Call 911

In 2005, a ceilings manufacturing plant on the West Coast was experiencing high downtime rates. I was asked to come to the plant and run a Kaizen event to reduce the impact of downtime on the plant.

I was given a small team consisting of four production technicians, two mechanics, one electrician, one engineer, and one supervisor. Our mission wasn’t to solve the specific mechanical or electrical downtime problems, but rather to understand why the response to and recovery from downtime took so long. This was a new concept for the plant and for me, but we felt we were up to the challenge.

On the first day, after getting to know everyone and aligning around our mission for the week, I trained the team in Lean principles. After the training, we decided to walk out to the shop floor and gather feedback from technicians, mechanics, electricians, engineers, and others impacted and frustrated by the downtime in the plant. Almost to a person they told us they felt there was a basic training issue related to the skills of the mechanics and electricians that serviced the lines and didn’t understand why the plant didn’t invest more time and training in their people.

Not satisfied with this and knowing we wouldn’t be able to train all mechanics and electricians during the week; I knew we had to look for other issues we could impact. Back in the meeting room, the team discussed other reasons they thought downtime was so high. After a while, it became apparent we were just finger-pointing and guessing. So, I proposed an experiment. I suggested we stage a downtime event and then observe it from all angles. We would observe the technician making the call for help, the mechanic taking the call for help and others who were involved with the downtime event. Three team members went to the maintenance shop, two went to the supervisor office, and the rest of the team stationed themselves at the point where the downtime would be staged.

One hour later, with everyone in position and the crew aware of our experiment, we staged our downtime event, which was designed to be an electrical fault in one of the paint dryers. After a few minutes of trying to correct things, the production technician made a call to the maintenance shop to tell them about the downtime event. Five minutes later a mechanic and electrician came out to the line. They looked a bit bewildered. The technician that called them wasn’t around, he had gone to the breakroom. It was hard not helping the situation get resolved, but we were observers and had to let things play out naturally.

Ten minutes later, the technician came back and told the mechanic and electrician about the downtime issue. They realized they didn’t have the tools they needed and went back to the shop. Minutes later, they returned and found the technician, who directed them to the location of the downtime. They were on the wrong side of the line, so they carried their tools over a series of steps in order to get to the area to be worked on. They looked annoyed.

About five minutes later, the line was back up and running. The team went back to the meeting room to assess the full downtime event. It turns out that the line was down for more than thirty minutes, of which five minutes was the actual repair and restart of the line. Twenty-five minutes was wasted effort, waiting, and frustration. After a review of Lean principles and much heated discussion, the team came up with a solution to improve the effectiveness of downtime response and recovery. In essence, they crafted three questions to be asked and answered at the time of any downtime incident. They were:

1.       Who am I speaking with?

2.       What is the downtime issue?

3.       What is the exact location of the issue?

The team realized they were essentially creating a script, much like those used by dispatchers during 911 calls. By answering these three questions first, they could reduce the efforts and frustration of the maintenance team by helping them identify the tools and skills they would need, direct location to go to and who their point of contact was. The team also agreed the person making the call shouldn’t leave the area until the maintenance team arrived.

Knowing that they were creating a new way of doing things in the plant, they decided to make it easy for everyone to use. They posted signs at every phone on the manufacturing line in the plant and also in the maintenance shop and engineering offices. They also trained the crews and management and demonstrated how downtime calls should look.

Over the next few weeks, team members were assigned to different locations and helped out any time a downtime event occurred, ensuring the three questions were asked and answered. It took a while, but eventually it became a habit in the plant. Not coincidentally, downtime and general frustration were reduced. The simple communication not only improved productivity but also teamwork between the production and maintenance departments.

Go to Gemba, Even If You Don’t Want To

In 2019, I was asked to facilitate the annual Value Stream Mapping (strategic planning) event for a leading consumer brands manufacturer at their facility in Central Pennsylvania. I had facilitated their event the prior year and it was our intent to build on the prior results and drive their continuous improvement culture forward during the event.

The culture of the plant was such that I didn’t get direct feedback from the plant manager, but received it indirectly through the technical manager. There was a strong bond between the two of them, and even though the plant manager appreciated the results I was able to generate and my flexibility to work under challenging circumstances, he generally didn’t directly communicate with me. One reason for this may be that I am a story teller and tend to ramble a bit (surprise), and he liked getting directly to the point.

I was asked to facilitate in a way that would increase the engagement of the production and maintenance technicians and also drive the team to Gemba (the place where the work is done). Working with the technical manager, we identified the team members and activities that would accomplish both requests. On the first day of the Value Stream Mapping event, team members at all levels were engaging in the discussion of issues in the factory and were extremely active during the Gemba walk tour of the factory. Every time an issue was brought up, I made sure we were able to see the actual situation, rather than talking about it. The plant manager even made a point of going to Gemba as much as possible. He spoke about it in his opening remarks and reinforced the idea throughout the day.

On the second day of the event, after mapping the total Value Stream, identifying pain points, and brainstorming improvements, the team prioritized the work they thought would drive the performance and safety to better levels in the coming years. The full team was divided into smaller groups to develop solutions to the highest value problems. The plant manager was assigned to a team consisting of two production technicians and one engineer and they were working on an issue that was causing significant problems on the factory floor.

Sitting at a table in the meeting room, they spent a few minutes talking about the problem they were trying to solve and then got some paper and a pair of scissors and started cutting out various shapes and sizes of paper. I kept an eye on what was going on for a while, but then rotated through other groups to make sure everyone was making progress on their assignments. After fifteen minutes, I returned to the plant manager’s team to see what they were up to. I noticed the plant manager and engineer were moving papers around on the table to simulate the layout of the area in the factory they were concerned with. It appeared the two production technicians weren’t involved in the discussion and they looked distracted by their phones and not engaged in what was happening.

I have never been shy and realized I needed to do something. I said, “What are you all working on at the moment?” The plant manager told me, “Adam, we’re trying to understand the current layout so that we can come up with alternatives to improve the situation.” To that I said, “Have you considered going to Gemba to verify your assumptions? How do you know there’s not a post or another obstruction you may not be aware of in the meeting room?” It looked like the plant manager wanted to say something that wouldn’t have been very nice, but instead he appeared to swallow his pride and took his team out to the factory.

A few minutes later, the technical manager came up to me with a wry smile. He told me, “Adam, you sure got the plant manager’s attention. He took me aside and, in his office, told me, “That darn Adam kicked me out of the meeting room and made me go to Gemba!” I said the first thing that came to my mind, “Am I fired?” “No, of course not,” he told me, “I’m glad you did that! He needs to demonstrate the same behavior he was encouraging in the rest of the team.” After a sigh of relief, I said, “He took it well. I could see he was holding his feelings back. But he did the right thing and went to Gemba.” I still wondered what, if anything their team would learn from the experience.

When the team returned, I noticed all four members were extremely engaged and working at the table with newfound energy. Watching from a few feet away, it was apparent that they found something on the factory floor that they had overlooked in the meeting room and it was helping them develop a better solution they all could support. Eventually the plant manager admitted to me he should have known to go to Gemba first before trying to solve the problem in the meeting room. I was glad to hear it and throughout the rest of the event “Go to Gemba” became the rallying cry for all team members.

Trust, but Verify

In 2005, I was asked to be part of a team to help Armstrong’s Mobile Alabama ceiling tile plant improve their performance.  Production output had steadily declined over the first few months of the year, and they were well behind budget.  The team was tasked with identifying and implementing improvements to the operation that would drive performance back to budget for the full year. The team leader called the effort a “Full Court Press”, meaning we would not give up until we accomplished our mission.

The Mobile plant had one board forming line and two fabrication and packaging lines. The board forming line was clearly not the problem, as the quality, productivity, and safety were well above budgeted performance. The fabrication and packaging lines were where the losses were occurring, so we agreed to focus our efforts there.

