Training in the Moment

Process Improvement Partners was invited to help a gummy vitamin manufacturer reduce their changeover time.  Walking through the process with the sponsor, we felt that we could attain a sustainable 50% reduction in time, while improving the safety of the process and engaging the team with a winning attitude.

After the charter was developed, we identified the winning team of participants.  This included people who work in the process, those who manage the process, and others who were quite interested in helping the team win.

First Day Skepticism

On the first day of the Kaizen, the team was joined by a group of others from management and support groups, who were very interested in what was about to happen.  After some introductions, those in the room voiced their concerns about the ability of the team to reduce time in half without substantial capital investment or significant training.  As I had been through many of these sessions before with continued success, I assured them we wouldn’t have to spend much money and we would be able to train everyone properly by the end of the week.  After all, we only had a week to accomplish our goals.   I told the team that every team before them was able to achieve the 50% goal and I knew they would too.  Most in the room looked like they thought it wouldn’t be possible, but they were supportive of our efforts. 

The average changeover time for the past year was 4 ½ hours, so our goal would be to safely complete the same type of changeover in 2 ¼ hours.  After some training in Lean concepts, we walked out to the factory floor and observed the crew on shift complete a changeover.   This changeover took 5 hours and 32 minutes, a full hour longer than our baseline.  After the changeover was complete, I brought the team into the meeting room to share their observations and ideas for improvement to the changeover.  At the end of a very long first day, the team had four prioritized improvement efforts to work on during the morning of the next day.  We went out to dinner to unwind and continue the discussion.  Even though it was a very long day, everyone seemed excited about what might be possible.

On the morning of day 2, the team started to make changes, based on their observations and ideas.  The plan for day 2 was to implement as much as possible in the morning, and then the team would conduct the changeover in the afternoon.  This time, the crew on shift would observe the team, rather than the other way around.  Some basic organization, visualization, and minor equipment improvements were made before lunchtime.  We were now ready to see what would happen.

The plan was to conduct the changeover after lunch and then review our results and ideas following the changeover.  I knew this might make the day even longer than the first, but this was critical for team learning and new improvement ideas.

The team completed the day 2 changeover in 5 hours and 1 minute and looked really tired and uninterested in reviewing things in the meeting room.  Undeterred, I brought them together and got their immediate feedback.  One of the team members pointed out that while the individual team members had simpler and safer methods to do their work, there was no real coordination of effort between the six team members doing the work.  This was a revelation, and he was energized to build something that we could try out the next day.  The team was spent and went home to rest and hopefully relax a bit.

The next morning, there was a flurry of activity, as the team came together to develop ways to coordinate efforts across all people doing the work.  A large white board was developed to track the activities of the team members and show status before the changeover was to start as well as during the changeover.  It wasn’t completed before our next test, but we decided to start using it in the afternoon.

Using the new ideas from the morning, the team completed the changeover in 3 hours and 17 minutes.  Even though they were still an hour away from their goal, they were extremely excited about what might be possible.  None of them remembered completing a changeover of this complexity in less than 3 hours and 30 minutes.  I told them that on day 4, we would be asking the crew, not the team, to try the new changeover procedure.  This meant that we not only had to complete the improvements, but also have to train others in our new approach.  Now the team was nervous. How would they train people who had never seen our new procedure in such a short amount of time?  I assured them that we would be just fine.  They all went home a bit skeptical, but energized.

Training in an Hour

The team came into the meeting room on day 4, wondering how they would be able to transfer all the changes to the crew to use that afternoon.   I told them we would do it in a very simple process: “Tell, Show, Do.”  This means each team member would be paired up with a crew member one hour before the changeover preparation was to begin.   They would first tell their partner about the new procedure.  Next, they would show how to do the procedure.  Finally, they would have their partner demonstrate their understanding of the procedure.  This technique would bring out questions and full understanding in a short amount of time.  By describing the process early in the morning, the team could think about it as they were working on their improvements.

By lunchtime, all the major improvement work was complete.   The board was upgraded to show status of each task for each of the six crew members in “swim lanes”.  There was a timeline from two hours before the changeover was to start (preparation steps) to three hours from the changeover start, in 30-minute segments.  The idea was to complete every preparation task before the line stopped running and every changeover task assigned in less than three hours across all six swim lanes.  Every task had a red magnet on it, and when complete, it was to be switched with a green magnet.  If one of the crew members was still red in their swim lane while another crew member was green, he or she could be asked to help the crew member who was behind. 

We brought the team and the crew together just before the training was about to begin.  We thanked them and told them the team was doing their best to make this the safest, easiest changeover possible, and they would be pairing up and showing them all of the new changes.  We asked them to try everything in the new way, in as safe a manner as possible, and we would get their feedback following the changeover.  If they thought anything was unsafe, they should determine a safe way to complete the task and we would make the appropriate changes afterwards.

The one-hour training started and everyone paired up and walked around discussing and trying the changes.  The white board was placed prominently in front of the supervisor office, and everyone could see what was happening.

It’s OK to Ask for Help

After the training was complete, the two-hour changeover preparation began.  This preparation was being done while the line was still running.  Crew members had to watch the line as well as complete their preparation steps.  Team members shadowed the crew members and coached them in the new procedure, but they were not allowed to do the work for them.

Back at the board, the team leader and shift coordinator were turning some of the red magnets green, as preparation tasks were completed.  I walked up to the board and asked them what they were seeing.  They weren’t really sure what I meant.  I pointed out one of the swim lanes had many green magnets, meaning one of the crew members was an hour ahead of everyone else.  One of the other swim lanes had all red magnets and was falling behind.  I asked them what they thought they should do.  They were unsure, so I pointed out that Green could help Red catch up.  I left them, hoping they would take the initiative to get help for Red.  Three minutes later, I noticed they hadn’t left the board to get help, and Green was getting further ahead of Red.  I returned to the board and asked them if they were going to get help for Green.  This time, they said they would.  I left them but didn’t go far.  I noticed they weren’t making any moves or approaching crew members to get help for Red.  I went back to the board and said, “let’s go see Green and ask her to help Red.” 

They grudgingly walked with me up to the mezzanine, where Green was working.  I introduced myself to Green and told her she was doing great and was way ahead of schedule.  Then I asked her if she would be willing to help Red, who was getting pretty far behind.  She said she would be happy to, and walked with us to Red, who was appreciative to get help.  The light bulb went off for the team leader and shift coordinator and they started to make more moves to drive Red tasks to Green.

Back at the board, every time a red magnet was switched to green, the team leader and shift coordinator would high-five each other.  There was no way the team would fail now.  One of our other team members found a large monitor and placed it in the window of the supervisor office and started a timer for everyone to see how long the changeover was taking.

As we approached the two-hour mark, it became apparent we might meet our goal.  People started to get really excited and the shift coordinator was making all of the moves he could to ensure a win for the team.  At two hours and five minutes there was a bunch of cheering and clapping.  Everyone thought they were done.  It was a false alarm, however, as the Quality Department had not yet signed off on the new product being produced.  One of the team members went to the Quality Office to get a representative to look at the product and do the appropriate tests required.  At two hours and ten minutes, all of the approvals were received.  There was a roar of applause and a bunch of hugging all over the place.  I doubt that has ever happened before in the plant.

We brought the team and the crew back into the meeting room to get their feedback.  To a person, they didn’t think what we had done was possible, but now realized it was.  They realized the importance of coordination, help, and coaching.  The team decided they would train all of the other crews in this way, to ensure full understanding and buy-in. 

On the day of the report-out, each team member admitted they didn’t think we would be able to reach our goals. It was hard for me not to say, “I told you so!”  If I were to pick the most important changes they made, it would be the coordination and visualization of effort.  Everyone knew who needed help and what they had to do to win.

Who says you can’t speed up innovation?

After a three-year stint as Operations Manager in a plant in Oregon, I was offered the opportunity to return to the Innovation Group for Armstrong World Industries, a ceiling tile manufacturer.  I was to support a team of scientists and technicians, and help them improve their processes and speed up the time to launch new product ideas.

In my first few weeks, I spent time observing the processes the team used to come up with new ideas and bring them to fruition.  Each scientist, with the help of assigned technicians, would develop their own approved idea, using whatever development technique they chose to use.  Every so often, their manager would meet with them to review status and see if there was any help needed to drive progress.  More often than not, the scientist would not ask for any additional help.  Even less likely was the chance the scientist would go to their manager when they were stuck and needed help.  Things took a long time to complete. 

I also took a look at the innovation spaces and testing centers that supported the Innovation Team.  Disorganized and disconnected, these spaces became available on a first come, first served basis.  Scientists often had to wait for testing assistance, as there was no clear way to prioritize or schedule work in the spaces. 

Pilot Plants

I knew I could bring some value to this group, as long as I had someone to sponsor me.  I was new to this area and had to build credibility.  Luckily, I found a manager who was frustrated with the amount of time things took and was open to trying something new.

The first thing we decided to do was pick a target area in the testing spaces (our Pilot Plant) to organize, with the idea of improving productivity and responsiveness for testing.  We picked a small team and used a 5S (Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize, Sustain) event to improve the area and named an Area Owner.  The owner would reserve the area for the scientists and technicians and ensure work was prioritized properly.  This first owner had to have strong leadership backing and the internal fortitude to stand behind her choices.  Luckily, our first owner had both.

This first 5S effort brought immediate and visible positive results to the Pilot Plant.  Over the next few months (and years), more and more areas became organized using 5S and strong leadership support.  Work flowed through the Pilot Plant in a much quicker way.  Strong Area Owners ensured the highest priority work would be done before lesser value work.  If anyone tried to break the rules, the owners knew they had support for their efforts to control the work flow.

Now that we had simplified and streamlined the testing work, we needed to come up with a way to make the development work more visible.  As I stated earlier, scientists liked to do their own thing and then present their inventions and discoveries in their own time.  Because of that, there was no clear way to assess progress and provide help or support during the process.

With the support of the manager, we approached the Innovation Director with this idea:  Have a weekly meeting of all scientists and technicians to give them the opportunity to discuss their progress and talk about next steps and any help they might need.  The Director was intrigued, but was unsure how the group would react to “structure”.  He told us, “You can’t schedule invention.”  My reply was, “Maybe you can’t, but you can schedule the steps on the way to invention.”  If nothing else, the scientists would have an opportunity to share their discoveries with the group.  He thought it was worth a try and decided to start the following week.

Accelerating Innovation

The first weekly Innovation Group Huddles were unstructured on purpose.  The Innovation Director asked each scientist to talk about what they were working on.  Some of the scientists were willing to do so and would take the time to describe the intimate details of their work.  Others had little to say, and even with prodding didn’t seem willing to share.  Although it was frustrating at the beginning, we realized this was the first time the team had the opportunity to discuss their efforts in this way, and agreed to keep the process going for a while to see what might happen.

About three months after starting the Innovation Huddle, a scientist was talking about his work and admitted he was a bit stuck on how to test one of his ideas.  For the first time, another scientist spoke up and said, “I worked on something similar three years ago and I would be happy to share my data and results with you, if you think that would help.”  All of the sudden, the entire group opened up and realized why they were there.  They could share and learn from each other.  Scientists love to share and learn, and now they knew this was their forum to do so.

Over the years, the Innovation Group Huddle became more visible, more engaging, and focused on helping each scientist and technician in their efforts.  After four years, the time to market, from initial idea to launch was reduced from eighteen to ten months.  The portfolio of new products developed by the Innovation team more than doubled from $150 million to $380 million.

