Site blog

Picture of LSSU Admin
by LSSU Admin - Monday, 29 January 2018, 6:07 PM
Retrieved from: The Lean Insider
Anyone in the world
The most recent book by organization Development (OD) master practitioner Gilmore Crosby, entitled Leadership Can Be Learned: Clarity, Connection, and Results, describes how leaders can be more effective in their interpersonal, group, and large-system interactions. During a recent conversation about his book, I asked Gilmore: "What are the traditional leadership paradigms that have consistent negative effects on work culture? How can this be changed?" Here is his complete answer:

There are two prevalent paradigms that lock leadership and work culture into a limited box:

Denial about authority issues -- Everyone has them, but most don’t realize they do. We all start small and dependent, and carry emotional memories from infancy into adulthood. Having a boss, being a boss, and being in an organization all remind our brain of our early pre-cognative experiences. Wired for survival, our brain wants to protect us from experiences similar to those early moments, including the dependency and interdependency of most work. Our emotional memories (the past) intensify our reactions in the present. If one isn’t aware enough to separate the past from the present, they will be apt to blame the people they are with (the boss, the subordinates, the peers) for their own mistrust and communication gaps. Our authority issues define and limit how we lead and how we relate to the people we report to.

Lack of systems thinking -- From a systemic perspective, it’s not who is on the bus that is most important, it’s how the bus is being driven. Most leaders are trapped in a paradigm of personality theory, obsessed with getting the right people on and off the bus. Many leaders I know take pride in their ability to judge people. That of course is necessary, but without a healthy dose of systems thinking, judging (and being judged) becomes the main focus. That unintentionally drives fear and defensiveness into the culture, undermining the very openness necessary for high performance. Leaders would do well to strive with at least equal energy for creating the conditions for fostering high performance in the vast majority of the people that are reporting to them. If they are constantly changing people out, they are the problem, not the subordinates. The right driver can lift an entire system, the wrong driver can demoralize and undermine performance. I’ve seen both many times.

Practical methods for bringing out the best in yourself and in others are woven throughout my book not as a program, but rather as sound leadership practices suitable to every group in any organization.

What do you think of Gilmore's perspective? Do these leadership paradigms exist in your organization? What have been the effects?

In this video, Gilmore presents a more in-depth overview of his book:
Leadership Can Be Learned Promo from Gilmore Crosby on Vimeo.
Picture of LSSU Admin
by LSSU Admin - Sunday, 21 January 2018, 12:00 PM
Retrieved from: Lead With Lean
Anyone in the world

Lean is a full business strategy. But first, a disclaimer: to explain how lean is a specific business strategy, I need to get into a debate about strategy and I want to make perfectly clear I don’t believe military thinking […]

The post How is lean a strategy? appeared first on Lead With Lean.

Anyone in the world

“How does OEE systematically improve your manufacturing processes?” --That was the question I recently posed to Ross Kennedy, author of a recently published book entitled Understanding, Measuring, and Improving Overall Equipment Effectiveness: How to Use OEE to Drive Significant Process Improvement. Ross is recognized as Australasia’s leading authority on total productive maintenance (TPM) and continuous improvement, and he had some key insights. Here is his complete answer:

OEE or Overall Equipment Effectiveness was created during the development of the Toyota Production System to help understand all the losses that could affect equipment performance so as to reduce lead times and improve quality, rather than relying on the traditional approach of measuring just equipment downtime. I first came across the concept in 1989 in a Productivity Press book titled TPM Development Program. It outlined that equipment could only be effective if it was Available when required, running at the ideal or theoretical speed or Rate (very best in ideal situation), and producing good Quality output first time. Hence OEE = Availability% x Rate% x Quality%.

Originally OEE involved the Six Big Losses (equipment failure, sets and adjustments, idling and minor stops, reduced speed, process defects, reduced yield) , however in more recent times this has been expanded to seven losses with the inclusion of planned downtime when the operating crew are at work.

OEE is often referred to as the measure that allows you to expose and capture the "hidden factory" within your plant. Often sites will identify opportunities worth 20% to 50% more capacity from their production lines or processes with little or no capital expenditure simply by fully understanding and doing something about all the losses that stop their equipment from being effective. I have certainly witnessed this in manufacturing, mining, and process industries during the past 20 years of applying this learning in a structured discipline way.

I have found when studied in detail, OEE losses can be attributed to three key areas:
  • Technical issues such as design weaknesses or poor maintenance practices.
  • People Development issues such as poorly trained operators or maintainers who lack an understand of prevention at source for equipment.
  • Management issues such as inappropriate organization structures, rostering, recruitment, daily management policies, planned maintenance and planned break times.
Once identified and actioned, the improvement results can be very significant.

One mine site in Indonesia reported at an international conference in Asia how over two years they saved over US$135million by focusing OEE improvement on their run-of-mine. At Australia’s largest privately owned brewery, OEE was used to increase the capacity of their main production line by more than 15% each year to defer the need to increase to a two-shift operation for three years while still meeting the growth of their business which was reported in the local media as 17.5% average yearly growth from 1993 to 2012.

Unfortunately at many sites, OEE has become the most misused and abused indicator of equipment performance with some sites changing the definitions to make it appear better as they are required to submit it to corporate for comparison between other sites.