On our first day at Mobile, we attended the morning production meeting. We introduced the team to the staff and reviewed performance. The plant staff members were open to our help, but weren’t sure what we would be able to deliver in a short time. We assured the staff we would do our best and coordinate any efforts through them. Once the meeting ended, we took a tour of the fabrication department. During this tour, we observed many problems and spoke with operators, mechanics, and other staff to get feedback and ideas. Many were disappointed with the performance and hoped we would be able to help them turn things around.

Each of our team members had a specialty. One was interested in the programming used to control the equipment, another was fascinated by the coordination of materials and resources. My area of expertise was flow of materials through the production line. During the tour, I noticed many line-stops and jams. I knew I could provide help.

With the agreement of our team leader, another team member and I took a detailed look at one of the main fabrication lines. This line was led by a technician named Walter. Walter was extremely interested in what we were doing, and asked if he could tour the line with us. We were happy to have him along, as he introduced us to all of the crew members and lent credibility to our efforts. He also appreciated our approach of watching the line carefully to identify the causes of the line-stops and jams.

Something Isn’t Hitting Right

On our tour, we stopped at the punch press to watch its operation. Something didn’t look right to me. The press creates holes in the ceiling tiles which allow air and sound to enter the tile. It’s critical for the ceiling tile to enter and exit the press squarely and centered. Following the press, there’s a gate that stops the tile while the press completes its work. If the tile is angled, the edge of the tile gets damaged when it hits the gate. As I watched the tiles enter and exit the press, I noticed they weren’t exiting the press squarely and hitting the stop-gate at an angle.

I asked the press operator if he was concerned about the tiles hitting the stop gate at an angle. He told us he thought any damage would be cut out later down the line. It looked to me as though the amount of damage wouldn’t cut out completely, but the operator was convinced otherwise. I made notes of what I had seen, and we continued our tour.

Following the press, tiles were being painted and then cut to final size. After the cutting station, tiles went through an inspection station, where two operators were visually checking the quality of each and every one. While we were there, the inspectors were rejecting one-third of the tiles they were inspecting. There was so much scrap being generated they were having a hard time keeping up and had to stop the line many times.

During one line-stop we asked the inspectors what they were seeing. They showed us the broken edges of the tiles. The edges had cracks down the length of the tiles at an angle. They looked just like the angle of the press stop-gate we had seen earlier. I asked the inspectors for a few samples, which they were more than happy to share.

A New Angle on the Situation

We took a walk back to the press with Walter. We showed the press operator the sample ceiling tiles. He was shocked. He didn’t realize the stop-gate was causing so much scrap. He immediately shut the line down to make adjustments.

While the line was down, I asked if I could take a look inside the press to see if there might be a reason the tiles were hitting the gate at an angle. After locking out the press, I took a closer look and was amazed at what I saw. The guide rails in the press were not straight as designed, but curved. These rails were causing the tiles to turn at an angle when they entered the press. All plants had scheduled maintenance to replace press guide rails every six months. When I asked the press operator when the last time the rails had been changed, he didn’t remember, but thought it had been years. I then asked if they had backup press guide rails in their storeroom. Luckily, they did. Even luckier, they were straight.

Setting Things Straight

We replaced the curvy press guide rails with straight ones, and started up the press. Immediately we stopped the press. We were still damaging the edges of the tiles, this time at a different angle. We quickly identified the problem. The stop-gate was angled for the curvy guide rails and had not been adjusted for straight press guide rails. Once we straightened the stop-gate, the edge damage disappeared. After a few handshakes and high fives, we created a monthly press guide rail inspection and a six-month replacement program for this critical component.

During the week, the team made many other quick improvements and planned out other work that helped the Mobile plant return to budgeted performance for the year. If there’s a lesson to be learned from Armstrong’s Mobile plant, it’s to trust your processes, but verify them on a regular basis. Trust alone cannot eliminate inefficiencies or waste from creeping in, but consistent verification can identify these issues quickly so that they can be corrected.

Championing Change in Technology

In 2010, a private equity firm took a minority stake in Armstrong World Industries.  They brought in many leaders at executive levels and committed to a strategy of Lean transformation. Their initial focus was manufacturing, and then when ready, they would expand efforts to the supporting organizations.  From 2010 through 2012 in the manufacturing organization, emphasis was placed on Lean training and conducting hundreds of Kaizen events.  In many cases, outside consultants were brought in. But, where there was experience, internal resources worked with teams and facilitated Kaizen events.

I had many years of experience facilitating Kaizen events and I was given the opportunity to travel all over the world, helping teams solve complex problems and keep them solved in a sustainable way.  Although I wasn’t part of the manufacturing organization at the time, I was often requested to facilitate, especially when there were complex problems to solve.

I enjoyed the work, but I also knew I needed to focus on improving my organization, Global Technology.  For years, I tried to convince leadership to utilize Lean to improve their critical processes. While they were interested, they never made the commitment to the continuous improvement effort.

Applying Lean Principles to Global Technology

In January 2012, everything changed.  Global Technology named a new Vice President, who had an extensive manufacturing background. He returned from an assignment in Europe, ready to make an impact on his new organization.  I worked for him indirectly a few years prior to his return, so we already had a working relationship. After letting him settle into his new job for a few weeks, I requested a meeting to discuss the application of Lean to the Global Technology processes. Luckily, I had two sponsors who had seen what Lean was able to accomplish in some global technology test areas, most notably the Pilot Plant.

Together, my sponsors and I met with the VP in March to promote our idea – apply Lean principles to Global Technology in a way that would improve the results of our projects and grow customer confidence. He was intrigued and wanted to know what we would do first. My suggestion was to run a Global Technology Value Stream Mapping event, identifying the highest value opportunities from our customers’ perspective, developing strategies to make improvements over the coming months and years. He was excited by the idea and invited us to present our recommendation to the Global Technology leadership team at their April meeting.

After reviewing year to date Global Technology results, the VP introduced me to the leadership team and told them about the recommendation for the Value Stream Mapping event. He explained how important and critical this work would be and he wanted everyone to clear their calendars so we could get started quickly. Then, he turned the discussion over to me. Most of what I wanted to cover had already been explained, so I started off by saying, “What he said!” Then, I described the Value Stream Mapping process and how we would apply it to the Global Technology processes. The leadership team seemed skeptical, but willing to give this new approach a try. When the VP said he wanted to start with an event in May, I knew we were on a fast-moving train and I had much work to do to prepare.

Identifying the Customers’ Perspective

Over the next few weeks, we contacted some of our critical customers from the plants, Marketing, and other areas of the organization. We also gained commitment from all Global Technology leadership team members to participate in the entire 3-day event, which would be held at a local hotel. I was able to get a co-facilitator who was not part of the working team and together we built a plan for the Value Stream Mapping session that would be relevant for our non-manufacturing processes.

On the first day of the event, a team of 25 high-level participants were in the same room and they heard the VP describe the importance of the effort. Then, he turned the meeting over to me. For the next few hours, I described Value Stream Mapping and then split the full team into working groups to identify the most critical customer requirements. After reviewing those requirements, we mapped out two critical Global Technology Value Streams:  New product development and capital project execution. By the end of the first day, we had a pretty clear picture of the current state and issues that were keeping the team from executing the processes well from their customers’ perspective.

Champion of Lean

The VP sent the team to dinner and asked me to stick around to talk for a few minutes prior to dinner. The first thing he said was, “You’re pretty good at this, how would you like to do this full time?” Immediately I responded, “Absolutely!” He was surprised by my quick answer and told me he hadn’t even made a financial offer. I told him that I trusted him to do the right thing and it was more important for me to do what I love, rather than worry about pay.

The next two days were a blur. Significant progress was made and clear strategies were developed to improve project execution and customer service in the new product development and capital project execution Value Streams.

For the next six years, I was the Lean Champion for Armstrong’s Global Technology organization. During that time, I was able to help teams drive new product development time down from 18 to 10 months, grow the new product portfolio from $150 million to $380 million, and increase customer confidence in the work of the Global Technology organization. More importantly, we were able to create a culture of engagement, empowerment, and improvement in the organization.

An Open Mind Will Lead to the Right Answer

Early this year, Process Improvement Partners was invited to conduct a site assessment for a packaging company in western Pennsylvania. The facility was operating a new technology that wasn’t performing to expectations. They wanted to identify opportunities to improve their situation using the engagement and empowerment of their employees.