If It Fits It Ships – The Story of the Valenciennes Startup

In 1994, I was responsible for quality control for a ceiling grid joint venture between Armstrong World Industries and Worthington Industries.  At the time, we had two domestic plants, but plans were in place to build a new plant in a town in the northern part of France, Valenciennes.

As an Industrial Engineer, I was very interested in the overall design and layout of the plant, and wanted to help maximize the flow of materials throughout the plant.  I was invited to participate in the early development of design options. 

Working with other staff members at our plant, we came up with what we believed would be the best use of space for the six planned operating lines.  We considered where the raw materials would come into the plant, get stored for the lines, and then after production where they would be stored and then later shipped.  We also considered where the personnel and mobile equipment would interact with the lines and believed we had designed a safe and productive plant for construction.

Compressed and Stressed

We were invited to present our design at an executive review of the top 4 plant design options. I was excited to be included in this critical process.  As the designs were reviewed, it became apparent that the executives liked a design that looked extremely compressed and had conflicting flows of materials and personnel.   As the president of the joint venture was speaking about it, he said that the compressed design allowed the plant to start up three months earlier, as only part of the plant would have to be built to house the operating lines and then the warehouse could be built at a later time.

I knew this design would be unsafe and the plant would be stuck with poor flow for many years to come.  However, the other executives in the room seemed to be in agreement with the president and they were ready to pick this design to build.  I could feel the stress welling up in me and I knew I had to voice my concerns with the decision.  Some of my design team knew I was about to speak up and they looked like they thought it might be my last day working with them.

“Are you willing to risk the future of the plant, just to start up three months early?” I asked them.  The vice president of engineering looked at me and asked me to elaborate.  “If you look at the compressed design, you’ll see that there is no safe way for mobile equipment and personnel to service the lines when they’re all operating.”  I then proceeded to show them how products coming off three of the lines would be in the way of products coming off of the other three lines.  The engineering VP then chimed in and reinforced my point, saying, “That was bothering me too!”  I couldn’t believe that he needed a young engineer to voice this vital concern.  Luckily, I don’t know how to keep my mouth shut.

The conversation in the room changed and the executive team took another look at all of the designs and finally chose our design, with a few modifications.  As we left the meeting, I felt relieved and satisfied that I spoke up. 

Show and Tell Gone Wrong

A number of months later, the plant was getting ready to start production and I was asked to develop quality control drawings and provide training for the technicians who would be checking the products as they were being produced.  I had been to France one other time in my life, but relied on my parents to take me around and deal with any issues.  Now it would be my turn to figure things out.

I was assigned a bi-lingual college student to work with when I got to the plant.  My job was to teach him about how ceiling grid worked, the technical details, and then design a training program for the employees.  The first thing I needed to do was to show him how the grid was supposed to work.

Ceiling grid provides a framework for the ceiling tiles, lights, vents, and other accessories to fit into.  The dimensions must be accurate, or the parts won’t fit.  The company had made some innovations to make the grid stronger, using “stitching”.  Stitching joined the metal together in such a way that it would stay straight and wouldn’t flex when it was being installed.  The stitch also made the metal act as if it was thicker in a way that didn’t get in the way of installation.  There are holes in the grid that allow other grid components to be inserted and connected at ninety-degree angles in order to make the complete framework for a room.

I started at the beginning with my student.  I put a twelve-foot bar of grid on the floor of the plant and told him to imagine it was up in the ceiling.  Then I showed him how the first four-foot bar of grid was designed to go through the hole in the twelve-foot bar.  Next, I told him, “Now, we put the connecting four-foot bar of grid through the hole to meet up with the other four-foot bar like this ….  like this …”  They were both supposed to fit through the same hole and connect to each other, but they didn’t.  What could be wrong?

Fixing a Stitch

I turned one of the four-foot bars around and found that I was able to connect both bars through the hole.  I got more grid and found that 33% of the connections weren’t working.  33% is an unacceptable scrap rate, so we had to figure out what was happening.  It turns out that if the stitch was in just the right (or wrong) place on the ends of two pieces of grid, it made the metal appear to be thicker than the width of the hole, and the grid wouldn’t fit.  We had to figure out how to remove the stitch from the ends of the grid or we wouldn’t be able to sell the grid from our new plant.

It turns out that this was the day the first shipment of grid was to be sent from the facility to their first customer.  There was a celebration in the plant with speeches, cheering, and champagne.  I took the plant manager aside and informed him of what we had found and that we would need to bring the shipment back to the plant in order to assess the situation and protect the customer and the new plant.  He looked unhappy, but understood what he had to do. 

The following day, we determined how to remove the stitch from the ends of the grid and the quality problem was solved.  We delayed the first shipment by two days and the plant was successful for many years following this initial issue.  Being observant and speaking up spared the company from huge losses and damage to its credibility.

Beer is the Answer

In 1991, I was offered a position as a shift supervisor at a ceiling grid plant in Franklin Park Illinois, a suburb of Chicago.  I received supervisor training the prior year and this was my first opportunity to use what I learned in the real world.  From my second-floor office, I was able to see both ends of the plant, including the eleven operating lines and the warehouse.  What immediately struck me was the lack of focus on the quality of the product we were producing.

In my early days as a supervisor, I was extremely interested in helping my crew make improvements to their processes.  It was challenging, as I had very little experience in their industry and they knew that.  I had to find a way to connect with my team and build trust with them.  It turns out that beer was an easy way to make this connection.

High Waste, Low Morale

Ceiling grid is made from coil steel, which is roll-formed into shape and cut into bars of varying lengths.  These bars were then fed into a punch press, which cut the bars to final length and put holes and end details on them.  On some of the lines, it seemed like more bars of grid were going into scrap carts than were going into the boxes to be shipped to our customers.   This scrap material would be sent to a metal recycler, who gave us pennies on the dollar for these precious bars.  We were losing money and I wanted to help stop our losses.

I met with my crew and discussed our high scrap rate.  They said the process was to blame and there was very little they could do about it.  When I talked about the high percentage of scrap we were producing, they seemed unimpressed with the number but said they would try to reduce that percentage as best they could.

A few weeks went by and our scrap losses weren’t getting any better.  I met with my crew again and they said they were doing their best, but didn’t know what they could do to get the scrap rate down.  Frustrated, I took some time to talk with my plant manager to see if he had any ideas I could use.

I found out the scrap rate was quite high during his time there, but in years prior to his arrival the scrap rate was significantly below current levels.  What had changed, I wondered?  I decided to talk to one of our technical resources, who had been a supervisor in the plant for many years before I arrived.

He told me people used to care about quality more when he was a supervisor.  There was stability in the plant for many years, so people worked as a team and were focused on doing their best together.  These days, there was a lot of new people managing the plant (including me) and that made it difficult to build a bond with the crews.

Giving Scrap a Real Value

As I thought about this more, I realized I needed to improve the situation, but didn’t have years to do so.  I had to come up with something meaningful to make a connection with the crew.  One day, as I was shopping with my wife, I noticed the grocery store sold beer along with food.  This was something I hadn’t seen growing up in Maryland.  As I looked at the prices of the beer, I realized I had an opportunity to make a connection with my crew.  I was now ready for my next crew meeting!

I started off the meeting telling my crew I truly didn’t understand why scrap occurs and because of that, I couldn’t help them reduce it.  But, through the inspiration of beer, I now knew how to help them.  “You see,” I started, “a two-foot bar of ceiling grid has the same value as a can of beer.”  They looked at me kind of strange and one of them let out a laugh.  “A four-foot bar of grid is worth two cans of beer, and a twelve-foot bar equals a six-pack.  If we save enough grid from the scrap carts, we could save the company enough money to have an open bar at the next company party!”  The crew loosened up and started talking about ways they could save beer for the company.

The next few days, I reminded the crew how much beer was sitting in the scrap carts on each line.  Instead of percentages, we were now talking about something of value and meaning for them.  I didn’t realize how much it meant until one day, my top setup technician came to my office to tell me he had saved a keg of beer for the company on his last setup.  He was able to get the setup right on the first try.  His scrap cart was almost empty!

Over the next few months, our scrap rate came down dramatically, and settled to 75% below the historical average.  The experienced technical resource was amazed at how low our scrap rate was and even admitted it hadn’t been that low when he was the supervisor.  I told him he had inspired me to come up with something that would get the attention and make a connection with the crew.  In a town like Chicago, beer was the answer!

Fix It and Make a Difference

In 2005, I was working in the central engineering group for Armstrong in Lancaster PA. One day, while I was sitting in my cubicle, the CEO of our division came up to me and told me that he needed my help at our newly acquired cabinet plant in Auburn Nebraska. I asked him what help I could provide. He looked at me and said, “Fix it – you’ll know what I mean when you get there.” I was told I would have a small team travelling with me and our first visit to the plant would be for 2 weeks. During that time, we were to evaluate the things we could improve, make quick improvements, and develop plans for future efforts.

I have been to hundreds of factories in my career, and have seen some well-run factories and some poorly run ones. When we arrived, I saw what was clearly the poorest run facility in my experience. There was no organization or order. Equipment was in disrepair. People looked like they had been beaten down. Many had evidence of prior injuries. It was hard to find a safe walkway in the entire plant. It made me immediately angry that people had to work in these conditions. In fact, one of my team members was so angry, we had to take him outside to calm him down.

“What the hell are they thinking?” he asked, “How can they get away with this?” We talked for a while and eventually came to the conclusion that we couldn’t fix the past, but we could damn sure improve the future for these folks. Luckily, the company had hired a new plant manager, who had arrived at the plant about a week before we did.

We spent some time with him on our first days at the plant and believed he wanted to improve conditions for his people as much as we did. We felt he would support our efforts to make real positive change for the employees at the plant. We knew we needed his support to get critical work done.

Thousands of opportunities

Everywhere we looked, we saw things that could and should be improved. Early on, we reorganized a panel cutting area and made it easier and safer to get the materials needed to be cut. We also created some signage for the area, so finished parts could be easily found. We were also able to get much needed repairs for the equipment that was being used daily. We realized we couldn’t fix everything, even though we wanted to. We had to prioritize and decided to work on things we could immediately fix in order to give the employees hope for a better place to work.

Miles to go

One day I was watching the flow of material to different parts of the factory. I saw a large man take a pallet jack and transport cabinet parts from one area of the plant to another. He had to physically pull the material, which probably weighed 250 pounds, over a quarter of a mile. I followed him to his destination and then watched him pick up another pallet of parts, and manually pull it to another part of the plant. This looked really difficult to me, and I wanted to know more.

I introduced myself to him and he told me his name was Roy and that he had been doing this type of work for more than 5 years. I asked him if he knew how far he moved material in a day. He told me he was given a pedometer by the health and safety manager and found out he was pulling materials more than 17 miles in a day on average! Seeing how physically difficult this work was, I asked him, “What do you do when you go home at night?” His response was, “Adam, I sit down in my recliner, fall asleep, get up the next morning, and go back to work.” This was no way to live. I knew we had to help him.

I assembled my small team and we talked about what we could do to help Roy. In my mind, if we didn’t help him, he would soon be injured, and probably had been in the past. We did our research and found out there was a battery-operated pallet jack that would allow the operator to ride on when moving materials. We found a used one in the area that cost less than $5000. It was time to convince the plant manager to buy this unit immediately.

Sealing the deal

We asked the plant manager for an opportunity to review our findings and share our plan for further improvements. We had 12 improvement projects we wanted to implement before we left at the end of our 2-week assignment. We told him we thought there was nothing more important than buying the battery powered pallet jack for Roy. When we explained our reasoning, he realized how critical this would be for the health and well-being of one of his employees and also how much it mattered to us. He immediately gave us approval and called in his purchasing manager to help us buy it.

