Lean - One-Piece Flow is Simple (Voiceover Version)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.พ. 2016
- One-piece flow isn't complicated! Here Jeremy Sullivan walks you through a simple way to change everything. Email theleanworkshop@gmail.com with questions, for help, or suggestions for more lean videos you'd like to see.
This is the best, most simple video explanation of OPF that I have seen. Working in LEAN manufacturing, this is essential to our success. Our orientation for new members includes explaining OPF but I just asked all of my line members who actually understands it. Three out of thirty. A simple and effective 5 minutes later, 30 people now get it. Thank you Jeremy. Looking forward to using more of your tuition.
Thank you for sharing this! I consider it the highest compliment, to hear that I have helped people understand simply. Years ago I realized that the experts often just complicate things, and immediately turn off everyone who needs to learn about them. My mission has been to offer a clutter-free, complication-free, approachable translation of what the original TPS/Kaizen/"Lean" was all about - simplicity - so that everyone can learn, can finally participate, and therefore sustain permanently. :) Thanks again, and please do connect with me on LinkedIn if you'd like. I love to talk shop. linkedin.com/in/jeremyjsullivan/
I have watched numerous videos discussing one piece flow but never fully understood why it produces the dramatic results that it does. I had an entirely different notion of what the reason was. Your explanation, for me, was literally jaw dropping! I'm going to watch it again right now. Thank you for the best explanation I've ever seen.
This One-Piece Flow reminds me of the 'Just in Time' methodology. It's a smart process no matter what it is called.
Very effective and simple video for showing the impact of the one piece flow versus batch processing.
The BEST video of all the videos I have watched till now.
This is the best illustration I have seen in a long time.
Great video. Simple, to the point but a great eye opener.
excellent simple short video about OPF. Great job. Voice-over helps for sure.
Good example of how small changes can improve a process.
Great video showing the benefits of a smooth work flow. If one of the stations has a problem it will throw the whole process askew.
Really great and simple explanation, love it!! :-)
This is something I've been trying to facilitate at work for a few years. Perfect for order processing in a warehouse environment.
Simple yet powerful concept!
This is a very powerful video demonstrating with a very simple example all the waste that is generated by working in batches, primarily time waste, and how making small adjustments can significantly make the process more efficient, ultimately more lean.
ERVIN - This one piece flow video is a very powerful tool in showing that focused concentrated effort is better than multi tasking and also shows that piece wise work will get you to the customer quicker than trying to complete batches.
Im going to use this process at home. I never thought of the time in this way
I love this video and the presentation style!
That time saving was huge! But the video did a really good job at the end relating it to other aspects of life. Personally I like working in 'batch mindset' because it's easier to concentrate and focus, but it seems there should be a balance between how much time is lost due to transition times.
Thanks for sharing this simple but effective clip on one-piece flow. Many people struggle with this concept and this clip will help build the understanding. Well done!
+Paul Chmura Thanks Paul! Like I have said before, in 16 years I have never seen this explained in a one-shot manner that makes it approachable, and in a way that actually gets people started. Let me know if you need anything at all, or if there are other videos you'd like to see!
This is a great concept used almost all the time in kitchens. For banquet service, each person has a piece of the composed plate, and either the plates move down a line or the cooks move down a stationary line of plates which are picked up and served one at a time. The speaker outlined how ONE person should do this and wastes a time at the end of the day for example: "I answer all my emails at the end of the day." I don't understand how you can do one piece flow with one person. Rebuilding a car engine, one cylinder at a time until that section was finished would cause any number or delays and mixed up parts. Most of the examples at the end prove the opposite of what the video is trying to say. For example: A minimum order of 200 widgets indicates that a changeover or startup and shutdown process includes enough waste, no matter how "lean," to make a batch of less than 200 non-profitable. "We only do that procedure on Tuesday's when the specialist is in." Wouldn't it be a massive waste of time for the specialist to travel from clinic to clinic every day doing one procedure here, two there? Doesn't batching make more sense?
I see what you are referencing, but it is the wrong frame of reference for this example. Let me take just one of your points: the specialist. From the Specialist's frame of reference, there is only enough work at one clinic for one day's work. Therefore, they need to travel to multiple clinics and dedicate (batch) an entire day. This keeps them busy and improves their experience at their craft.
Let me propose an alternate frame of reference: The Customer. The customer needs to accept a potential 6+ day delay (assuming there's even spots still open) for their procedure because the Specialist is only in on Tuesdays. Or the customer can drive somewhere else where the Specialist is, assuming they can drive and specialist has spots available. What if the doctor's office had a dedicated resource, reducing the delays the customer experienced? What if the limited amount of work for the specialist at one clinic is only because the clinic offers it on Tuesday? If they offered it every day and the other businesses didn't offer it at all, the customer could be seen daily and the specialist wouldn't have to travel as much. Alternatively, what if the Specialist could also serve as a generalist when needed? So when Special appointments occurred, they were already on-site and ready, but they could otherwise still be put to work. By focusing on the needs of the customer, we could develop more meaningful solutions to the people paying the bills.
This flow not only allows us to attend to our customer's needs but also provides feedback in a timely manner if needed. It offers several often overlooked benefits due to the mindset of "this is how we've always done it."
Excellent explanation!
Thanks for this video, Jeremy / Mark. I will use it in a kaizen session we will do this week.
I have been searching for a video to sum up the differences and improvements, and this is perfect.
Also, a very soothing voice !!