Arriving the evening before the assessment, I had dinner with a former Armstrong co-worker, who was now working for the packaging company. He had convinced the plant manager to host my visit. He explained the issues with the new technology and some of his preliminary thoughts on what might help things improve. The plant manager wasn’t able to join us for dinner; I would have to wait until the next day to hear his thoughts and determine if we could align around next steps.

The Challenge of Team Engagement

The next morning, I arrived at the plant early and met the plant manager.  He invited me to join him and his team at the morning production meeting. During the meeting, I observed the leadership team structure. The plant manager led the meeting, got feedback from his team, and then made final decisions. There was a sense of comradery and a command and control structure. This was my first indication of the potential challenge of team engagement at the facility. I would use the rest of the day to verify this observation.

Following the production meeting, the team took a walk out into the plant. Led by the plant manager, we spoke with many of the technicians at their workstations. They reviewed issues and the plant manager gave instructions to the workers and the leadership team. I got a sense for the connection between the technicians and management, but again, it felt more command and control than engagement and empowerment. 

We arrived at the equipment that was the main focus of concern in the plant. A new (to them) technology, the equipment operated at low performance levels and took days to stabilize after product changeovers. There was a huge investment in data collection and monitoring equipment, but I didn’t see things in place to make the technicians’ jobs easier, such as clear and visible settings and simple standard work. One of the lead technicians, let’s call him Mike, spoke about how difficult it was to get initial settings and then how much adjusting was required following any product changeover. He was frustrated with the current situation and was hoping I might be able to help. I was encouraged by his passion to improve the situation.

Reducing Variation Leads to Stabilization

When we completed the tour, it was time for lunch. Some of the leadership team joined and wanted to know what I thought. I told them there were many opportunities to help the new line perform in a more stable way. Mike, the lead technician also joined us and was keen to understand what I thought should be done first.

My recommendation was to run a changeover improvement event, focused on simplifying and streamlining the efforts to make physical equipment changes. Mike estimated this portion of the changeover took between six and ten hours. I stated we could reduce the time by half or more.

The plant manager spoke up and said he wanted the team to focus on the time following the changeover, when the line normally took days to stabilize. This was where the savings would come from and he needed a win. I explained my logic around working on the equipment changeover first:  By reducing or eliminating variation in the changeover, the time to stabilize would be greatly reduced. If we worked on the effort to stabilize following the changeover first, we would be trying to simplify things without reducing any of the variation that leads to the long time to stabilize. As I explained my recommendation, I saw Mike nodding in agreement. The plant manager was not convinced.

The plant manager asked Mike directly, “Why wouldn’t you want to work on stabilizing first? That’s where the pain and opportunity are.  Don’t you agree?” Mike took a breath and said, “If we don’t reduce the variation in the equipment changeover itself, there won’t be any starting point for the stabilizing effort. I agree with Adam’s assessment, take out the variation first, and the stabilizing will go much quicker.”

Change Starts by Listening to People

Not yet convinced, the plant manager stated, “I have to have a win. Cutting the changeover time in half won’t save us as much money as cutting the stabilizing time. I don’t think I can sell this approach to corporate management. Mike, don’t you think we should go this route, rather than Adam’s suggestion?” Mike stood his ground and stated, “I really think this is the way to go.” Unwilling to yield, the plant manager declared, “I really don’t see how this is the answer.”

I jumped in and said, “You’ve asked Mike three times and he’s clearly telling you something you don’t agree with. He has the experience and knows what he deals with on a daily basis. I doubt he’ll change his mind just because you want him to. If you want to engage your people, you have to be willing to listen to them.”

It was time for me to make my pitch. “Here’s a compromise: Let’s do the equipment changeover event first. We’ll also spend some time on how it will affect stabilizing. We can monitor the time to stabilize for a month or so. If the time isn’t coming down as expected, we can run another event, laser focused on the stabilizing efforts.”

The plant manager took a deep breath. Finally, he said, “You know, this is starting to make sense to me. I think I can sell this approach to our corporate management.” Now I knew there was a chance we would be able to engage the rest of the organization to make a much-needed change. The rest of the day, we built a charter for the event, designed around the equipment changeover.

On my drive home, I reflected on the day. I knew I could work with this new client. I also knew how close I was to not having the opportunity. If we’re unwilling to change our positions and listen to our people, we might miss out on meaningful, sustainable change.

Rally to the Customer

Armstrong World Industries makes billions of square feet of ceiling tiles every year, shipping to locations all around the world. Most of these tiles are white. The remainder are off-white or a few standard colors.  If a customer wants non-standard colors, until recently, Armstrong used an outside vendor.

In 2017, the vendor was getting behind on orders from Armstrong. I was asked to join a team visiting the vendor to find out what was causing the delays and to identify options. We took a guided walk of the facility. I could see things weren’t well organized and processes were backed up. When the rest of the team attended meetings with the vendor leadership, I decided to stay out on the floor and find out what was really going on. I spoke with a number of operators, who were very open to discussing the current situation. It appeared things were about to change in a big way and the managers weren’t paying much attention to the day to day operations. Every order was behind.

Overlooking Operations

When the other meetings were over, I reviewed what I had observed with the team. They found out the vendor was about to expand capacity and new product offerings. They weren’t spending much time or attention on the day to day operations. Moreover, the factory was to be shut down for a number of weeks during the expansion project. Some of the new equipment used technology the vendor had no experience with. I knew we wouldn’t be able to rely on the vendor in the short term and possibly long term. We needed to come up with another way to provide non-standard color tiles to our loyal customers. If not, they wouldn’t stay loyal to us.

When I returned to Armstrong’s corporate center, I reviewed my findings with my sponsors. We agreed we couldn’t rely on the vendor to meet customer demand in a timely fashion. We had to come up with another solution. I was tasked to find the solution quickly. Working with my counterpart in Marketing, who was responsible for the relationship with the vendor, we agreed we would find other options to produce non-standard color tiles and then reduce the demand to the vendor in steady increments. He took the vendor relationship and product management responsibilities. I took the production, operations, and logistics responsibilities.  We took a walk into the Pilot Plant to see what might be possible. 

The Pilot Plant was a series of disconnected operations designed for scientists and engineers to experiment, test, and develop new products. It was not a manufacturing facility, and was not designed to be. Upon review of the operating permits, we determined we could produce a limited amount of material on a temporary basis. Now we had to figure out how to produce products safely and effectively with our available resources.

The Customer Comes First

One Monday morning I visited with the technicians who were responsible for operations in the Pilot Plant. I reviewed the situation.  If we didn’t figure out a way to produce thirteen non-standard colors of tiles, we would lose valuable business from our loyal customers. Most of the technicians weren’t keen on trying to turn the Pilot Plant into a production facility, but they realized how important it was to keep customers happy. Some of the technicians volunteered to help me determine the best way to connect and run the disconnected processes in the Pilot Plant.

We decided to focus on the edge cutting, edge painting, and tile painting processes in the Pilot Plant. The prior processes, which included forming the board and cutting it to size, could be provided by one of the many manufacturing facilities in the Armstrong network. These facilities were set up to make large production quantities and these early process steps were efficient for them. The edge cutting and painting steps would differentiate the tiles and had to be well controlled, with low amounts of inventory. The large manufacturing facilities were not set up to run small production runs efficiently.

There were many separate areas in the Pilot Plant, but the key areas that we needed were located very close to each other:  paint mixing, edge cutting and painting, and overall tile painting and paint drying. These areas were not connected however, and we didn’t want people to have to physically transport the tiles through the line. Our first priority was to build and install temporary conveyers to flow materials through the line from beginning to end. Luckily our technicians were very creative and within days they had cobbled together the conveyers we needed.

The next step was to determine how to process the tiles safely and productively through the entire connected line. We had to determine the proper amount of people, the pacing, the supply of materials to the line, and the handling of finished product.