In 3 days, we had our new battery powered pallet jack and gave it to Roy to test out. He did and was so happy, he gave rides to some of his co-workers. The next day, I followed up with Roy and he told me he had some of the best sleep he had in months. We made a real difference for one person, and that made all of our efforts a resounding success!

Simpler is Better

Sometimes we make things more complicated than they have to be. When we remove the complexity, things seem to get better. I have learned this lesson many times, but my trip to Macon Georgia proved it to me and my team.

In the late 1990’s, I was often asked to help factories solve productivity issues. As I was new to the manufacture of ceiling tiles, I had much to learn. One of my ways to learn was to spend as much time as possible on the factory floor, observing and talking with the operators and mechanics.

I was visiting the largest ceiling plant in the world in Macon Georgia and asked the plant manager if I could spend a day on the line, observing operations and talking with his people. He seemed surprised by my request, but was open to it and gave me the green light.

I started at the beginning of the fabrication line, where the formed 4-foot by 8-foot panels were loaded, and introduced myself to Joe, who was “feeding” the line. He asked me what I was doing there. I explained I was trying to learn how the line operated and the issues he was dealing with. He seemed amused by this and showed me how he operated the line. After about an hour of observation and discussion, Joe had given me a thorough overview of his area of the line and the problems from his perspective. I thanked him for taking the time with me and then left him to go visit with the next operator on the line, Ruth.

Ruth was intrigued by an engineer (a Yankee, no less) who wanted to know what issues she had to deal with as well. She showed me what happened when boards traveled through her paint booth. She was making constant adjustments to the line and I asked her why. She explained the equipment that measured viscosity of the paint was broken, so she was doing her best to get a consistent paint coating, using her experience and observations. Ruth let me try my hand at adjusting viscosity of the paint, and I realized how difficult it was. After some time, I thanked Ruth for her insight and moved on to the remaining operators on the line.

After a full day of visiting, observing, and discussing the issues on the line, I believed I had a plan to make some improvements. I returned to the main office and reviewed my findings with the plant manager. I asked him if he was willing to assemble a small team of operators, mechanics, and a supervisor to work on the problems I had observed. He was extremely willing and said he would have them ready to work with me the next day and for the rest of the week (4 days). Now, I had to determine what to do with my new team.

At 7 am the next morning, I met my team: 3 operators, two mechanics, and a supervisor. We had a meeting room in the middle of the factory. After getting to know each other, I reviewed my observations from the prior day. Luckily for me, two of the operators on the team were Ruth and Joe, so they had some experience with me and felt comfortable talking with me and the rest of the team members. After talking about what I had seen and reviewing their ideas, we came up with two areas to work on: Cutting boards squarely and applying paint consistently. We decided to work on each issue as a full team, one issue at a time. Our first issue was cutting boards squarely.

It’s Hip to be Square

We walked out to the line and went to the equalizer station to see what was going on. The equalizer was a large table saw that cut the 4-foot by 8-foot boards into 2-foot by 4-foot ceiling tiles. The board travels into the equalizer, gets cut into 2-foot by 8-foot strips, then gets transferred at 90 degrees to the next series of saw blades. They then cut the 8-foot strips into 4-foot tiles.

As we watched, we saw the boards go through the saw blades at an angle. Why was this happening? It turns out there were three upper “hold down” rolls driving the boards through the first pass of blades. These rolls were adjustable for on either side of the conveyor. Operators would make pressure adjustments to the rolls to help drive the boards through the saws. There was no way to tell if they were applying equal pressure to the rolls. The unequal pressure on the boards was forcing them through the saws at an angle. Sometimes, this would cause the boards to be cut to the incorrect size, causing scrap.

There were two hold down rolls at the entrance to the saws and one on the exit of the saws. It seemed the two rolls at the entrance were fighting each other, so we decided to raise one of the rolls. To our amazement, the boards ran more squarely through the saws.

Now, we had to figure out how to apply equal pressure to each side of the boards as they entered and exited the saw blades. After many ideas, we realized that by giving the operator the ability to adjust each side of the rolls, they were almost guaranteed to force the boards through with unequal pressure, unless they knew the exact pressure on each side of the board. Since we didn’t have any gauges to measure this, we had to come up with a simpler solution to ensure equal pressure.

Gravity was the solution to our problem. If we could just use the mass of the roll (approximately 55 lbs.) to roll over the board as it entered and exited the saws, the roll would put equal pressure across the board. There was only one way to test this. We disconnected the adjusting screws on the rolls and allowed the rolls to “float” over the board as it traveled below them and into and out of the saws. Now the board was going through in a perfectly square manner. We decided to remove the adjusting screws completely, so operators wouldn’t have the opportunity to reverse this improvement. We also made sure we communicated our changes to all shifts, so people would understand what we did and why we did it. We were proud of ourselves. Now it was time to figure out how we could help the painting process.

It all depends on your point of view

Paint viscosity is critical on a ceiling tile. If the paint is too viscous (too thick), it will cover up the holes on the surface of the tile and reduce its acoustical absorption. If the paint is not viscous enough (too thin), it won’t achieve the proper coverage and required color. The instrument that was broken, a Brookfield viscometer, is a mechanical device that measures the resistance of the liquid as a rod or disc rotates through the liquid. It wasn’t working, so the paint technicians were using a Zahn cup to measure viscosity. This cup looks like a cylindrical ladle with a hole in the center. It is dipped into the liquid and the time it takes for the liquid to totally exit is measured in seconds. The longer the time it takes, the thicker the liquid.

The technicians were taught to observe the bottom of the Zahn cup from the outside. When paint was no longer flowing out of the cup, they recorded the time and then compared it to a chart to assess viscosity. The problem was that as the last bit of paint came out, there were drips, and each operator measured the time differently, leading to variations in viscosity measurements and adjustments. This was leading to problems in the paint booth. We had to find a way to consistently measure the time.

After much trial and error, we realized that we were all looking at the cup incorrectly. If we looked inside the cup, we saw the paint exit in the same way. The moment paint had fully exited the cup, there was a hole that appeared in the center of the cup. Using this method, we were able to consistently measure the time from person to person. It was extremely easy to teach, and we could come up with the ideal time to achieve the desired viscosity. From then on, paint coverage was more consistent from operator to operator.

The team had just solved two major problems and was excited to do more, but these changes took most of the week. We decided to focus the rest of our time on training the other shifts and crews, to ensure they understood and properly utilized the changes.

At the end of the week we showcased our efforts to the plant leadership team. They were impressed with the improvements, enthusiasm, and creativity of the team. These changes led to reduced downtime and scrap for the line. I was invited to the plant many times over the next few years to work with teams using the same approach. I am proud to say that we were able to simplify many other processes and improve performance all over the plant.

Thomasville’s Frame Nailers – Taking a good idea and expanding its reach

As a young engineer at Thomasville Furniture, I was given project assignments at the discretion of my manager. He gave me ample opportunities to try out different ideas and supported my efforts. I spent many hours in our manufacturing facilities and was fascinated by the complexity of the manufacturing processes. Many of these processes were extremely labor-intensive and required great skill to accomplish. One such task was the assembly of the base frames of case goods, such as night stands, dressers, and other cabinet style products. These frames were the support structure of the furniture and had to be strong and sturdy to hold up to the years of abuse that furniture sees in its lifetime.

The process to put together a base frame starts with the cutting of the four individual frame components to the appropriate length. Then, each end of the component is cut with a miter saw at a very specific angle, 44.5 degrees. I asked a skilled saw operator why he wasn’t cutting a standard 45-degree miter. He informed me that the extra half degree allowed for the special nail, glue, and growth that typically occurs in wood when exposed to moisture.

After cutting the miter, a notch was cut at a perpendicular angle to the miter in the center of the ends of the wood. This allowed for a special joining nail to be applied to both ends of the wood. The placement of this notch was critical as well, as any deviation from the center would make the nail noticeable to the customer. Once these cuts were made, the components were brought to the assembly department. Once there, employees would apply glue to the mitered ends, nail the components together, and remove any excess glue. Then, after all components were dry, they were transferred to another department whose responsibility was to put wood putty into any gaps that might be visible in the joined mitered ends. In all, this process took 6 days from original cuts to final putty and cleanup of the frames. As many as 6 people touched the components during this process. The more I watched this process, the more I thought, “There has to be a better way to do this.”

A Simple, But Powerful Discovery

A few months later, all of the engineers at Thomasville Furniture traveled to the International Woodworking Show in Atlanta. This was my first time travelling for the company and I welcomed the opportunity to see all of the interesting machines at the show and tour Atlanta a bit. Each engineer was to look for equipment at the show that might help the plant to which he or she was assigned. The exhibition hall was gigantic and the three days we were there wasn’t enough to properly see everything. Most people liked to look at the biggest, shiniest, most complicated machines that were being displayed. I, however, was fascinated by something I saw at a little booth in an out of the way spot in the exhibition hall.

In the booth was a series of small picture frame nailing machines. They were simple little machines that seemed to be quite efficient at their task. The representative showed me how they worked. Basically, you bring two mitered ends of picture frames together in a jig that positioned them precisely, push a foot pedal, and a pressure plate came down to hold the mitered ends tightly together. Then, a corrugated nail came up from a coil below the machine and was driven into the mitered ends. He handed the assembly to me and told me to try to pull it apart. I couldn’t. Then I noticed how tight the joint was on the assembly. There was no gap, which meant that no wood putty would need to be applied.

I asked the representative if he had a machine that was designed for larger mitered components. He didn’t, but said that he thought he could modify and strengthen one of the machines to drive nails into larger pieces of wood. I asked him how soon he could have a prototype machine. He thought he could have one ready in 4 to 6 weeks. That was all the time I needed to convince one of our plants to try out this new approach. Although I saw many other interesting machines, nothing intrigued me as much as these frame nailers, as most Thomasville plants would have a use for a heavier duty model.

Being Open to a New Process

When I returned from Atlanta, I asked my supervisor which plant he recommended we test the prototype frame nailer. My thought was that if we could convince a plant to try it out, they would get an opportunity to provide input to the design and functionality of the new machine. They would also have the fastest opportunity to streamline their operation. We agreed that the case goods plant 3 miles from the corporate center was the best place to start. We called a meeting with the plant management and gained their support for this work.

Approximately 6 weeks later, a larger version of the picture frame nailer that I had seen in Atlanta arrived at the plant. Two days later, the sales technician joined to show us how to use the prototype equipment. Plant management joined us and watched as the technician joined two large mitered parts with little difficulty. It happened so fast that they wanted to see another demonstration. This time the parts didn’t go together as well as expected. It turns out that there wasn’t enough air pressure applied, and when it was quickly corrected, every part came together precisely and tightly. Everyone was amazed how easy it was and also how tight the mitered joint appeared.

A Solution With Many Applications

Soon, they realized the best benefit of all. There would be no need for applying putty to the mitered joints, as they held together so well, with no gap apparent. This was a breakthrough. But, it was also just the beginning. Then, the technician was asked if this equipment could also create a “Butt Joint.” This is an assembly of two pieces of wood that are joined at perpendicular angles, rather than at a 45 degree angle. These “Butt Joints” we used as intermediate assemblies in case goods and were also quite labor intensive. The technician thought it would be possible, but it would probably need a special jig to hold the pieces in place while the nail was delivered.

Because we were in a furniture factory, we were able to quickly create a prototype jig to try it out. Lo and behold, the two pieces of wood were joined together just as tightly as the mitered pieces. This would save more effort, labor, and time. After identifying a few more modifications, we realized that we had something that we could use in the multiple plants at Thomasville Furniture. We quickly ordered a first unit and set about determining how many others we would potentially need.

