might work for me. I try and experiment with things in order to make my job easier and to feel more in control and organized.
I decided to start a series that will be based on what I have tried in order to make my work better. It may be small or large things and most likely it was an inspiration I got from someone else. I hope that by passing along what I have learned that it may inspire others the way others have inspired me.
I decided this was something I was going to try to improve my work. I spent a few months deciding how I was going to go about this before jumping in and trying it. Finally, I did give it a try. I wish I had better news, but my first and second iterations were not very successful.
I tried using note cards and a bulletin board to move the work. I chose my value stream to be WIP Queue, In-Process, and Completed. I color coded the tasks by which customer I was serving since my role is internal consultant.
I found I was re-prioritizing the work on a constant basis, mainly because my customers were re-prioritizing their work. Plus, like Tim I don’t sit still. I am out in the manufacturing plants or in different parts of the main building all the time so I don’t get to see the bulletin board as much. I really liked my digital task list that syncs with my Blackberry. Having the tasks mobile was very helpful.
I was also having trouble squeezing time in to complete these tasks, but I started blocking time off on my calendar to work on some tasks.
In the end, the experiment was a failure. But, I did learn what worked and what didn’t and why. I still want to improve my work flow so further reflection and study is necessary. With Tim’s recent post about how and why he digitized his personal kanban, I was exposed to digital tools that I did not know existed. I will now take the time to look at some of the tools Tim presented and conduct some research of my own to figure out the best way to incorporate the right tools to help with my process. Find the tools to fit the process, don’t fit the process to the tools.
Not all improvements work out and I think it is to highlight those and talk about those as much as the ones that did work. Happy improving!