Timing is Everything

I took a small team of technicians and we decided the best way to design the process was to try it in many controlled experiments.  We gathered a bunch of scrap tiles to test and started loading them into the beginning of the process. “Be the tile” was our rallying cry. “Let’s walk the tile through the process and see what happens to it,” I said. We started at the beginning, the edge cutting and painting process. Three technicians were the loading crew. Two technicians positioned themselves at the end of the process as the unloading crew. They started putting one tile on the line at a time and quickly realized they couldn’t keep up with the speed of the line without adding one more resource, who brought full pallets of tiles to the line on demand. Think Lucy and Ethel on the famous Candy Factory episode of I Love Lucy.

Once we added the resource, the technicians were able to comfortably put a tile on the line every four seconds. They were very proud of themselves, but we quickly realized our short test wouldn’t be sustainable over long work shifts, with different people doing the work on the line. After much discussion, we agreed on loading a tile every five seconds. It doesn’t sound like much of a difference, but it could impact production output by 25%.  More importantly, it would ensure we were working as safely as possible.

Having confirmed the pacing at the front end of the process, we verified the other parts of the process could be optimized to this new rate. Then, we designed the quality control process and packaging station to meet the pacing requirements safely. We then built a logistics plan and operations schedule. Reaching out to the total Armstrong organization to get volunteers to help staff the line during these critical production runs, we had many volunteers, from administrative staff to vice-presidents to accountants. Everyone wanted to help out and ensure we didn’t disappoint our customers. 

The next few months, we produced the non-standard color tiles and met almost every order on time. More importantly, people who hadn’t worked together previously got an opportunity to do something special. We all rallied to protect the interest of our customers and the integrity of the business. It made our bonds stronger as an organization. It wasn’t apparent that we were producing these tiles in a different way and eventually we were able to outsource the orders to an Armstrong manufacturing facility. The demand for these non-standard color tiles and customer loyalty continues to grow. I am convinced it’s because of the special people who put the customer first and their normal duties second.

Ownership at the Right Level

I was Lean Champion for the global technology team at Armstrong World Industries for many years. During that time, I supported teams of technicians, scientists, engineers, project managers, and the leadership team across four different departments.  I had the good fortune to assist teams in their efforts to develop and launch new products, deploy capital equipment, and build factories all over the world. All departments had access to the Pilot Plant to support their efforts when necessary.

The Pilot Plant was a series of disconnected processes which had the resources and capabilities to test new materials, products, processes, and other ideas in a controlled way. Information gleaned from tests and trials was utilized in the effective delivery of projects and other development efforts. Each of the processes in the Pilot Plant had an owner, who was responsible for the care and safety of the process. The owner would also try to schedule the process to allow it to be utilized effectively and to keep wait times to a minimum. All process owners were the technicians who were most familiar with the operation of their process. Although they were at the lowest level of the group, they were very proud of their equipment and took ownership to keep things safe for their customers.

As Lean Champion, I spent many hours in the Pilot Plant, learning about its capabilities and trying to understand how I might be able to help the technicians in their efforts to support the rest of the organization. It was during my early days in the Pilot Plant that I met a gentleman, we’ll call him Roy, who was lead technician. He had just taken on the leadership role for the Pilot Plant, responsible for the overall effectiveness and operations. Having worked in one of Armstrong’s factories prior to his arrival at the corporate center, he had vast equipment knowledge and some leadership experience.

A Source of Frustration

Before taking over as lead technician, Roy worked in the Pilot Plant as a process owner and participated in the annual Pilot Plant clean-up. This was a multi-day effort by all technicians at the end of the year. They would go through all of the materials, supplies, and equipment throughout the plant and clean out the clutter and reorganize things in as safe and productive manner as possible. All development and testing in the Pilot Plant would be delayed during this time, as all technicians were busy cleaning things up and trying to make sense of what they had.

None of the technicians liked the annual clean-up process because they knew it wouldn’t take long for things to go back to the way they were prior to the clean-up. Roy expressed his frustration to me more than a few times. Once he became lead technician, he was even more frustrated and wanted to do something about it. My first suggestion to Roy was that he should discuss his frustration with his manager and gauge his support for Roy’s efforts. Roy did this, but seemed just as frustrated. Upon further discussion with Roy, I found out his manager was supportive of his efforts, but didn’t offer solutions Roy thought he could implement without direct assistance from his manager. He really wanted his manager to tell everyone to clean up after themselves.

Over the next few months, I facilitated 5S (Sort, Set in Order, Shine, Standardize, Sustain) events in the Pilot Plant to support Roy’s efforts to make areas safer and more productive for everyone. The few area owners who had completed 5S events had a strong managing system to keep their areas in top shape. The other 30 or so areas did not, so clutter and disorganization was prevalent everywhere else in the Pilot Plant. Roy was getting more and more frustrated.

Turning the Corner

One Monday morning, following the weekly technician meeting in the Pilot Plant, Roy stopped me on my way back to my office. “Adam, I’m really frustrated,” he said. “My manager won’t hold everyone accountable to keep the Pilot Plant organized and safe. He tells them it’s their responsibility, but doesn’t do anything about it when they’re not compliant.  What can I do?” “Roy,” I said, “Who’s the leader of the Pilot Plant?” “I am,” he said. “Well, as leader, you have every right to set expectations and hold accountability. You are the operations manager; your boss is the plant manager. The plant manager needs you to get your operations in order. Let me help you do that.”

Over the next few weeks we built our strategy for putting the Pilot Plant in order. Our strategy included: setting clear expectations for all areas of the Pilot Plant, redefining responsibilities for all area owners (not just the areas that had been 5S’d), developing a weekly leadership walk (Gemba walk), and creating visual management to hold all area owners accountable. We mounted a large white board in the main meeting room and put lines and names on it, ready to explain it to the technicians at the next technician meeting.

The next Monday morning, we introduced the new strategy for making the Pilot Plant the safest, most productive place possible.  The technicians listened with keen interest and asked many questions as Roy described the changes. They were skeptical that there would be any change in behavior of the scientists, engineers, or managers when they used the spaces in the Pilot Plant. Then Roy explained the white board, which he called the “Area Owner” board. On it were over 30 Pilot Plant locations with the corresponding name of the area owner and a space for a date to be written. At the first of every month, a red magnet would be placed for each location, signaling the owner hadn’t yet met certain monthly requirements. Once those requirements were met, the Area owner would replace the red magnet with a green magnet.   The Area Owner would write in the date the requirements were met. At the beginning of the next month, all magnets were set back to red.

The technicians were furious. They thought those red magnets made them look like they weren’t doing a good job and didn’t want any part of the new system. I jumped in and explained it was a very visual and urgent way to show what areas weren’t yet compliant and who might need help. The system wasn’t a reflection of the specific area owner, unless he or she hadn’t made the effort to meet the requirements or ask for help. We felt if we could get all areas to green every month, we wouldn’t need the annual cleanup, which everyone hated.

A Delicious Incentive

At this point, the technicians started to buy-in and support the idea, but they were still skeptical that some of the area owners would be motivated to get to green every month. I knew I needed to provide incentive. I said, “The first month we get all areas to 100%, I’ll buy every area owner lunch and we’ll celebrate!”  That got their attention. I then described the design of the management walk:  We would take a selection of managers of the scientists and others who used the Pilot Plant and tour all areas, looking for areas where we could reinforce the need for compliance to the requirements.  We would do this every week and sign off to show we had and we were just as accountable as the technicians.

For the next few months, I attended every Monday morning technician huddle, and reinforced the new systems and encouraged the area owners to get their areas to green before the end of the month.  One Monday, late in the third month of the “Area Owner Challenge”, there was only one technician whose area was still red. Almost to a person, the technicians pressured him to get his requirements done and make sure Adam would buy them lunch!  They did it in a fun way, but I knew they were serious. I knew our system was working at last.

Over the next months, the technicians hit 100% compliance almost every month, and by the end of the year there was no need for the annual cleanup.  Pride in the Pilot Plant grew. In the following years, the Pilot Plant was bench-marked many times. Not because of the technology, but because of the strong ownership and pride and systems that allowed new products and projects to be delivered in the safest and most productive way possible.