For the next six months or so, I was able to replace the old-style miter cutting and joining processes all over the company with the new frame nailing technology. I even was able to find a few more uses for the equipment, which led to more sales for the technician.

I learned a valuable lesson from this work. Sometimes you have a problem that needs a solution, other times you have a solution to a problem you don’t realize you have. You just have to be willing to look for that problem and apply the solution.

A Little Dab Will Do Ya

In 1991, I was offered a line supervisor position at Armstrong’s ceiling grid factory in Franklin Park Illinois. I had been working as a staff Industrial Engineer at Thomasville Furniture in Thomasville North Carolina, so the position would be my first operations supervisory role.

I spent my first few months at the plant learning everything I could about the manufacture of ceiling grid and the approach I would take to supervising my small crew of factory workers. The only way I knew to learn was to spend as much time as possible on the factory floor, observing, asking questions, and trying to help where I could.

The factory had eleven separate operating lines and each of them made a variety of products. Each line consisted of an unwind station for coils of steel, roll-formers that bent the coil of steel into the shape of the ceiling grid, and a punch press which stamped out the holes and end details for each piece of grid. Finally, there was a packaging station that assisted the operators as they put the finished pieces in a box.

The lines operated fairly well, with limited downtime, until it was time to change over from one product type to the next. If the shape of the grid was changing, rolls on the roll-former would be switched out. If the size or shape of the product were changing, dies in the press would need to be moved or switched out. The process of changing over was long and drawn out and we never started right up after the changeover. I wanted to know more about this, but typically the highest skilled employees did the changeover and didn’t want to be bothered by my questions.

An Observation In Need of a Solution

After a few months of observing things, I decided that I needed to help somehow. I really wasn’t sure what I could do to help. I decided I would first try to better understand press die setup, as it looked more straight-forward than roll former setup. Spending many hours observing what was happening, I noticed that once the dies were placed in the proper location, they were then tightened using bolts. Then, a bar of grid would be stamped and checked for proper placement of holes, end details, and overall length. Tolerances were tight, so the dies would have to be placed accurately.

Every time this was done, the measurements required that the setup operator make adjustments to the location of the dies. I didn’t understand why this was. Why couldn’t he just find the optimal position, tighten the dies, and be ready to run on the first try? He told me that the dies always moved a bit when tightened and he had to tap them to their final position with a mallet. If things went well, he could do this on one additional attempt. If things went poorly, it could take many attempts which added up to many hours of downtime. I thought to myself, “There must be a way to get the dies set properly on the first try.” I didn’t know what to do. Luckily for me, I was about to take a trip that would change the way I thought about this problem.

I was asked to travel to the new headquarters of our joint venture with Worthington Steel in Malvern Pennsylvania. I like to read bit on airplanes so I looked at the bookshelf in the supervisor’s office and saw a book called, “A Revolution in Manufacturing: The SMED System,” written by Shigeo Shingo. I asked the other supervisor if he had read it and if I could borrow it. He told me that Armstrong bought the book for all of their manufacturing sites in the late 1980’s, but he had never read it. He told me I could take it and keep it if I wanted. So, I took this book with me on the airplane and started reading it.

New Way of Thinking Inspired by Socks

It was like a whole new world had opened up to me. Shigeo Shingo developed a changeover reduction process that is used by companies the world over and even is used during pit-stops at auto races. This was just what I needed. But, where to begin? A story in the book about golf told me what to try first. In the story, Mr. Shingo talks about playing golf and getting blisters on his feet at the end of the day. He loved golf, but didn’t love the blisters that came as a result and decided he must reason out how to eliminate them. He used his problem-solving skills and figured out that the blisters came from the rubbing of his socks on his feet when he was swinging the golf clubs. Why were the socks rubbing on his feet? Because there was less friction between the socks and his sweaty feet than there was between the socks and his shoes, which he had put on quite tightly. How would he resolve this? He figured out that by adding another pair of socks on his feet, he could keep the least friction between the two socks and therefore they would rub against each other, rather than rubbing on his feet. Problem solved; blisters eliminated!

So how does this apply to changeover reduction, you may ask? Now that he saw how reducing friction was beneficial, he decided to apply the same idea to press die setup. He also had a problem with dies moving once they were tightened down. He originally had a bolt and one washer that he used to tighten down dies on a smooth press surface. He noticed that the die would move on the smooth press surface when the bolt was tightened securely. Much like the socks, he decided to add an extra washer to the bolt and put a dab of oil between the two washers, guaranteeing that they would have the least friction of any component in the setup. He tried his idea out and it worked. And now, I had something I could try back at the plant when I returned.

Results Even Skeptics Could Not Ignore

When I got back to my plant, I was excited to share what I had learned with my setup operators. I explained what I had read and they were not impressed. “How do sweaty socks help improve changeover time?” they asked. I said I thought we should try an experiment to see if what I read really did work. One of the operators grudgingly agreed to give it a try. I wanted to make sure that we had real data for our experiment, so I asked him to set up a die in position as he normally would. In this case, we set up dial indicators on two corners of the die. They would be used to show us how much the die moved when tightened to the press. We zeroed out the dial indicators just before he made the final tightening of the bolts on the die. One corner mover .007” and the other moved 010”. That might not seem like a lot of movement, but it is more than we could tolerate and would require him to move the die with a mallet, just as he always had to do.

Now it was time to try the new way. We added a washer to each bolt on the die and put a dab of oil between the two washers on each bolt. We zeroed out the dial indicators just before making the final tightening of the bolts on each die. To our amazement, at the final tightening of each bolt, the washers moved, but the readouts on the dial indicators both read 0! There was no movement of the die. “Let me try that again,” he said, and he did. Once again, there was zero movement of the die. This was a breakthrough. Now the other setup operators wanted to try it for themselves. They couldn’t believe it as one by one each of them saw the dial indicators stay at zero, no matter how hard they tightened the bolts on the dies.

We immediately added washers and oil to the dies waiting to be used on the other lines. Then, we modified the other dies on the production lines after we took them out of the presses following production runs. From then on, every die that was set up in our presses maintained its location, saving valuable time, effort, and reducing frustration. I like to think that I would have figured this out on my own, but I realize that we all get set in our ways and sometimes need a story or two to change our thinking. I don’t play golf, but I now have much greater respect for the game and what can be learned from it.

With Persistence and Desire, Anything is Possible

I started working for Thomasville Furniture out of college as an Industrial Engineer.  Born and raised in Maryland and working in North Carolina, I was called “Yankee,” and I had to prove myself worthy every day.  I felt like I was up for the challenge.  My mother reminded me I was born south of the Mason Dixon line, but it didn’t seem to matter to North Carolina natives.

My first assignment was in Thomasville’s veneer plant.  At this plant, many types of veneers were brought together to make beautiful panels used in expensive furniture, more expensive than I could afford.  I was fascinated by the labor-intensive process of veneer making, and spent many hours in the plant observing what was going on and asking lots of questions of the workers.   They seemed amused by the Yankee who was willing to listen to them.

An Expensive and Inefficient Process

One afternoon, I was in the basement of the plant and watched workers put materials into and out of a hot press.  This press was a large, multi-opening machine used to cure and remove moisture from some of the most expensive veneers bought by Thomasville.  The machine looked like a large pizza-oven, and had eight openings, one above the other. 

I watched a crew of six workers place a large metal plate on a table.  After that, they took a “book” of burl veneer – 14 slices from the same log that look generally the same, and spread out each slice on the metal plate.  Then, they put another metal plate on top of all of the slices, creating a metal and veneer sandwich.  This sandwich fit into an opening of the press.  When all eight press openings were filled, a button was pushed, and the press closed on all of the sandwiches.  36 hours later, the sandwiches were removed, all extremely hot, by the same six workers.  Now, the workers had to remove the metal plates without burning themselves or damaging the veneer.  Heat and pressure had created a vacuum inside the veneer sandwiches, so when the plates were removed, the veneer would fly around and break, as it had become drier and more brittle.

This was the most expensive material used in the furniture and the plant was losing much of it in the course of the curing process.  It really bothered me, so one afternoon I decided to talk with the plant manager to see if there was something that could be done. 

Avis Tobin worked for Thomasville for many years.  He was short, very round, kept a cigar in his mouth at all times, and had the type of loud, gravelly voice that would frighten small children away.  I asked him if the “books” of burl veneer could be cured without separating them into single pieces.  He responded, “Son, you just don’t know anything about the veneer business. It can’t be done.  The veneer would stick together and we’d lose everything.”  I wasn’t satisfied with his answer, but it was the most he had ever said to me during my time in the plant.

Opportunity for Change

Six months later, Avis retired and was replaced by a younger plant manager named Bob Ashley.  Bob and I developed a strong working relationship over the next few months, as I was able to complete many projects he requested of me.  One day, while sitting in his office, I brought up my idea of curing the burl veneer in stacks, rather than pieces.  I thought there might be a better way to do it.  Bob thought a minute or two, looked intrigued, and placed a call to the veneer buyer at the plant.  “Do you have any contacts who cure veneer in the general area?” he asked.  The buyer had one in Beaufort North Carolina, which was about four hours from the plant in Thomasville, on the East coast of the state. 

Two weeks later, four of us, the plant manager, veneer buyer, truck driver, and me took a truck load of burl veneer to Beaufort to see if we could cure it without de-stacking it.   When we arrived at the plant, we saw a piece of equipment we had never seen before:  a combination hot press and cold press.  The Beaufort plant cured straight grain veneer in this combination press with two people, one loading a conveyer in front of the hot press, the other unloading a conveyer at the back end of the cold press.  The stacks of grain veneer would be conveyed into the hot press, pressed for a few minutes, conveyed out of the hot press to the cold press, pressed for a few more minutes, and then conveyed out of the press to the operator.

The stacks of straight grain veneer came out of the end fully cured, with no pieces sticking to each other.  Would our burl veneer do the same?  We were invited to put a few stacks of burl veneer into the combination press and try it out.  We did, and when the stacks came out the other end, most of the pieces of veneer were stuck to each other.   We were disappointed.   The operations manager for the plant said, “Oh, I forgot to change the heat and dwell time for the burl veneer.  It has more moisture in it, so I need to adjust the settings for that.”  After he made the change, we tried a few more stacks of burl.  Lo and behold, most of the veneer was cured and hadn’t stuck to any other pieces.  Approximately 20 percent was still stuck.

A Valuable Lesson

We decided that was all we needed to see.  We felt like we would be able to identify the settings required to eliminate the sticking completely.  We drove the four hours back to Thomasville with grand plans to change the way we would cure veneer forever.  I wrote an appropriation request for approximately $250,000 and bought Thomasville’s first combination cold and hot press.  Six months later, it was fully operational.  Manned by two operators, we found the proper settings cured burl veneer in one tenth the time of the prior process, with much less scrap and zero risk of being burned.  After that, I realized the only limitation to solving difficult problems was preconceived notions of what was possible.  If you are willing to take a risk, you may get a breakthrough.  I still use this thinking today, as I help Kaizen teams of all sizes and structures worldwide.

Shine a Light on the Problem

The Corporate Quality Manager of a suspended ceiling manufacturer had a problem. When he wanted to check for defects on ceiling tiles, he had them shipped from the manufacturing plant and installed in ceiling grid in the corporate testing facility. This 12’ x 24’ ceiling grid configuration was adjacent to a large bank of windows. He then waited for the weather to cooperate. You see, he wanted the proper angle of sunlight to shine across the face of the tiles, and depending on the time of year and weather conditions, he might have to wait weeks to assess the quality of the tiles. The windows were often obstructed with testing materials, which made access and viewing even more difficult.

