What's Missing In Most Lean Implementations?
Various estimates of success with lean is all over the map. From 30% to 2 - 5%. The obvious question is...What defines success or failure?
If lean is based on the Toyota Production System, then there must be a relationship between the TPS and any lean implementation, right? Therefore, it should follow that success is measured to what extent does the lean effort approach the TPS. Not random tool application, but the actual results.
Yasuhiro Monden said, "I think the most important feature of the TPS is the "Just-In-Time" (JIT) concept. This is the concept of a system to make a product that is needed at the right time, in the right quantity. Many books just emphasize kaizen but JIT is the central part of the TPS." (http://lean-manufacturing-japan.com/interviews/toyota-production-system-part1.html) Monden authored the groundbreaking Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-In-Time, 4th Edition . The central part of the TPS. Think about that statement. If the JIT system is the central part of TPS, shouldn't the goal of a lean implementation be a JIT system?
"Just-In-Time is an ideal system in which the items needed arrive at the side of the production line at the time and in the quantity needed." (The Toyota Production System, Ohno, pg. 32) There are many positive results from a Just-In-Time system. Cost savings (labor and inventory reductions), improved On-Time-Delivery, much easier to manage, and the tools, which were developed in a JIT system, actually work!
The TPS tools ( like kanban) do not work w/out first establishing a pull system within the plant..."to realize a system in which the later process picks up requires us to transform the production methods of both the earlier and the later process." (The Toyota Production System, Ohno, pg. 32) This is one of the problems when the production system is not addressed. Setting up parts on kanban in push systems doesn't work. This is because the methods/tools/concepts were developed in support of the pull method. In fact, here's what Ohno said about it in regard to kanban use w/ suppliers..." if used for picking up parts from outside without first changing the production method within the company, kanban immediately becomes a dangerous weapon." (The Toyota Production System, Ohno, pg. 32). This means that the production method matters. Start in the plant. The schedule must be pulled through production.
In the past, the concentration in lean was about the tools. And not necessarily the tools that work for Toyota. Other tools have been developed outside of Toyota that have become very popular. The VSM and Kata to name a few. More recently, the emphasis is on the correct/desired behaviors and "Respect for people". This is important too but won't result in a JIT system. After almost 30 years of efforts there are few success stories. And by success, I mean achieving a JIT system using the pull method. In fact, it seems as though the pull method, as illustrated by the kanban, is no more important than any other tool. In reality, it's "the central part of TPS".
Taiichi Ohno had been working on a JIT system for almost 20 years when he came to America...In 1956, I toured U.S. production plants at General Motors, Ford and other machinery companies. But my strongest impression was the extent of the supermarkets prevalence in America...we made a connection between supermarkets and the just-in-time system...From the supermarket we got the idea of viewing the earlier process in a production line as a kind of store." (The Toyota Production System, Ohno, pg. 64)
He took this idea back to Toyota and began working on a pull method as he'd witnessed at U.S. supermarkets that would be suitable for automobile manufacturing. This pull method then led to the development of tools to support it. "Our biggest problem with this system (pull) was how to avoid throwing the earlier process into confusion when a later process picked up large quantities at a time. Eventually, after trial and error, we came up with production leveling". (The Toyota Production System, Ohno, pg. 68). Kanban was also developed to support the pull method which was instrumental in their Just-In-Time system.
How important was the Just-In-Time system to Toyota? Here's a clue. In the Publisher's Forward of Ohno's The Toyota Production System, Norman Bodek says "...Mr. Ohno believed just-in-time was a manufacturing advantage for Toyota. And for many years, he would not allow anything to be recorded about it." (The Toyota Production System, Ohno, pg. xi). Bodek goes on "...I think he also feared Americans would discover this powerful tool and use it against the Japanese." It was so important and "powerful" that it was not to be revealed outside.
The missing link in lean implementations is the lack of interest, focus, or ability to achieve a Just-In-Time system. Here's what Mike Hoseus, co-author of the Shingo Award Winning Toyota Culture and former Toyota executive said about The Toyota Template..."His perspective and focus on 'Just-In-Time' material availability and 'Flow-Pull-and Leveling' are missing components in many failed lean attempts".
The Toyota Template's standard for success is implementation of the pull method leading to a Just-In-Time system.
,
Here's a couple insights. Over the past four years I've discovered that Lean Six Sigma means something different to each person I've discussed it with. This makes lean similar to a religion. Each person has been told by someone what Lean is. Perhaps in person, perhaps by a book. In-house training may have maximized variation in understanding. Bizarrely, the single biggest issue with any new culture shift is individual buy in. Part of the point of quality circles was to help people feel heard, as though they played a role in the decision making, (quote from Toyota). Lean is not a thing unto itself. Either is Deming. They are simply systems built from principles. Some principles are more valid than others. I've yet to here a cogent case against Deming's principles. My Six Sigma training included multiple references to Deming's principles. Deming certainly knew about JIT. The system is not good or bad anyway. It's the application of the system that proves its value. And no two practitioners apply it in the same way.
An interesting divide in opinion this article has created. In my view that is the paradox of lean. Lean tends not to work when it is focused on specific areas instead of the whole enterprise. It is, as many commentators have pointed out, a philosophy rather than a tool kit. Unfortunately applying it across a whole enterprise is very difficult when that philosophy is not shared across it. This leads to an enormous amount of frustration.
Phil Ledbetter. Excellent article. From what I have experienced, most cases of Lean strategies wrongly deployed and unsustainable are due to lack of Organization Readiness and lack of Change Governance/Stakeholer Management
I'd offer that what is missing is that lean is done within a system of work as a mitigation for the adverse effects of that system. TPS was about cost savings within the 5% band available as being cost control during manufacture of a product. If the design is wrong lean cannot mitigate for that. The context is key, the Japanese attempted quality production up until 1950 based on copying US techniques, after 1950 they changed their fundamental approach and then lean made sense but it was within the wider context. When the US started to copy the Japanese after the 1970s/80s they looked at what could be done in the 5% band and that was good enough for those who didn't want to change the system.
Experienced leadership who understands all of the facets, such as JIT, flow, etc. AS WELL AS respect for people.