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.

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.

Never Give Up – How we almost lost 4 team members

In June 2019, Process Improvement Partners was asked to help a leading consumer brands company execute its first Kaizen event in the history of its New Jersey factory. I came to the factory for a site assessment and determined there were many good candidates for their first Kaizen. After further discussions, we identified the first area for Kaizen.

Working with the continuous improvement manager, plant manager, and corporate support, we chartered an event focused on improving the reliability of one of their critical processing areas. We felt it held great opportunity, and positive results in this area would be very visible and help build momentum for the continuous improvement transformation being sought for the plant.

I always ask four key questions when chartering events:

1.       What’s the problem you want to solve?

2.       What are the measurable objectives of the Kaizen?

3.       Who are the team members you believe will be invested in the problem enough to help you solve it?

4.       Who owns the output when the Kaizen is over?

The leadership team thoughtfully answered these four questions and we immediately designed the Kaizen event based on the charter. I advised that as this was their first Kaizen event, most people in the plant wouldn’t have much experience with continuous improvement. Therefore, communication of the event and to the team would be critical. They assured me they would take extra care in communicating to the plant and to the team.

The Kaizen kicked off in mid-July.  I took extra time to train the 13-person team on Lean principles. After training, we took a walk out into the process to see the current situation and identify opportunities to improve conditions in the area Each team member took sticky notes and pens with them and were instructed to write one idea per sticky note for review after our tour.

We spent more than two hours in the process and team members were writing feverishly, as they were seeing things in a new way and uncovering many issues and wastes associated with the process. As a facilitator, I am always pleased to see team members identifying things as waste they had put up with in their normal job. When we came back to the meeting room, all team members except for one had written ideas on their sticky notes. While this isn’t unheard of, it is a signal something is wrong and needs to be dealt with. In total, the team had written more than 130 ideas for review and prioritization. This story isn’t about those ideas, it’s about each of the four team members who had difficulty in their first Kaizen. The names have all been changed for their privacy

The Story of Roy

Roy’s story is the first one because he didn’t write anything down while out in the process. When we came back into the meeting room, the team shared their ideas one at a time and they were posted on a flipchart. Since Roy hadn’t written anything down, I gave him opportunity to write ideas while others were sharing theirs. He still didn’t write anything, so I gave him the opportunity to contribute in a different way. He was asked to post the flip charts of ideas on the wall as they were filled. He seemed content to do this, and he also appeared to be listening to everyone’s ideas.

After all of the ideas were shared, they were prioritized by the team. Everyone got five votes and picked the things they thought would provide the greatest benefit to the people and the process. Roy voted and, in the end, there were three top projects picked. Following the vote, each team member picked the project they personally wanted to work on, and Roy put his name on one of the projects. Following this, the team was broken into sub-teams of 4 or 5 people.  The sub-teams started to work on and conceptualize their solution before the end of the first day. Everything seemed okay with Roy at that point.

On the morning of the second day, Roy wasn’t there when the team reconvened. No one knew where he was. They thought he was in the plant, however. Once the sub-teams got started on their projects, I went to find Roy. It turns out he had gone back to his normal job, thinking it was more important to the plant than the Kaizen event. I spent time explaining how critical his input was to the Kaizen and convinced him to rejoin the team. Once there, he stayed with them for the rest of the week. It turns out that he was in an area that was unfamiliar to him and didn’t realize that his input and perspective were important and valued. At the report out, he was one of the tour guides who proudly showed off the efforts of the team. Other team members remarked they didn’t think Roy would be a presenter, based on the initial issues during the Kaizen week and his quiet nature. Roy shined and everyone was extremely happy for his contributions to the team.

The Story of Hal

Hal is a mechanical supervisor at the New Jersey plant and was picked for the team based on his extensive knowledge, team focus, and ability to get things done in short order. He seemed like a perfect team member for the first Kaizen. On the first day, he had many ideas to share to improve the situation in the process. When the team prioritized their work, however, he seemed unhappy with one of the projects that rose to the top. This project got five out of 13 votes and centered on the air flow in a working space. Although it wasn’t directly associated with the charter objectives, it generated a lot of interest from the production operators who said it impacted their productivity, safety, and the ability to get their work done in an error-free way, which was one of the charter objectives.

At the end of the first day, it became apparent that the production operators couldn’t solve this problem themselves and needed help from Hal, who had the ability to get the air handling system checked out. Hal didn’t agree this was important and worth his time, but was pushed by the team to at least find out if the system could be fixed. At the end of the day, when the team was adjourning, Hal grudgingly got up from the room and said he would have it assessed before the next day. The team thanked him.

On the morning of the second day, the team was asked to reflect individually on their first day of the first Kaizen in the plant’s history. When it was Hal’s turn, he told us he had nothing to say and everything was okay. It was obvious he didn’t really feel that way. When pushed to say more, he put his two thumbs up, but that’s not what a team needed to hear. So, he was pushed a bit more, and the flood gates opened up. He told the team he thought they were working on the wrong thing and that he didn’t sign up for this event, he was “volun-told” to attend. He thought the team should be working on things they could control and not finger pointing at mechanical issues. After he said his piece, the team thanked him for speaking up and helping them refocus on the things that they could improve during the week.

As the week wore on, Hal was visibly happier and more engaged and by the end of the week, he was extremely proud of all the work the team was able to accomplish. He even mentioned he was happy he had decided to speak up at the beginning of day 2 to get everyone back on track.

The Story of Ed

Ed’s story is one of someone who is unfamiliar with the ebb and flow of a Kaizen. On day one, the team is learning how to be a team and picking simple things to work on. On day 2, after getting through the first projects, the team typically takes on harder work and is getting more into the true issues that hold them back from winning. On day 3, breakthroughs are made. Ed wasn’t willing to wait that long. Early on day 2, Ed came to me and said the team was working on the wrong things. He wanted me to tell the team this. Any good facilitator knows the team must own their solutions and should not try to redirect their efforts, unless there is a safety, policy, or rule violation. After discussing this for a while, I suggested that Ed make his pitch to the team to see if he could influence their decision.

Ed decided that he had enough of the conversation and didn’t want to try to influence the team. He still didn’t think they were working on the right things, but agreed to support them and see what was going to happen. About an hour after the conversation, I went to the production floor to see how things were going. Ed seemed very pleased with the progress of his sub-team and the earlier conversation seemed to be behind him.

On the third day, Ed didn’t show up to the plant. He had called out and I was concerned that he was still bothered by the work the team was doing. I didn’t know if he would make it for the fourth and final day, but he did. He was so impressed by the work of the team that he volunteered to present some of the findings to the leadership team. During his presentation, you could hear and feel his pride in the accomplishments of the team. Following the presentation, I had a chance to follow up with Ed, and he was apologetic for his earlier behavior and now was a believer in Kaizen and the power of teamwork.

The Story of James

James story was the most surprising to me, as he seemed aligned with the efforts of the team throughout the week. On the morning of the third day, James arrived ten minutes before the day’s kickoff and told the team leader and me he didn’t want to be on the team anymore. He felt he hadn’t been communicated with properly prior to the event, was forced to attend, and didn’t agree with any of the team’s efforts. Although he had been relatively quiet earlier in the week, he was participating and contributing ideas and efforts up until this revelation. He told us we weren’t listening to his issues and were working on the wrong things. We tried to reason with him and describe how things work in a Kaizen, but he was steadfast in his objections.

When he said, “I don’t want to be here,” we knew that we shouldn’t press the issue any longer. We thanked him for his contribution, told him we were sorry to see him go, and hoped that the efforts of the team would benefit him in his job at the plant. And then, he left to go back to his normal job.

I decided it was time to have a discussion with the plant manager, let’s call her Sue, and talk about these four team members and how things got the way they did. Sue was shocked to hear all four had different reasons to want to quit the team. From her observations, she thought we were heading in the right direction but was also concerned we wouldn’t make the typical Kaizen breakthroughs she had heard about and read about. This was her first Kaizen experience, and she was willing to let the week play out, based on my advice.