The ceiling manufacturer was about to introduce a large quantity of new products and the installation setup would not be sufficient to check all the new products’ quality prior to product launch. A change had to be made. As Lean Champion for the company, my help was enlisted to solve the problem. After some initial discussions and a tour of the area, the Quality Manager and I agreed we needed to think differently about the setup and process of quality testing. We decided to use a Kaizen event to optimize the design of the required testing space.

We assembled a team of testing technicians, quality technicians, scientists, and marketing representatives to think through the testing requirements and systems to install. We also identified a space to use for the new quality testing area. After a few weeks of touring various buildings and negotiating for space, we chose two adjoining 20’ x 50’ spaces on the ground floor of the testing facility. These spaces were filled with equipment and materials from many years of testing and development. We were sure we would be able to remove most of it and re-purpose the space for the benefit of the company. Although these spaces were large, they had no windows to the outside, so we would have to figure out another way to provide proper lighting to the face of the ceiling tiles.

On the first day of the Kaizen, we reviewed Lean principles and spent extra time on 5S. Next, we took the team on a walk of the current testing area and then to the identified spaces. Their first reaction was surprise and disappointment. They thought we should use the existing space by the outside window and reorganize materials and tools.

Our goal was to be able to assess tiles for quality at any time, regardless of the weather. This goal forced us to rule out the current location for testing. In the new space, the clutter got in the way of the team’s vision of what was possible. So, we did the first S, “Sort”. During Sort, the team removed 90 percent of what was in the space. Some equipment, which had been purchased to provide critical data in years past, was no longer useful, and was removed. The team contacted as many of the equipment owners as possible, to ensure we wouldn’t throw out anything critical. Everything would be removed from the space, no matter what.

Once we cleared out the space, we developed our concept for testing. The idea was to create a number of testing spaces, or pods, in which to install and check various types of ceiling tiles. These tiles needed to be at least seven feet off of the floor, so that they could be observed from below as well as from the side, using some form of raking light. The light had to go across the painted face of the tile, so defects and inconsistencies would be readily apparent. The team agreed the size of each pod should be 12’ x 12’. This allowed us to create three pods in each 20’ x 50’ space, for a total of six. We now had three times the capacity of the existing testing space. But, how were we going to create the necessary lighting?

The first thing we had to do was to identify the intensity and angle of light we needed. Fortunately, we were able to do so on the second day of the Kaizen, as the sun came out and provided the necessary lighting required in the existing testing space. Using light meters and the experience of the team, we identified the proper number of lumens (intensity) and optimal angle for the light in the pods.

The next step was to build the ceiling grid configurations in the pods. We put together three installations of ceiling grid in one of the two rooms. Each was squared up and then ceiling tiles were installed. We made sure we had enough space on all sides of the installations, so we could view the tiles from any angle, without obstruction.

Now it was time to go shopping. We purchased enough lights for one of the pods, before committing to all six. We bought a number of different fluorescent lighting configurations (and kept the receipts) to allow us to test and identify the optimal configuration.

On the morning of the third day, we performed our first lighting tests in one of the pods. A technician climbed a scaffold and held one of the lights up to the ceiling tile installation. The team wasn’t pleased. They asked him to move the light a little further away and a little higher. Things started to look better. Then, after a slight adjustment in location and height, they felt they were getting the type of lighting required. Using light meters, they verified a consistent result compared with the natural light measured on day two. The team collected several measurements and developed plans to assemble permanent lighting fixtures for all pods.

Later in the day, the first lighting fixture was installed and the team verified their results. Everything was as expected. Then the team realized an opportunity to provide the same lighting at a 90-degree angle to the original light fixture. They would just need to install an additional fixture and connect it at right angles to the original fixture. This gave them additional inspection capability they never had before.

On the fourth day, the first pod was complete and plans were made to install the same lighting in the other five pods and to hard-wire everything to make it as safe and efficient as possible. Now the team had a new problem. With the extreme increase in productivity and complete elimination of wait time to test, everyone would want to use the pods at the same time.

The solution was to designate an owner for the area and a system to ensure the area was well-managed and organized. To reserve the use of a testing pod, a white board was installed to make reservations visible, by pod. If someone used a pod longer than the requested time, the area owner would follow-up and hold them accountable to honor their commitments.

At the report out, the team proudly reported on their results. They were able to take a process that used to take weeks and reduced it down to minutes. They also increased the capacity of the area by a factor of three. Anyone could now use the pods safely and productively and testing would no longer slow down any new product development or testing project. In the next six weeks, all lights and wiring were installed, and the space has been in continuous use for years.

The team learned how to shine a light on the problem and solve it creatively.

Little Things Mean A Lot

A global consumer goods manufacturer was experiencing high levels of downtime, jams, and long changeovers on a critical production line. They invited Process Improvement Partners to their plant to observe and discuss the problem and identify opportunities for improvement. After reviewing performance, we took a walk to the line. The line was running, and after a description of line components, it became apparent there were quick opportunities to improve performance of the line. The techniques we would use were quite basic: leveling, squaring, aligning, and centering of products with the process. It seemed so simple, and the customers were skeptical. We suggested a five-day Kaizen to improve line reliability, scheduled for January 2019.

Leading up to the Kaizen event, we had many discussions with line operators, mechanics, and engineers, and we made several confirming observations on the line. During a discussion with the Plant Manager, it became apparent he didn’t buy-in to the approach. He had used a process called “Center Lining” before, and had mixed results. In addition, it took weeks to accomplish. We assured him centering of the process would be completed on the first day of the Kaizen and then we would optimize all parts of the process around the center in the following days. He was still skeptical, but heard enough and saw our confidence, and gave final approval for the Kaizen to proceed.

In most Kaizen events, we provide a structure and approach to the team charged with solving a problem. We very rarely dictate specific actions to the team. In this case, the entire first day was controlled and team members were asked to follow very specific instructions before implementing their ideas.

After receiving training on the approach, the team walked to the production line. We reviewed safety requirements, shut down the line, and locked it out. The next step was to identify the center of the critical packaging process. This was the part of the line where everything comes together – the product and the package. We told the team everything leading up to the packaging process should be located and optimized to the center of the process. They didn’t think it would be very important, but were willing to learn and find the center of the line.

We located the center of the line at the midpoint of the conveyor frame on the out-feed side of the equipment and wrapped a string around that point. Then, stretching the string through the equipment, we found the center of the conveyors leading up to the equipment. A trained eye can keep the center precise within 1/32”, so we found what we believed to be center along approximately 100 feet of equipment and conveyor and pulled the string taut. Then, we marked the equipment and conveyor every 4 feet along its length to identify center for the process. Once complete, we noticed all product was coming into the equipment off center. The packaging was tracking off-center as well. That was the first time the skeptical team members saw something they weren’t expecting.

Our next step was to check the levelness of all of the conveyors leading up to and through the equipment. Ideally, all conveyors should be no more than 1/32” out of level at every transition (one section of conveyor to the next section) and side to side. Using a torpedo level and some shims, the team documented levelness of every section of conveyor. They found many of the conveyors were out of level by more than ¼” and some were out as much as ½”. The good news was this condition was easily corrected, and by the end of two hours, all conveyors were leveled throughout the process. The team was losing its skepticism as the products ran more consistently once we started the line back up. The first day ended with the team handing the line back over to the production organization.

The next morning, the team came in energized. They heard from the afternoon shift and overnight shift that the line had run smoothly overnight - much better than anyone had expected. We had four more days to improve things before the end of the Kaizen.

The next step was to optimize the location of the product with reference to the center of the process. Now that we had identified the center and leveled the line, this was easy. The challenge was to determine ways to ensure that our new settings would not change as soon as the Kaizen was over. The team was given the freedom to come up with ways to create and sustain the new settings. Using collars, pins, and labels, the team came up with ways to identify the proper locations for all of the different products running on the line. They also identified the product changeover steps (in the order to be followed) and labeled each part of the line with changeover steps that would need to be accomplished in proper sequence. These labels were made with large, bright green stock, so people wouldn’t miss them and forget a changeover step.

One problem the team identified was that the packaging wasn’t wrapping the product in a consistent manner. Upon further investigation, it was determined a top guiding roller was applying unequal pressure to the corrugated wrapper and the wrapper was shifting from side to side. One of the team members came up with a simple solution - tie all parts of the top guiding roller together to guarantee equal pressure across the wrapper. By doing this, the wrapper consistently met the product every time.

Improvements came fast and furious over the final days of the Kaizen, and by the last day, everyone noticed a significant improvement in line performance. The operators on the line thanked the team for correcting years of problems and even offered suggestions to make things better, which the team was able to incorporate into their work.

At the report out, team members remarked they were surprised how extremely small improvements impacted performance. They also realized these techniques could be taken to any other line in the factory. Once skeptics, they become zealots.

Where Is It?

In 2010, the company I used to work for decided to go Lean. They brought in consultants, who taught tools and techniques to employees all over the world. One tool I learned from them was 3P - Production Preparation Process. This technique maximizes creativity of a team by driving their thinking way beyond their comfort level.

Because I had extensive experience with Lean and had applied it for many years in my work, the consultants recognized my capability to facilitate and lead Kaizen events that were broad in scope and of high complexity. One consultant, who asked me to co-facilitate a 3P Kaizen, explained each step to me before and during the Kaizen. The team accomplished breakthrough results, but I didn’t fully understand how they got there. A few months later, I was asked to facilitate another 3P Kaizen, with a consultant as my co-facilitator. Once again, using the 11-step method of 3P, we were able to attain another breakthrough. Over the next two years, I used 3P a few more times and facilitated teams to breakthrough results. Something was bothering me, however. I still didn’t fully understand the meaning of the steps and why they were so powerful. I wanted to know more.

After some research, I discovered the inventor of the methodology was Chihiro Nakao, who ran a company called Shingijutsu. I also learned Shingijutsu was hosting a 3P seminar in 2013 and knew I had to go. Knowing it wouldn’t be an easy sell (costing over $6,000), I asked a higher-level manager to join me and convince our company there was immense value in attending. We were successful and made plans to attend the seminar in Muscatine, Iowa.

Shingijutsu’s World-wide 3P/Moonshine competition was a real-world problem-solving seminar hosted by Allsteel, a leading manufacturer of office furniture. Three teams of six were challenged to design, develop, and demonstrate a new chair and the process to produce it - all in one week. Each team had Allsteel members, as well as participants from outside companies. At the end of the week, our work would be judged by our “customers” and a winning chair design and manufacturing process would be selected. The prior year’s winning chair was being manufactured for the first time the week of the competition. This was going to be intense!

All of our movements before, during, and after each day’s efforts were controlled by Shingijutsu. We were picked up at the airport by them, taken to the hotel, met for breakfast, taken to the factory, and taken to dinner and back to the hotel at the end of each day. This kept us laser-focused and also provided the opportunity to get to know them during downtime each day.

On the morning of the first day of the competition, we were given an introduction to 3P and our mission for the week. We listened to expectations of the plant and our customers next. After that, we were split into three competing teams. Each team was assigned a Sensei to guide them through the process and a space to do their work. My team, made up of my co-worker, four workers from the plant, and me, was given a space above the factory floor, on a mezzanine. Our Sensei, Mike, was a retired Boeing employee, who had come out of retirement to join Shingijutsu at the behest of their founder, Sensei Nakao.