At one large multi-national food manufacturing site I visited they were boasting about their high OEE performance, however when I delved into the way they were measuring OEE, I realised that they had removed Planned Downtime and Set-up or Changeover Downtime and had an Ideal speed set at the standard average speed used for setting budgets and doing costing (typically 20% lower than true ideal or theoretical speed). In effect, they were hiding many opportunities for improvement so that they could report a good performance figure to corporate management. In other words, they had a culture of always trying to look good rather than seeking out opportunities for continuous improvement.

OEE should be seen and used as a "driver" for improvement, not as a performance measure to be compared or benchmarked between equipment and sites. As a "driver" for improvement, the definition for OEE should have a 100% correlation to the good output produced from your line or plant. In other words, if OEE increases by 10% then you should be making 10% more good output or making the same amount of good output within 10% less time, hence the need for the OEE definition to include all the seven losses. 

What are you thoughts on Ross Kennedy's perspective on the use of OEE for process performance improvements? Do you use OEE as a key performance indicator of manufacturing productivity?
Picture of LSSU Admin
by LSSU Admin - Wednesday, 29 November 2017, 4:32 PM
Retrieved from: The Lean Insider
Anyone in the world
I was quite happy that, during this past month, I got the chance to speak to Boyd Cohen -- one of the foremost climate strategists helping to lead communities, cities, and companies on the journey towards the low carbon economy -- about his most recent book, Post-Capitalist Entrepreneurship: Startups for the 99%. His thought-provoking book challenges many of our underlying assumptions about how entrepreneurs form startups and the objectives and roles (or lack thereof) of startup investors in a post-capitalist society.

During our conversation, I asked him: “Why has there been such a radical change in the dynamics of startups?" Here is his response:

Several factors have been evolving and even disrupting the startup scene during the past 5 to10 years. The democratization of the tools of innovation have led to massive reductions in costs, time, and barriers for startups. This includes the proliferation of cloud computing, Software as a Service, and co-working spaces.  But furthermore, the growing number of technologically unemployed and the resentment and frustration with growing inequality has given rise to a new breed of entrepreneur who is less focused on private ownership of land, capital, and human resources (the basic tenets of capitalism) and instead focused on inclusive, open, and collaborative business models, such as platform cooperatives and commons-based peer production. The highly disruptive, and distributed capabilities of blockchain even further these trends, opening up opportunities for alternative currencies and initial coin offerings (token sales) as well as automated distributed autonomous organizations where no intermediary monetizes transactions between peers. 

What do you think of Boyd's perspective? What are your thoughts on entrepreneurs who are pursuing radically different approaches to value creation and extraction?  
Anyone in the world

“What is the difference between Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) and Lean Maintenance?”

That's the question I just posed to Torsten Dederichs, who just published a new book entitled Lean Maintenance: A Practical, Step-By-Step Guide for Increasing Efficiency with Javier Girón Blanco. Considering the amount of money industrial companies spend maintaining their plants and  maintenancingtheir equipment, I figured it'd be best to include his entire answer here:

What is the difference between onions and apples? Onions are vegetables and apples are fruits.

The first principle of TPM is that the operator is the first line of defense against unplanned downtime. Because operators know their equipment best, they can identify problems long before they get critical. This approach is  a very valuable approach for increasing reliability and reducing  wasted time and repairs.

But what happens when the operators cannot solve the issue themselves? What if the repair needs skilled crafts or engineers? The operator raises a maintenance notification, which launches the maintenance process. And in this same second the operator leaves the TPM world and hands over his engine to our “Lean Maintenance” approach.

Maintenance technicians are the "go-to folks" when machines break down. They are modern-day heroes who can fix anything at anytime. The role of the “hero” becomes evident when maintenance starts to work in a predominantly reactive mode, fire-fighting its way through the day. At this point,  employees begin to view maintenance as a necessary evil because it is basically a cost center that requires management attention as well as capital (spare parts inventory) and personnel. This sentiment is exacerbated when maintenance is performed “at all costs” -- work orders take more time, money and effort to get done, budgets are exceeded, and an unhealthy relationship develops between maintenance and production. At this point, upper management starts to consider ways to get costs under control: top-down cost reductions (meaning that less maintenance gets done, with the corresponding availability risk) and partial or total outsourcing. These measures can provide a quick fix but will not resolve the firefighting nor fix the broken relationship between maintenance and production. This situation can lead to frustration, as things go back to where they were before. To break this vicious circle we propose a different approach.

Maintenance can be a source of profitability by ensuring high availability. As mentioned previously, companies with an efficient and effective maintenance function have a clear competitive advantage. A Lean maintenance function ensures that all resources are dedicated to value-adding activities, taking out the process “waste,” and being able to do more with the current resources.

To achieve Lean maintenance, many elements must be in place: the interfaces between production and maintenance along the full maintenance process must be smooth and maintenance work must be properly selected, prioritized, planned, scheduled and carried out. Everyone involved in the process should know how he or she can contribute to this goal.

The description of the ideal maintenance process and the method for achieving it is the focus of Lean Maintenance: A Practical, Step-By-Step Guide for Increasing Efficiency.

What do you consider the differences between TPM and Lean maintenance? Have you practiced Lean maintenance in your company?  

Picture of LSSU Admin
by LSSU Admin - Monday, 9 October 2017, 7:49 AM
Retrieved from: Lead With Lean
Anyone in the world

I remember one of my senseis asking me one day: can you do one hour of 100% value-added every day? As I write this, I think: “what is going to make this piece interesting?” (that’s a hit and miss) I […]

The post Yamazumi! Yes, yamazumi… appeared first on Lead With Lean.