Sue was extremely surprised about James and wanted to try to convince him to return. Although I wasn’t sure if this was a good idea, Sue was the plant manager and had every right to try. Just about an hour later, James returned to the team who welcomed him back with kind words and handshakes.

The team leader decided to take James and some of the other team members down to the factory floor and let them show him their issues. He made a commitment to write work orders for any issue that couldn’t be resolved during the Kaizen.

When the afternoon of the third day arrived, James seemed extremely pleased his voice was being heard. Many work orders were written, and some work had already been completed, much to James’ satisfaction and the satisfaction of other team members.

By the fourth and final day, James was complimenting all of us around our support of him and the rest of the team. Although he didn’t present at the end of the Kaizen, he shared positive feedback to all that asked him about his experience.

After the presentation ended, I held a wrap up meeting with plant leadership. We covered many topics, most notably the things we could do to improve the experience for the next Kaizen team members. Now that the plant had a Kaizen experience, they could explain what would happen during the week. They also vowed to be more visible in their preparations and have one on one conversations with all potential team members, allowing them to ask any questions or raise any personal issues they might have.

This Kaizen week was one of the more exhausting ones for me, as I had to focus my energies on the people more than usual. The results and experience of the team members made it all worthwhile.

Line Up and Do the Right Thing

In 2011, I was asked to facilitate a Kaizen in Pensacola Florida. The problem to be solved was to improve material flow through the plant. Specifically, there were millions of square feet of goods in process, and items were getting lost, damaged, and generally causing confusion and chaos in the plant.

Building 37

After training the team in Lean concepts, we took a walk out into the process to see what was happening. These Gemba walks can be quite eye-opening, and in this case, it made the problem very real to all team members. There were literally hundreds of pallets of material all over the plant, with much of it stored in a building they called 37.

In Building 37, there was no rhyme or reason to the way materials were stored. These materials were stored for various processing lines, but there was no way to know what was being stored and where to find it. It was obvious something drastic had to be done.

The team developed a concept early in the week that made storage and retrieval of the materials more manageable and thought they could organize and store everything in one location, rather than all over the plant. They determined that they could use Building 37 for this purpose, but would need to make the building more visual and create some rules around storage of materials.

Creating Visual Organization

After many different layout suggestions, we came up with a scheme we thought would work. We decided we needed to move everything out of Building 37, in order to reorganize and line out the space in accordance with our new recommendations. We also realized that we would have to clean the floor and paint it to make it as visual as possible and easy for everyone to use and manage. Painting the concrete floor was something the team didn’t want to do. In the past, forklifts tore up the paint and the lines would be lost quickly. Instead, they did some research and found a company out of southern Georgia with a technology to stain concrete, rather than paint it. It seemed like this was a good option, so we placed a call with them to see if they could come and help us.

To our good fortune, they were willing to drop what they were doing and drive more than 4 hours to meet with us and do the work during the Kaizen week. We told them what we intended to do and the size of the building to be stained. They estimated 28 gallons of yellow concrete stain would do the trick.

All Hands on Deck

We spent many hours moving over 1100 pallets (2.3 million square feet) of ceiling tile out of Building 37 into the open air. We crossed our fingers that it wouldn’t rain overnight. After we moved all of the material out, we swept and scrubbed the floors. The whole team pitched in and we were almost finished before the concrete staining company showed up in the late afternoon. They helped us finish up and started going about their work.

Most of the team members had to leave by 6 pm that evening, so I volunteered to stay with the concrete staining company, who was busy doing their work. In the middle of it, they realized that 28 gallons of stain wouldn’t be enough. They placed a call and sent a runner down to the plant with more stain. The runner happened to be the wife of the owner, who had just put dinner on the table. She dropped what she was doing to help us.

Grievance to File

Around 7 pm, I was approached by a very tall and unhappy Pensacola employee, who happened to be in their workers’ union. He wanted to know what was going on. I explained that our Kaizen team was transforming Building 37 in a way that it would be safer and easier to find and retrieve materials for the production lines. He wasn’t happy with my answer. What he really wanted to know was why the union employees weren’t doing this work. I explained that our team decided concrete stain was the best way to line the floors, given the issues with forklift traffic, and since this technology and equipment wasn’t available in the plant, we had to utilize outside contractors. We wanted to keep this work in-house, but that option wasn’t available to us.

Again, he wasn’t happy with my answer, but really didn’t have a valid argument as to how the work could have been completed with existing Pensacola employees. So, he angrily stormed off, vowing to file a grievance. Around 10:30 pm, all the lines were stained into the floor, and the contractors were finished. I was happy to see them leave, as I needed my rest for the next day of the Kaizen.

Good Intentions, Great Results

We lucked out, there was no rain overnight, and we spent the morning putting everything back into Building 37, this time in a logical sequence and order for the materials to be easily found. The lines really helped, and to this day, the plant uses this system to keep materials organized for all of their production lines.

I never found out if the union employee filed a grievance, but even if he did, we had done the right thing for the plant with the best of intentions.

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.

Kaizen Every Day – The Armstrong Lockout

In all my years doing continuous improvement work, I worked with teams during Kaizen events of short duration, or influencing continuous improvement behavior daily.  Never did I think I would be doing 6 months straight of Kaizen.  That is, until the Armstrong Lockout.

Supporting Operations During a Lockout

In 2011, Armstrong World Industries and their Marietta PA ceiling plant workers were unable to reach a contract agreement by the time the contract expired. Historically, Armstrong would allow the employees to continue working without a contract, until negotiations were completed. There was always a risk that the employees would walk out any time without notice, but that had never happened. New management decided that it wasn’t worth the risk and decided to send a message to the union by locking out the hourly production and maintenance employees until an agreement would be reached.

Armstrong was ready for this contingency and had made an arrangement with a company that supplied replacement workers and security to companies in similar situations. These workers would move to the site and fill in for the employees until a resolution was reached. Many of the Armstrong engineers, retirees, and other technically skilled corporate employees were asked to train and supervise the replacement workers and also run the complex equipment. Some non-union workers came from other plants in the Armstrong system to help too.

I had been helping a project team building a plant in China. When I returned to the United States in July, I was asked to help support the Marietta plant in an operations role, alternating between equipment operations, training, and supervision.

Armstrong employees were required to meet at an off-site parking lot, and then board a blue bus with blacked-out windows that would take us to the plant. We were to work 12-hour shifts, 6 days a week (we could work 7 days a week if we wanted to) and weren’t allowed to leave the plant property unless we had a personal emergency to attend to. Some of us, including me, had pre-shift supervisor meetings, that extended our days to 13 ½ hours. Needless to say, we all wanted the lockout to end quickly. We also wanted to make sure that no customers would feel the impact of reduced service levels due to the lockout, so we were committed to keeping the plant running, 24/7/365.

A Plan to Reduce Downtime

In my first weeks at the plant, I spent much of my time helping to solve downtime issues and coordinate efforts of workers who were unfamiliar with the equipment. It was apparent that the plant wasn’t left in the best of shape by the Armstrong union employees and they were using their experience to compensate for low performing equipment. We didn’t have the experience, so it was clear that something would have to be done to make the equipment more reliable.

I started to assess the factors impacting equipment performance and realized that many of the downtime issues could be solved with some basic line maintenance – conveyer guiding, leveling, and squaring. Lucky for me, this was and is an area of experience and expertise. On a Saturday in August, I was talking with the plant manager, and suggested that I could provide more value at the plant if I were to work with maintenance to solve some of the basic conveying issues I saw in my time at the plant. He was intrigued and asked me to show him what I meant. I took him on a tour of various parts of the line and pointed out the issues I was seeing. Then, I described my plan to solve those issues, one part of the line at a time. More intrigued, he called the maintenance manager and asked him to join us for a tour.

The maintenance manager met us at the line and took a tour with us. He was a bit skeptical, but after about 30 minutes, he was convinced that I might be on to something beneficial. He asked me what I needed to start the work. I told him I could work with a skilled mechanic to start making line improvements. He asked me when I would be ready to start. I was ready any time.