Mike quickly started the team on Steps 1 and 2 of the 11-step Nakao method, named after the inventor of 3P. In these steps, team members were challenged to understand the requirements of the customer at the deepest level. In my prior experience with 3P, I typically rushed through these steps, as they were difficult to explain to team members. Now, I realized these steps were foundational and there could be no shortcuts. The idea of 3P is to design the most waste-free product and process possible. If you don’t understand the essence of what the customer is asking for, you will design waste into the product and process. I was starting to understand – the struggle is important and teams should not be shortchanged of the experience. The day ended with my team finishing Step 2.

The next morning, we started on Steps 3 through 6. In these steps, we were challenged to think in new ways about how to solve the problem for the customer. Using nature as the model of efficiency, all of us had to come up with multiple ways nature does what we are being asked to do. Then, we were asked to sketch. This activates another part of the mind and brings out creativity. Next, we were asked to go even deeper into ways to solve the problem.

At this point, team members were engaged, enthusiastic, and excited. My team went to a meeting table to discuss how we would solve the problem. We got a bit loud and the discussion went back and forth. In less than 1 ½ minutes, Mike came over to our table and asked us what we were doing. We told him we were discussing the problem. He immediately stopped us and said to go out and find the solution, not discuss it at the table. I had never been shut down like that before, and I didn’t like it. I stood up and said, “We don’t even know what it is!” Mike said to go find it on Gemba (the real place, the place where the work is done). So, I did what any respectful student would do - I stormed off!

I went downstairs to the factory floor and started walking around the production lines. I was not happy. I didn’t know what I was looking for, but if that’s what Mike wanted, that’s what I was going to do. My mind was racing, I wasn’t focused, so I kept walking around without purpose. After about 20 minutes of walking aimlessly around the factory, I stopped at a production cell and decided to watch what they were doing. In three minutes, my mind started to relax and I was able to focus on what was going on. Ten minutes later, the activity in the work cell got me thinking about possible solutions to the problem we were trying to solve. Now I knew what Mike was trying to teach. The answer is not at a meeting table, it’s in Gemba. Open your mind and you will find the answer. Could it be that simple? The answer is yes!

I came back to the mezzanine, rejoined the other team members and was ready to solve the problem with them. My experience in Gemba reinforced how important it was to follow the 3P process fully, and not take shortcuts. The rest of the week took us through all 11 steps of the Nakao method and by the end of the week we had a new chair design and the manufacturing process to produce it at the required rate of customer demand.

Our team didn’t win the competition, but we all felt like winners. For me, it was mission accomplished. I learned 3P from the masters. I now had a better understanding of the meaning and purpose of all 11 steps. I also knew I shouldn’t shortcut any steps, they were all vital to the success of the process. But, most importantly, I learned the value of going to Gemba. All the answers are in Gemba. You just need to be willing to look for them.

A Tasty Breakthrough

A North American ceilings manufacturer was closing a plant that produced a product no other plant in the division could manufacture, due to specialized, but obsolete technology. They had a customer who was buying millions of square feet of this product annually. They knew they had to come up with an alternative the customer would approve of and keep buying after the old plant was closed.

The product had a heavy texture and was extremely durable and tough.  None of the remaining plants in the division had the capability to produce this particular visual with the same durability and the project team was at a loss to come up with an alternative. They decided to use a Lean technique called Production Preparation Process (3P).  They had very little experience with it, but the stakes were high and they were assured a breakthrough could be achieved by using it.

I was asked to facilitate the Kaizen event with help from a consultant and we would use 3P and its 11-step method to drive the creativity of the team to create, test, and develop the new product in a one-week timeframe. Needless to say, there were a lot of skeptical people in the room, including me.

The first few steps of the 3P are designed to remove all preconceived notions of what the solution should be and force the team to define the true essence of what the customer is asking for. Once done, the team identifies how nature is able to meet those customer requirements. This part of the process usually results in the relaxing of inhibitions and the start of laughter and opening of minds to what might be possible. For some teams, it is a true leap of faith that these steps will lead to something useful.

This team consisted of engineers, designers, scientists, and technicians. We had the use of all of the testing and development facilities for the company and any resource we needed was made available to us. Scientists and engineers are typically more analytical than they are free thinking. Once we got to nature, I saw the team was loosening up and they seemed willing to try something new.

Steps 6 and 7 of a 3P require the team members to come up with 7 ways of solving the problem and then trying them out in real time with available materials. This is called “Moonshining”. During Moonshining, the team members started using available materials in the testing and development facility to come up with new textures and strength properties. Nothing seemed to look like or act like what we wanted. A respected engineer with more than 35 years company experience told us he was going on a shopping trip to find what he needed. We all wondered what he would come back with.

After about an hour, he returned with many different things he bought at a local grocery store, including various cereals, cat litter, salt, and other granular materials. Curious to see what would happen next, we followed him to the testing facility and watched as he poured the various materials, mixed with adhesives, onto boards. Cat litter didn’t look right to him. Then he crushed it, and it still didn’t look right. Next was salt. No good either. Next came cornflakes. He decided to grind them up and poured them on the board. They looked promising. They had the visual texture similar to the customer’s wishes. With the right mixture of adhesives, they might be able to achieve the desired durability. About a dozen trials later, he was able to get a texture and durability the whole team liked.

The team knew it couldn’t use cornflakes in the finished product, but they now knew they could create the proper texture and durability. The rest of the 3P (steps 8 through 11) was spent developing a method to replicate the cornflake texture with materials that could be adhered to the board and painted over in the manufacturing process. At the end of the week, the team was able to provide the overall project team with a concept and method to achieve this new product in an existing manufacturing facility.

Just over a year later, the product was being manufactured in an existing facility, at a reduced cost with better properties than the original product that was manufactured in the closed facility. The customer continues to buy the product to this day, and has no idea that the inspiration for it was found at the grocery store.

Go See for Yourself – The Best Selling Tool There Is

In 2006, our Kaizen team was working on improving changeover time for a painting operation. After reviewing changeover reduction techniques with the team, we took a walk to the line to observe a changeover.

The team watched the paint technician clean the front of the paint booth with water for approximately 10 minutes. After that, he walked behind the booth for a few minutes and then came back to work on the front of the paint booth. None of the team members had followed him to see what he had been doing in the back of the booth.

After the changeover was complete, we asked the paint technician to demonstrate what he had been doing in the back of the paint booth. To our horror, he had to squeeze his body between a post and a wall, make his way to the paint tanks, stand on a natural gas line, twist his body, and reach above his head to open a valve on a paint tank. He told us, “This is the way it had always been done since the plant was opened [in 1990].”

A change was necessary, but the equipment had been installed this way and our small team would not be able to move equipment or automate valves in the short time we had during the Kaizen. We knew we had to sell the idea to the leadership team and identify safety and financial reasons for the change.

Luckily for us, each of the paint booths had some automation built in, so we wouldn’t have to install control systems from scratch. As a team, we decided that if we could automate the opening and closing of the valves on three paint tanks, we could eliminate the need for paint technicians to put themselves at risk while opening and closing the valves. We had an electrical engineer on the team, so while we worked on other aspects of the changeover time reduction, we asked him to develop engineering estimates for the valve automation.

Normally, engineers want to do research and build estimates with high levels of accuracy when they present their findings. But, in the spirit of Kaizen, he was willing to put together a cost estimate with an error of +/- 25% in a day. He came back with the cost estimate and we decided how we would sell our idea to the leadership team.

During the Kaizen, we worked on simplifying procedures, accessibility of tools, and the overall coordination of work by all technicians during the changeover. None of these things cost money, but they reduced the overall changeover time by more than 50 percent. We had accomplished our Kaizen objective.

On the day of the report out, we gave a tour of the new changeover procedure to the attendees. Our hope was to highlight the success of the team and the need for the automation. Eight leadership team members joined us for the report out. We began by thanking them for joining us and then explained the changes we had made. We then invited them to see the new changeover procedure.

We started in the front of the paint booth and demonstrated the simpler procedure.  Then, it was time to take them to the back of the booth to see what was actually happening. One by one, they ascended and descended the stairs that crossed over the line to get to the back of the booth. They squeezed past the post and wall one by one. One of the team members showed what was necessary to open and close valves. From the looks on the faces of the leadership team, they were unaware of what was happening in the back of the booth during changeovers. The operations manager said, “we need to automate these valves as our top priority.” Right on cue, our electrical engineer presented the cost estimate and got immediate approval.

Within three months of the Kaizen, the automated valves were installed and a 16-year problem was corrected. If someone had walked the line with the paint technicians when the plant was being built, this issue would have been avoided. The best way to understand what’s going on is to go see for yourself.

The Pursuit of Creativity

In my years of running Kaizen events, I never saw anything as powerful as a creativity approach called 3P – Production Preparation Process. The goal is to eliminate waste in the design of a new or existing process or product in the maximum way possible, unlocking the creativity of the team in ways most of them have not experienced. In 2016 I was fortunate enough to experience this approach through the eyes of the man who invented it, Chihiro Nakao. Sensei Nakao was a former Toyota employee who was sent out to help other companies at the behest of the originator of the Toyota Production System, Taiichi Ohno.

There are eleven steps to the approach, and although they may seem simple or counterintuitive on the surface, they are truly deep and complex and can lead to amazing breakthroughs. A short article will not do this justice, but perhaps it will motivate you to learn more about 3P.

A typical 3P Kaizen event takes 4 ½ days. They are long days, extremely engaging and exhausting, but at the end, the team will have a solution to an important problem that they are seeking. They will also have simulated their solution at a scale that will tell them whether or not it is truly viable.

Background – The team needs to understand certain key Lean principles and terms, such as Takt time, just in time, right sized equipment, and 5 whys prior to initiating the 11 steps of 3P. They also need to know how to use certain tools, such as the Standard Work Combination Sheet and the Fishbone Diagram.

Voice of the Customer – The team needs to hear directly from the customer to understand what is expected from them. There should be a direct exchange with the customer, so there can be no doubt about what is needed. Criteria for the solution is shared, so the team can measure their efforts against the criteria during the 3P.

Step 1 – Determine the Function of the Product or Transformational Step. As a first step, the team must identify what the customer would like them to accomplish in the simplest of terms. They will be challenged to describe this in two words, using a noun and a verb only. For example, a lightbulb does many things, but at its essence, it either “gives light” or “provides heat”. What is the product or process that the customer is most interested in? The team must avoid thinking about what is currently happening, but rather the bare essence of what the customer is willing to pay for, no more, no less.

Step 2 – Define the Essence of the Function Using Keywords. What words are the simplest way to describe what the customer is asking for? The team should generate as many key words as possible and then sketch them out on paper or sticky notes for everyone to see. The act of identifying the key words and sketching them is a way to drive the creativity of the participants forward. Some examples of key words are: drill, shear, guide, roll, and fasten.

Step 3 – Look for Examples of Keywords in Nature. In this step, team members do research and find examples in nature of the keywords. No examples should be man-made. Nature has used millions of years to perfect the simplest ways to accomplish tasks. Again, it is better to draw the examples than just list them. For example, if a key word is grip, then an example in nature could be an eagle’s talon gripping its prey. This step takes time and most team members will initially resist putting great effort into it, but with perseverance, they will make important discoveries about simple ways to perform complex tasks. Each team member should draw at least three examples, so that they expand their thinking beyond what they already know.

Step 4 – Sketch Examples and Examine “What is Happening” to Enable the Function. This next step is to examine in greater detail what allows nature to accomplish the keywords. What causes an eagle’s talon to grip its prey? Team members attempt to attain a greater understanding of the mechanism that is being utilized by nature through research and drawing. More examples are encouraged, as team members dig deep into their understanding and creativity.