A Team on a Mission

On the following Monday morning, I was assigned a mechanic named Joe. Joe and I took a tour of the lines and I shared my vision of the work we could do to improve performance. He was enthusiastic. We decided we would tackle one line at a time and prioritized the first line to work on. We agreed that we would do work in 1 to 2-hour blocks and try to utilize downtime to get our work done. We also agreed that since the lines were running so poorly, we could make our own downtime blocks, as long as the crew and supervision was aware and agreed to our plan.

At first, no one wanted to give us any downtime to do the work, so we were frustrated and couldn’t plan well for the work. The only way we could make a real difference would be to convince one of the acting supervisors to take a chance and let us shut a line down in a planned way. I was persistent and convincing and finally had the approval of a line supervisor to try out our plan on his line.

Joe and I got to work, leveling, squaring, and improving the guiding on the first line. We worked one section at a time, and after about a week, the line was running noticeably better. After three weeks, we were setting production records and others were noticing. All of the sudden, Joe and I were getting more calls for help than we could manage. So, we asked for more mechanics to help. We started expanding our work and touching all of the lines in the plant. We also taught the techniques to others so that they could solve problems too.

From time to time, I would get calls on the radio from mechanics who wanted my advice and help and they would meet me and take me by maintenance cart to the site of the issue for review. Now we were making a huge difference in the plant performance and the problems of the past were being solved in a sustainable way. Some areas of the plant looked nothing like they had prior to the lockout, as much of the equipment had been stripped of the problems that kept it from running reliably. Although tiring, this work was also exhilarating, and made working long hours fun. We could see improvement happening every day.

The Lockout Ends, But Improvements Remain

In January 2012, the union agreed to contract terms and was scheduled to return in the middle of the month. I was asked to stay on for a while to show the changes we had made to the plant. Many of the lines looked markedly different and were unfamiliar to the union employees. I gave tours of the line and fielded questions from the employees. For the most part they were appreciative of the changes, as they could see how the improvements would help them do their job in a safer, less stressful way.

The union president asked me specifically why I made the changes the way I did. I told him that due to our lack of experience and skills, we had to make the lines easier to run or we would disappoint our customers. We really missed our experts and were extremely glad they were returning. He liked my answer and ended up doing more of this improvement work with my assistance in the following years.

I am very proud of the work I was able to complete for Marietta during the lockout. I was also extremely grateful the lockout ended when it did. I was ready to go back to riding in something other than a blue bus with blacked out windows.

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.

Overcoming Resistance to Change

Process Improvement Partners was brought in to help a consumer goods manufacturer cut their changeover time (the time it takes to switch tooling and equipment over from one product to another) in half.  By doing so, they would be able to reduce inventory and improve process performance. 

The company has five different shifts operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  Each crew believed it had the best approach to changeovers, but the results didn’t show it.  There was major variation between and within shifts and none of the crews were able to start up their lines consistently and effectively coming out of a changeover.

The Path to Improvement

Process Improvement Partners recommended a 4 ½ day changeover reduction event, or SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Die) Kaizen, using representation from each of the crews.  By doing this, we could identify best practices across all of the crews and teach changeover reduction techniques to be shared once the Kaizen was over.  The leadership team agreed, and we began preparations for this critical event.

Our leader, the Operations Manager for the production line, picked a team of “All Stars” to participate in the Kaizen.  He felt their experience, creativity, and enthusiasm would lead us to a win.

This was the first changeover reduction Kaizen in the history of the plant, and the team was skeptical when we stated our objective:  cut the existing changeover time in half, without increasing safety risk to the crew or quality risk to their customers.  The team members assumed this meant they would have to rush around, with intense pressure to meet the new target time.   The truth was using SMED techniques, we would be able to reduce enough waste in the existing changeover process to take significant time out and reduce safety and quality risk.  Then, using the Wheel of Sustainability, we would be able to continue to get great results for years to come.

Turning Skepticism into Excitement

The first day of the Kaizen, we taught the four step SMED methodology (with a little spin from Process Improvement Partners): 

1.       Assess the current changeover and identify steps that must be done while the line is shut down (internal steps) and steps that are done while the line is still running (external steps)

2.       Convert any internal steps to external steps

3.       Streamline any remaining internal steps and then any external steps

4.       Eliminate any adjustments and put in all aspects of the Wheel of Sustainability

For step one, we videotaped the changeover, did some motion analysis, and made numerous observations of waste.  The team was excited to see opportunity they hadn’t realized existed.  They never had stepped back and watched what was happening, as they always had to participate in the changeovers. 

As we entered step two, the team prioritized the steps they thought could be converted from internal to external.   Their creativity helped them invent and build a number of jigs and fixtures that allowed work to be done in preparation for the changeover, while the line was still running.  By the morning of the third day, the team tested their efforts and found the time required to change the line over had already been reduced by 50%.  They weren’t satisfied, there was much more they felt they could do.

For the rest of the third day and part of the fourth day, the team worked on improvements to streamline remaining internal steps, found ways to eliminate adjustments, and created visuals to help all team members do the changeover the same way every time.  Now it was time to give the changes the ultimate test:  let another crew try the new changeover procedure.  

Working Through Opposition

Each team member was assigned a crew member who wasn’t on the team. They were assigned to review and teach them the new method and answer any questions or concerns.  They were sent out onto the factory floor and had approximately 1 ½ hours to teach and discuss the new methods and approach one on one.  After a while, one of the team members came into the meeting room and asked for my help.  Her assigned crew member was not interested in participating in the test of our new changeover procedure.  I came out on the floor to find out if I could help the situation.

The crew member, let’s call him Roy, was visibly upset, so I asked him what was bothering him.  He started yelling at me, saying we hadn’t listened to him or anyone else on his crew, didn’t videotape their changeover, and generally didn’t care what they thought.  I told him the team had representation from every crew and had done their best to use the best practices from each shift as we worked during the week.  He was having none of it.  I let him know that we needed to let someone other than the team try out the new method, so we could get feedback and make improvements to it, before locking in all of our changes.  His anger grew.  I knew I needed to do something extreme, or he would be lost and we wouldn’t learn what was needed to finalize our new procedure.

I asked, “Are you telling me you’re unwilling to try the new procedure?”  Roy realized he was being asked if he was being insubordinate, which is a disciplined offense in most companies.  He answered he was willing to try the new procedure, but just wanted to voice his protest about the lack on inclusion.  I told him I respected his opinion and thanked him for his willingness to try the new approach.

Testing the New System

At 4:30 pm, we gathered all crew members to explain the new procedure, set the expectations for them to follow it to the letter, and would give them the opportunity to provide feedback once the changeover was complete.  We would also pair a team member from the Kaizen team with each crew member, so they could be coached during the changeover, just in case they didn’t remember or understand the new steps or approach.  All crew members affirmed their commitment to try the new procedure, and we started the new changeover at approximately 4:40 pm.

Three minutes into the changeover something didn’t look right.  One of our Kaizen team members, let’s call her Julia, looked extremely uncomfortable.  I took her a few feet away from her assigned crew member and asked her if her assigned crew member wasn’t following the new procedure.  She nodded and I called the Kaizen team leader over, to talk about what was happening.  He wasn’t happy and we agreed to stop the changeover immediately.

We gathered the crew back together, explained what was wrong, why it wasn’t ok to try their own procedure as we wouldn’t learn anything if they did.  We then instructed them to put the line back to its original condition before the changeover.  After that, we would start the changeover again.   There was tension in the air.

At approximately 5:00 pm, we started the changeover for the second time.  In two minutes, one of the Kaizen team members, let’s call him Jack, came over and informed me his assigned crew member wasn’t following the new procedure.  We stopped the changeover again, gathered the crew, and in an impassioned way, did our best to convince them to try it the right way, or we would do this all night.  Would things work out on the third try?

We started out third attempt at 5:10 pm and this time everyone followed the new procedure to the letter.  You could see the tension fade away from the Kaizen team members.  Now, something else was creeping in.  The team had been working since 6:30 am and they were getting tired.  65 minutes later, the changeover was complete.  Now it was time to bring the crew into the meeting room and get their feedback and reaction to the new procedure.  I was wondering how Roy and his crew mates would respond to the new procedure and the two stoppages we imposed on them when they tried to go “rogue”.