Step 5 – Sketch Background and Conditions of the Function. This step takes a deeper dive at the function and the surrounding conditions that allow the function to occur in nature. More than just the eagle’s talon gripping the prey, what is happening with the muscles and nerves in the talon that allow it to grip? What interactions are occurring, and how are they able to do so?

Step 6 – Combine Ideas from Nature and Create Sketches. Each team member is challenged to come up with at least seven ways of solving the original problem using what they have learned from nature and other ideas that they may have. People generally have three alternatives in mind, so getting to seven causes them to think beyond their normal approach and have a bit of fun. It is not unusual to hear laughter during this step as people start to relax their creative minds and let go of their paradigms of what is possible.

Step 7 – Rapid Prototyping (Moonshine). This is the step that brings everything together and turns the ideas into reality. By reviewing, grouping, and prioritizing all of the many ideas shared across the team, the team picks two or three ideas to build. The team should break up into sub-teams so that each idea can be worked on simultaneously. The team is encouraged to use any materials available to them to demonstrate their concepts. The team assesses their prototypes against customer criteria and the
Seven Flows: Flow of People, Flow of Material, Flow of Parts, Flow of Products, Flow of Equipment, Flow of Information, and Flow of Engineering. They learn and improve as they go and are expected to make multiple iterations as they build. This build should be in three dimensions, so it is critical to have enough space and materials for team members to work. The term “Moonshine” refers to the historical practice of building stills in the woods by the light of the moon during Prohibition and using any available materials.

Step 8 – Conduct Trials and Gather Real Data. After building prototypes, they must be tested. Data is collected and compared to the customer criteria. As the comparisons are made, improvements are identified but not yet implemented. Often, the team identifies a better way to approach the problem and plans out the improvements for the next round of prototyping and moonshining.

Step 9 – Select the Three Best Designs Based on Criteria. During all of the prototyping and moonshining, it is not unusual to create variations on the original ideas and have many options to choose from. In this step, the team uses the original customer criteria to score all options and narrow down to three best designs to continue working on.

Step 10 – Continue Simulating and Gather and Evaluate Data on the Top Three Proposals. The team continues to do work on their proposals, learning about them, simulating them, and improving them. Any problems that occur are fixed on the spot, with as little discussion as possible. The act of building rather than discussing expands the creative process. At some point in this step, time will run out, so the team should set a target time to get all information and simulate how their idea will work.

Step 11 – Presentation of Solutions. The team demonstrates to the customer how each option works and shares the data and criteria evaluation. It is similar to a high school science fair, in that the customer acts like the judge and delivers constructive criticism and asks deep questions to the team. Rather than a Power Point presentation, this is a demonstration in 3D, with physical activity, so it’s easier to understand what the team is presenting.

The 3P approach is a highly engaging way to drive breakthrough creativity in teams that have the opportunity to participate. It has been shown to save precious project time and drive cost out of the finished product or process. Some teams saved 6 months in their Innovation cycle time by using 3P. Other teams have said that using 3P revealed viable options that they would never have pursued otherwise. I encourage you to consider this approach and learn more about it.

A Simple Way to Think about a Problem You Want to Solve

Many years ago, I was having difficulty getting my mind straight about a problem that I wanted to solve. A co-worker of mine introduced me to a thing he called a “Task Cycle”. Once I understood it, I had a simple way to go about solving problems and executing tasks.

The Task Cycle was developed in the early 1990’s by Paul Boulian and revised by Marlyn Rabenold eight years later. I had the good fortune of meeting Marlyn and was amazed at the simplicity of thinking that can be used to help solve the most complex problems. Now, I want to share it with you.

The Task Cycle has 4 components: Purpose, Products, Process, and Functional Capabilities. It is truly a cycle and can be visualized in this way:

When you are planning a task (or planning to solve a problem), you follow the cycle counter-clockwise, from Purpose to Products, Process, and then Functional Capabilities. When Executing a task, you follow the cycle clockwise and start at the Functional Capabilities and end at Purpose.

Purpose

This is the reason that we are trying to do something, or the problem that we are trying to solve. That seems simple, and it is, but building a clear purpose statement is critical, and should not be taken lightly. As is said, the first step in solving a problem is know that you have one in the first place. When building a clear Purpose statement, consider and communicate why you want to do something, as much or more than what the specific task is. Consider these components of the Purpose statement with this recommended format:

“TO” – describe the task to be done or the problem to be solved

“IN A WAY THAT” – describe the benefit to be realized by the accomplishment of the task. Think in terms of the customer of the task.

“SO THAT” – describe the impact or result the task will have on the organization

Using the experience of writing this article, here’s an example of a Purpose statement:

To write a description of the Task Cycle, in a way that:

-          Exposes the reader to a new way of thinking about a task

-          Provides a simple construct for dealing with a complex problem or effort

-          Engages the reader’s interest

So that this knowledge will help readers in their efforts to solve problems in the future.

Clarity of purpose helps us gain alignment and support from those who will either help us with our task or those who have assigned the task to us.

Now that Purpose has been established, it’s time to move on to Products.

Products

Products are the output or results that we are trying to create when we accomplish the task or solve the problem. A good question to ask is, “If we accomplish the task or solve the problem, what would we see or know that reinforces that the task is complete or the problem is solved?” We aren’t always looking for a physical product, but also non-physical or virtual products. These can be timing, a new way of doing things, or other similar results. Products of the prior example could be:

1.       Ten or more responses or inquiries about the article

2.       Three shares of the article

3.       A phone call to discuss more in detail about the article

Now that the Purpose and Products have been identified, it’s time to move on to Process.

Process

How are we going to get the products that tell us that we have achieved our purpose? What is the methodology or approach that we will use to do this? We can now design a process to specifically accomplish the purpose and deliver the products as stated. Whether we use existing tools and methodologies that we are familiar with, or do research and ask others for their input, we can now test our thinking and approach and see if it delivers the desired results. We want to think through the series of steps and actions that we will take in order to get where we want to go. Because we are clear on purpose and products, we can now design process in a way that has the least amount of effort and waste associated with it.

For the prior example, the process being used is to research the original thinking and documentation on the Task Cycle, consider my personal experiences with it, and try to describe it in a way that the reader can utilize practically. Time will tell if my process was properly thought out.

Functional Capabilities

Do you need people to help you accomplish your task or solve the problem? Do you need tools for this? Are there skills that need to be acquired? What else do you need to solve the problem or complete the task? These are the questions that should be answered in order to identify the functional capabilities needed.

When all four components of the Task Cycle are put together, they should be the foundation for the effort. You should share your thinking with others to see if you have missed any vital elements, always improving as you go. You might even need funding, and that is why it is critical to have alignment around your task cycle.

Earlier in the article, I stated that when you are executing a task or solving a problem, you now go through the task cycle in the opposite direction. What I mean is that you use the functional capabilities to follow the process, which delivers the products and ultimately achieves the purpose.

Although this is not new thinking, I believe that many have forgotten about the Task Cycle and are missing out on this simple way of solving problems and accomplishing critical tasks. I will be interested to see if I accomplished my task in providing you with information that you can use. Your feedback will let me know if I have done so.

What Happens in a Cost Reduction Session?

Most companies want to reduce costs in their operations. There are many ways to do this. Some companies choose to reduce their workforce, others decide to sell off under performing businesses. Companies that use this approach are just avoiding the problems and inefficiencies of their business practices and are not targeting the root cause of their problems.

At Process Improvement Partners LLC, we believe that the best way to reduce cost is to optimize your business to the benefit of your customers. Using that premise, we have developed an approach to leverage your team’s creativity to drive waste and inefficiencies out of your process, thereby reducing cost. In a 2 to 4-day session, teams will identify and build plans to take millions of dollars out of their operating costs, often greatly exceeding their cost reduction targets. The following summarizes how this can be accomplished.

Create Leadership Alignment

The first step in the process is to meet with Operations Leadership to gain their alignment and support for the approach that is being recommended. They have to stand by it, show their support for it, and supply dedicated resources that will participate fully in the cost reduction session(s). They should communicate with all potential participants and their managers well in advance, showing their support for the effort.

Event Preparation

Once Leadership is aligned, the event is scoped out, with a clear problem statement and objectives. When the scope of the event is known, we then plan the amount of time necessary for the team to achieve their cost reduction goal. Critical team members are identified who can help meet the goal, and then the event can be scheduled. All facilities should be reserved well in advance of the event, as meeting rooms come at a premium in most companies. There should be adequate space to move around and enough wall space to display information and ideas on. Typical supplies include flip chart easels, flip chart paper, sticky notes, pens, and a way to project presentations and information.

Session Kickoff

On the first morning of the session, an executive sponsor or key member of the leadership team kicks off the session, reinforcing the importance of the session and the targeted cost reduction that is to be realized. The sponsor should encourage team members to be as creative as possible and not limited by what has or has not worked in the past. It is not unusual for team members to be skeptical that their efforts will not be implemented, so the sponsor should meet that skepticism head on.

Voice of the Customer

Those who will be impacted by any cost reduction efforts must share what is most important to them and their customers. Often, Marketing will represent the customer’s interests, but other areas can do this as well, such as Operations, Research and Development, Sales, and Distribution. Some companies will bring in direct customers and this can be quite powerful. In the end, the team cannot and should not implement any cost reduction ideas that will negatively impact the customer. But, in some sessions that Process Improvement Partners has facilitated, cost reduction ideas created a positive customer experience.

Ideation

This is a free-wheeling exercise. In the early stages of ideation, it is more important to get as many ideas out as possible, regardless of their likelihood of success. Many team members will come to the session with ideas to share, so let’s get them all out on the table. When the team starts running out of ideas to share, facilitators will suggest topics and ask questions to encourage more ideas from the group.

Prioritization

Now that all of the ideas have been shared, the team needs to prioritize the ones that will make the most positive impact on cost, without negatively impacting the customer. There are many ways to do this, but we have used these in most sessions: Group rotation and review of all ideas, grouping of similar ideas, multi-voting with criteria, and a 9-block Impact/Difficulty matrix. The goal is to take literally hundreds of potential cost reduction opportunities and narrow them down to 20 to 30 of the best ones for the team to work on.

Concept Shaping

The team is divided into small groups of 3 or 4 people and asked to build more detail on the top priority cost reduction ideas. A focused, one-page concept sheet template is given to all team members, and they are required to answer all of the questions to the best of their ability. There isn’t a lot of time available, so team members are told that they should take one hour per concept. If they need additional information, they may phone a friend, or make their best educated guess. In all cases, they are encouraged to list their assumptions, so that others will understand their thought process. All concepts are audited for completeness and listing of assumptions, with the view that others who may not have been in the room may be assigned the project later on and must understand the initial thinking behind the cost reduction idea.

Managing System Development

Some teams work on the way that they will manage the cost reduction efforts after the session is over. This can include project communication, resource assignment, project visualization and management, and regular meetings to review status. Other teams just hand off their efforts to the session leader to take the work forward. In all cases, the results of the session should be communicated back to the sponsor and other stakeholders.

Reducing costs in your operation doesn’t have to be difficult or painful. When using people’s creativity and engagement and focusing on ideas that will benefit the customer, opportunities become apparent and a path to realize those opportunities can be identified. Then, everybody wins.

The 8 Deadly Wastes

The customer defines value for any product or service.  If they aren’t willing to pay for something, it has no value to them. In the terminology of Lean, anything that doesn’t directly provide value to the customer is called “waste”. Further, there are eight specific types of waste. Once you know what they are, you can begin to spot them, and then work diligently to reduce or eliminate them. If you do, the customer experience will be improved and so will your operating results.