A Surprising Conclusion

In the meeting room, I set up a flip chart and gathered all crew members around a table.  I asked each of them to tell us, one at a time, what they thought, identifying out the things they liked and the things we could improve for them.  As they spoke, I would write their comments on a flip chart for everyone to see.

Roy started out the feedback session by telling us he “loved” four very specific improvements the team had made.  He also offered some constructive feedback on some simple things we could improve.  Others had the opportunity to share their feedback, and all of them had positive and constructive things to say.  I have to admit I was a bit shocked at the change in the tone in the room.  I had figured the crew would save up all of their anger for the meeting room.  Instead, they were appreciative for all of the Kaizen team’s efforts.  They had realized our Kaizen team was doing their best for everyone in the crew, and the test proved it to them.

We thanked the crew and the Kaizen team, and sent everyone back to the line or home.  There were many handshakes and high-fives before they left. 

At the report out to leadership, the team remarked how important it was to get everyone’s input and also to test out new ideas with a group that wasn’t involved in the changes.  It illustrated how difficult change can be, as most people tend to expect the worst and hope for the best.  Since then, the line has been able to sustain the reduced changeover time and has many more believers in changeover reduction and Kaizen.

Don’t Shortcut the Process if You Want Results

Process Improvement Partners was asked to develop and deliver a global cost reduction ideation session for a leading consumer products manufacturer. In early phone conversations with the client, we discovered that prior attempts at this effort had less than desirable results. The next logical step was to visit the client and discuss the approach for the session.

The company wanted to develop a number of cost reduction concepts to be implemented in the current and following years. In past sessions, teams brainstormed cost reduction ideas and then handed them to project teams who were to turn those ideas into reality. Many ideas weren’t fully detailed, and the project teams became frustrated as they tried to understand the meaning of the ideas.

In order to get the proper amount of detail for the ideas, we suggested a two-day session. The client anticipated a half- day session, and his sponsors were only willing to commit that amount of time. It was clear we’d have to be prepared to make our case before requesting more time from the sponsor.

Our principle for an effective cost reduction session is that there should be no risk to safety, customer service, or productivity resulting from the ideas generated and implemented. To accomplish this, the team must understand what is most important to the customer, the employees, and the overall marketplace. During our sessions, the team receives Voice of the Customer, operational, and business information as the basis for their work. Then, the team is exposed to other ways of thinking around their current processes. Brainstorming and prioritization come next, and the highest priority ideas are developed into detailed concepts with logical thinking and financial calculations applied to them.

Once the team enters into the concept development phase, they continue to work until time runs out in the session, working from the highest priority/highest value projects to the lowest priority/lowest value projects. Most teams need two days to get enough projects detailed to meet the desired session objectives.

Once this approach was reviewed with the team leader, he agreed two full days were needed for the session. Now, we had to convince his sponsors to commit to a two-day session.

Fortunately, there was a leadership team meeting later that morning, and the team leader was able to get a 30-minute agenda commitment from them. The team leader introduced me to the leadership team and told them I would be describing the process for the session and asking for a two-day commitment.

This opening statement got the room buzzing. They didn’t feel like they needed two full days as they hadn’t had to do this in past sessions. One of the members of the leadership team commented that prior efforts hadn’t been successful, so maybe they should listen and consider a different approach.

This was my opportunity to talk about prior cost reduction sessions and the results they were able to achieve. I emphasized that the key to these sessions was to provide concepts to project teams that had the right amount of detail and logic, so the teams would have a solid foundation from which to build on. I explained that rushing through these sessions wouldn’t allow the teams to think through the logic and provide the necessary detail.

This got their attention, but they were still skeptical. They were willing to allow one day (a half-day increase from their prior commitment), but this still wouldn’t be enough. Knowing that these sessions were designed to save companies millions of dollars, I asked if they thought two days was reasonable for such a high return on their investment. One of the leadership team members asked, “Why wouldn’t we set a savings target and lock the team in a room until they reached this target?” I explained the team would be less likely to provide quality effort and more likely try to hit this target with “false” savings, in an effort to go home that evening. He seemed satisfied with my answer.

The leadership team members began challenging each other’s thinking and relived many failed attempts at cost reduction. I knew we were getting somewhere, but hadn’t yet gotten agreement to proceed with a two-day session. Finally, the Director of Finance looked at me and said, “What are you going to do that’s different from what we’ve been doing all of these years?” This was my chance. I fired right back, “I don’t really know what you’ve done in the past, but I can tell you what I would do.” From there, I described the full two-day process that had worked for dozens of teams over the years. The team leader supported me during this discussion and by the end of the review, the leadership team agreed on the approach. The Director of Finance even said, “Don’t be so cheap. Let’s give the team two full days for this important effort.”

This was the alignment and agreement we needed. We thanked the leadership team for their support and time and excused ourselves from the meeting.

A month later, we ran our first cost reduction session and the team beat their savings target by more than $10 million. Two more sessions were held in 2018 with similar results. These sessions will now be held annually, following this approach, with a two-day commitment every time.

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.

Speaking Up Takes Courage

In 2011, I was asked to assist a team in Pensacola, Florida who wanted to improve processes in their distribution center. We were given four days to accomplish our task – reduce shipping damage by 50%. This was a tall order, but the team was up for the challenge.

After a half-day of training on Lean tools and techniques, the team took a walk in the distribution center and supplying processes and identified many ideas they thought would improve the situation for everyone who worked there.

All of the ideas were shared and the team prioritized the ideas they wanted to implement first. Breaking the team into smaller sub-teams, we picked the top three projects to work on. Each sub-team developed their solutions and began to implement them. At times during the day, we would come back as a full team and review each sub-team’s progress. Things were getting done, but it wasn’t clear that any of the projects would significantly reduce shipping damage.

On the morning of the third day, I asked the team if they had any feedback or ideas to help us make better progress against our goals. The room was silent. One of the team members, let’s call her Ruth, had an uncomfortable look on her face. I didn’t want to put her on the spot, so I asked each team member, one at a time, to give one suggestion they thought would make the day better for everyone. Most people said things like, “Let’s work better as a team,” or “We should try to get more done.”

When I got to Ruth, she blurted out, “I don’t think we’re working on the right things.” This took me by surprise. I wanted to know more. She then explained we weren’t focusing on the root cause of the shipping damage. She thought we were just working on things that were easy to implement, not directly impacting the causes of shipping damage.

I felt a sense of panic – we were in the third day and would be reporting our results at the end of the fourth day. There was little time to spare, but we had to resolve this issue or else we would fail. We were a team and the members started to share their thoughts with Ruth about the problem we were trying to solve. They realized Ruth was right. We were avoiding the real issues causing shipping damage. We brainstormed again and prioritized efforts based on the right things to do, not the easiest things to do. Relief started to wash over me as I realized the team was determined not to fail.

Once we finished prioritization, the team split into four sub-teams. Each sub-team had a sense of urgency and purpose and worked on their projects with energy and a “refuse to lose” spirit. If they had a question, or got stuck, they went to find help. Nothing got in their way. Almost all team members stayed late and everyone agreed to come in two hours early the next day to ensure their work would be done.

We decided to abandon the standard Power Point presentation of our findings and changes and worked right up to the time of the report out. When the leadership team came to see what we had done, we gave a tour of the changes we implemented to reduce shipping damage. They were impressed and believed we had accomplished our goal of 50% reduction.

I learned a valuable lesson from Ruth, and it’s one I share with all of the teams I work with. Understand the problem you are trying to solve. Once understood, focus on the thing(s) that will solve the problem, no matter how difficult they may seem. If you’re veering off course, have the courage of your conviction to steer people back on course. Never be afraid to speak up.

I now give all of my teams many opportunities to speak up and share their concerns. I also do it as soon as possible in every Kaizen event I lead or facilitate. It’s better to change course than end up in the wrong destination. Thanks to Ruth for being brave enough to steer us back on course.

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.