These are the eight deadly wastes:

Transportation
The movement of anything from place to place is considered waste, because it adds no value to the product or service being provided. It only adds time, and the potential for loss or damage. It may seem necessary to move things around in a process – putting things in trucks, putting things away on shelves, sending electronic data from one server to the next, but there is no change to the form or function of the thing being produced. The question to ask is, “how can we reduce or eliminate transportation in the process?”

Inventory
Ideally, the only product you should produce is the product that your customer wants; no more, no less.  More production creates inventory. Less production creates a shortage. The risk of having too much inventory is that it may spoil, become obsolete, or never leave the shelf. Think about computer chips. Once the new version of computer chip comes out, who is buying the older version? Typically, nobody, or if they do, they are receiving a sizable discount.  Another problem with inventory is that the thing you need may get lost behind the thing you don’t need. So, you end up producing more inventory that can hide the next thing, and the cycle continues.

Motion
This waste addresses the effort required to complete a task. If you must reach over your head, or grab something from the ground, you are using extra motion. If you must go away from your area to track something down and retrieve something, you are using extra motion. Ergonomics, which is the study of people’s efficiency in their work environment, is a method to identify and reduce excess motion.

Waiting
Time lost while waiting for an answer, a return email, an earlier process step, booting up your computer, or general waiting around is considered waste. It can be frustrating, time consuming and adds to the overall time in the process, which delays delivery to the customer. The key is to find the things that force you to wait and strive to eliminate them. Empowering people to make decisions is a quick way to drive waiting time down.

Overproduction
Have you ever noticed people who print out every email that they receive? This is an example of overproduction. How about a production line that is running really well and the managers want to keep things running? While the current product gets produced, the next product waits. There is a risk there will be a shortage of the raw materials to make the next product, or that there will be a delay in shipping the next product to the customer.

Overprocessing
This waste refers to the complexity in the process. If there are more steps than needed, or if the product or service is delivering beyond the requirements of the customer, this can be thought of as overprocessing. In the 1930’s, there was a cartoonist named Rube Goldberg, who devised the most complex ways of completing simple tasks. It was entertaining and creative, but not the ideal way of accomplishing work.

Defects
When the product or service doesn’t deliver to the required level of quality, this is considered a defect. When something has to be reworked, this is considered a defect. Many companies try to instill a culture of “Doing it right the first time.” They want to ensure that each process step will continue adding value to the benefit of the customer.

Unused Employee Creativity
The people who do the work generally have ideas to make their work simpler and safer. The best companies listen to their employees to get improvement ideas. Other companies think they know all of the answers and ignore suggestions by their employees. We don’t want people to shut their minds off when they come through the door, or we will be responsible for the worst waste of all.

In order to reduce or eliminate waste, you must be able to identify it. These eight wastes are easy to find in any process, if you are willing to look. If you make it a habit to reduce or eliminate these wastes, your customers will benefit. If your customers benefit, so will you.

Value Stream Mapping: The First Step on Your Continuous Improvement Journey

You can’t reach your destination if you don’t know how to get there. Maps, or in our technology-driven world, GPS systems, are critical resources for guiding you from point A to B. The same is true for your continuous improvement journey. Unlike your GPS, however, you must build your map through learning. The best way to build it is with Value Stream Mapping.

Value Stream Mapping views everything from the eyes of the customer. Anything that the customer would not pay for is considered Non-Value Added and is waste. The key to Value Stream Mapping is to see the waste in the current process and then develop strategies to remove as much waste as possible, delivering maximum value for the customer.

There are the 8 key components of Value Stream Mapping:

Identify the Value Stream to Map
What is the family of products or services that the customer is willing to pay for? Often, companies will pick a product or service that represents a significant portion of their overall demand or represents most of the process steps. It is better to pick a simpler process the first time Value Stream Mapping is attempted, increasing the complexity of processes to map as experience grows.

Build the Team
The members of the team are critical, as they will learn together and become supporters of the work going forward. The team should be diverse, comprised of people in the process, people who manage the process, customers of the process, and suppliers to the process. It can be beneficial to add a few team members who have no relationship with the process, as they provide “outsider” thinking and can challenge the team during the session.

Voice of the Customer
What is most important to the customer, from their point of view? Often, companies will engage Sales and/or Marketing to represent the customer, based on interactions they have had while dealing directly with customers. It is more powerful to invite direct customers to these sessions, but it can also be risky, as they will see some of the waste or inefficiencies in the current process. Most customers appreciate the opportunity to participate in these sessions, and the rewards far outweigh the risks.

Walk the Current State Value Stream
This is typically the most “eye-opening” part of Value Stream Mapping. The team should leave the meeting room and physically walk the process from the last step to the first. If they are mapping a physical product transformation, the team starts at the shipping dock, and then works their way back to the receiving dock. Start with the customer and what they are expecting to be delivered, then work your way back to the beginning of the process. All the while, the team is looking for waste and inefficiencies. They should be taking notes, pictures, and engaging with each other and others working in the process to fully understand what is going on and why things are working or not working as expected. If the process is virtual, the team should be demonstrating the steps of the process as they occur. Do not discuss the process in a meeting room. Go see what’s actually happening. 

Gather data for the Current State Value Stream
How long does each process take? How many resources are needed for each step? How much inventory or waiting occurs at each step? How is information communicated to each step? How long does it take to change from one product or service to the next? How much space is required by each step? There is so much data that can be gathered, that you have to be careful not to do too much and miss the simplest and most impactful opportunities in the Current State.

Map the Current State Value Stream
Once the team returns to the meeting room, they map out all steps and interactions between steps of the process. This is a team activity, so don’t let just one person do all of the work. Each team member can take a pack of sticky notes and write down steps, placing them in order on a wall or something similar. Next, the team should measure the total time it takes for the product or service to get through the Value Stream, measuring the value-added time, non-value-added time, and lead time. Don’t use a computer, this is a visual activity, and most “A-ha” moments occur while placing steps on a wall and seeing how inefficient the current process is. Don’t be surprised if less than 10% of the time is value-added. In many manufacturing plants, that number drops below 1%. One key point is to map the process as it is, not how you want it to be.

Build the Future State Map
The team develops a vision of what they want the process to be in the future, for the benefit of the customer. By seeing the waste and inefficiencies in the Current State Map, the team imagines what the process would look like if they minimized or eliminated non-value-added steps, inefficiencies, defects, safety issues, and other waste in the current process. After the map is created, the team recalculates the value-added time, non-value-added time, and lead time in the future state. It is not unusual to drop the overall lead time to the customer by 50% or more. It’s also not unusual to identify quick, simple activities to accomplish this lead time reduction.

Create a Plan to Achieve the Future State
The team builds a roadmap of activities and strategies to make the changes required to drive to the Future State. These activities are typically low-cost and quick to implement, but some activities require an entirely new way of leading and managing the process. The team develops the action plan, with owners, due dates, and the managing systems to ensure that the work gets done.

A typical Value Stream mapping session takes between 3 and 4 days. When it’s over, everyone knows their new destination and how they intend to get there. Now, leadership has identified what is necessary to take the journey. Just like any journey, you must take the first step. Value Stream mapping is that first step.

How to Drive Teams to Success with Effective Facilitation

The best facilitators look like they’re doing nothing at all. The team is driving toward a solution, being creative, working together, and having fun. What’s the facilitator doing, just taking credit for the team’s hard work? As it turns out, the easier it looks, the harder it is. But, if you use these techniques, you have a chance to look like you’re doing nothing, and doing it really well!

1. Stick to the charter.
This is the reason the team got together in the first place. Make sure all activities are conducted within the scope of the charter. It’s very easy to get off-track, or work on things that aren’t explicitly in the charter. The team should be reminded and guided back to the charter.  An easy way to do this is to share a copy of the charter with every team member and have them read and discuss it at the appropriate time(s). They should be able to recognize if they are veering away from the charter.

2. The team solves the problem, the facilitator guides them to the solution.
Keep the roles separate, as the team will sometimes want the facilitator to give them the solution. This is not a good idea, as the team must own the solution and will not if they didn’t come up with it. The facilitator is responsible to come up with a solution path for the team, not the actual solution. There are times when a facilitator may have to provide direct help, but this should be rare, and only used as a last resort.

3. Everyone participates with an equal voice.
It’s very easy for some team members to dominate conversations, but in doing so, other team members may not have an opportunity to share their ideas. When this happens, there is no true consensus or full support for the solutions developed. Great care must be taken to give every team member an equal voice. One technique to do this is to give everyone a pack of sticky notes and let them write their ideas down, one per sticky note. Then, they share one idea at a time, one person at a time. Place each sticky note on a flip chart for everyone to see. Be careful not to let a team member share more than one idea before another team member gets a chance to share.

4. Keep the team moving.
I mean this both mentally and physically. If team members sit in one place too long or spend too much time on one topic, they will get bored, disengaged, and lose momentum. Get the team members out of their chairs, moving around the room, or out of the room. Break up activities into small chunks, so that there isn’t a chance for complacency or boredom. This tests the facilitator’s creativity, but it is vital for positive momentum and progress.

5. Time is precious. Break down barriers to progress.
Sometimes the team is looking for an answer and the expert is not in the room. A good facilitator will challenge the team to get the answer from someone else, in a different way, or by some quick estimate. In extreme cases, the facilitator will encourage the team to interrupt a meeting to get the answer they need. In even more extreme cases, the facilitator will get the answer for the team by interrupting a meeting or going to a higher-level leader for an answer.

6. The more ideas the better.
When a team is thinking up ideas and alternatives, their first ideas are typically things they are most comfortable with or don’t challenge them. Facilitators should drive the team to think of things that haven’t been tried before. The first step this is to ask team members for more ideas. Most people can come with 3 alternatives for almost anything. Ask for 7 in this case. If the team has stopped writing ideas, ask questions in as many different ways as possible, pulling more ideas out of the team. When we challenge ourselves, we are more often able to deliver breakthroughs.

7. Don’t let best get in the way of better.
We want teams to make improvements. Sometimes team members want things to be perfect before trying their solutions. The problem with this is that nothing is perfect and if we wait to have everything perfect, we will never test our improvement(s). So, the facilitator should encourage team members to try their ideas out before they are fully designed. It’s perfectly acceptable to make mistakes, as long as we learn from them and improve upon them. I tell teams to shoot for 60% confidence. It gives them more opportunities to try things quickly.

8. Use frequent check-ins of progress.
Once team members start working on their improvement projects, it’s easy to assume everything is going as planned and issues are addressed when they arise. However, that’s often far from the case. Team members often get stuck and struggle on their own until time runs out, if left to their own devices. Frequently connect with the team to check on their progress and determine any areas needed support. I have found that 1 ½ hours is about the maximum amount of time that team members should work independently before coming back together to share their progress. This is also a way to integrate efforts of different team members and eliminate duplication of efforts.

9. Teams that are having fun will accomplish more.
People like to win, laugh, have fun, and share in success. As a facilitator, you should be looking for ways to help the team win. Find activities that will make their time spent together engaging and fun. You may even need to develop team activities that help them work together better. 

10. Less you, more them.
The reason the team was brought together was to solve a problem. If you had the answer to the problem, you wouldn’t need a team in the first place. A good facilitator will encourage as much participation from the team as possible by asking probing questions and creating a participatory atmosphere. Once the questions are asked, you must allow the team answer to them, not you. Often, they will want an answer from the facilitator, but you must resist the temptation. This is their effort, not the facilitator’s, so it’s best to let them struggle through hard questions.

These 10 facilitation techniques take practice, but they will help you get the best out of the teams you are working with. Take pride in knowing your teams solved their problems and it appeared you did nothing at all to help them!