+Adam Wordsworth Hi Adam! I am happy that it might be helpful. Do you mind if I ask what type of business you do? I always like to hear where Lean is being absorbed. And thanks for the voice comment - my goal is to offer an approachable version of Lean (in stark contrast to typical "expert speak").
The illustration is fantastic and easy to understand. Great help for my case write-up. Thx!
Thank you Ahren! I appreciate your feedback. I'd love to see how your case write-up comes out. -Jeremy
Great video. Easy to understand and visualize.
Interesting, the brainstorming at the end is the most informative to me. The first example is oversimplified so it almost doesn’t make sense but I get the point. Batching can be cumbersome and slow. Therefore retooling a process to promote a ‘flow state’ doesn’t have to fully remove batching but reduce the size of the batches.
You are awesome . You just made it clear
Thank you Usamah! Happy to help.
The one piece flow is a a good mindset of how to think simpler and flow better when the same task or process is needed. You can clearly see the time "waste" that is displayed during the traditional batching flow.
This is super simple but surprisingly helpful 🥰 Thank you a lot now I can understand it very well ☺️
You’re welcome 😊
thumbs up for you effort. Nice video
The best way to do your job in less time!
Absolutely Paul!
well explained... well done
Great video showcasing the benefits of OPF instead of a more traditional batching system.
it's simple but easy to understanding...!!
Great video! Thank you.
Thanks Alex! -Jeremy
Thank you, very easy to understand video !
Glad it was helpful!
Kind of relates to Waste in that you have other departments waiting and waiting (idle) for a previous process to finish
Great video
Nice video
Thanks so much
This video explains well how one-piece flow works well for businesses with multiple employees (I can't help but think of ordering a Chipotle burrito when I see this). However, for single, self-employed people, it still seems like traditional batching is the most efficient way to make large quantities of items. This assumes that lead time is not an obstacle, of course.
Glenn, I would suggest that you try your process in batches and single piece flow to see what the difference might be. In my experience, the difference is huge and almost inexplicable. You can find videos on single piece flow for washing dishes, stuffing envelopes and making paper airplanes. All tasks done by single, self-employed people.
Great video Jeremy! Nice and simple and clear.
+Lean@UHN Thank you! That's the goal. Doing this for 16 years or so, I've concluded that anything else is a complete waste of time. Are you implementing flow with any success yet? I'd love to hear!
+TheLeanWorkshop Actually we have! We've got an article on some of our successes which I'll link to below. Much of the improvement came from eliminating/reducing batching and focusing on flow. Looking forward to more excellent videos!
www.uhn.ca/corporate/News/Pages/getting_big_reductions_in_wait_times_by_tackling_little_problems.aspx
+Lean@UHN I am so sorry for missing your reply. This is a great article! There are so many encouraging points to this. I was working in NYC last year in the Clinical Trials Organization of a cancer center, and I was quickly reminded of the importance of improving everything everywhere, every day. I was also happy to read the part about the significance of visual management - it is way overlooked! Do you have any more updates?
I hope this video helps everyone! What types of batches do you see every day? How would it help if flow were applied, instead?
He implies that one piece flow also works for an individual with there stack of contracts or orders.
The fact is that it is as fast or faster to do these projects in batches. The advantage with Lean is in the flow.
If you have to wear many hats as many of us do it is best to work in batches, as there is setup time and the time it takes to get into the mindset.
You could argue that the setup should be simplified but the opportunity cost would often out weigh the benefit.
Hi Indigenousim! Thanks for commenting! In one of my "lives" I do work as an individual doing production, and I have tried it all. The truth of the matter that I have seen personally is that batching produces isolated islands of efficiency, but the overall productivity is in fact no better.
Adding to this, doing "all of step 2 together" is much less useful if I get to step 3 and find that I did step 2 wrong - 10 times. I then really wish I had only done ONE piece of step two before moving to step 3 and discovering my problem.
Thanks for commenting! I would love to hear more about what you do, and what has vs. hasn't worked for you.
Thanks!
Jeremy
What comes to mind for me is that most tasks take a certain amount of focus.
It is very difficult to change focus quickly.
That's true! If the task is dependent heavily upon constant, small tweaking (an artist creating someone's portrait in oil paints on a canvas, for example), it is very hard to shift to suddenly assembling doorknobs, and then back again. This is where beginning to standardize everything that CAN BE standardized starts to actually help - that important focus is not pulled away by "looking for my 1" flat brush" or a worker looking for the phillips screwdriver, etc. There are many more pieces to this puzzle, and reducing the need for constant tweaking is just one more piece.
I will have to consider that.
I like Paul's fix what bugs you idea, I find it a very useful discipline.
But that implies constant tweaking?
In any case I will consider that idea of standardizing and see how I can use it.
Right now I'm doing some date entry on Quick Books.
Standardizing this function can have a huge opportunity cost. I once had a worker write up the function required for our custom bookkeeping software. It ended up being 300 pages long.
300 pages long!! Who the heck is going to read it? :) More importantly, who is going to remember it? Let me know if you want some help.
Paul Akers is a dear friend of mine, and we share a deep interest in getting back to simple, as well as making Lean approachable and doable for everyone. Let me quickly try to compare "fix what bugs you" and my sentence above, "reduce the need for constant tweaking." This is a great question because TPS/Lean are so full of dichotomies...
"Fix what bugs you" refers to applying simple, clever, elegant, and no-nosense improvements to reduce struggle, improve things, but without needing to fill out some silly suggestion form or "charter," slog through a bureaucratic "kaizen submission process," etc. It is about empowerment and red tape cutting.
When I say we should "reduce the need for constant tweaking" I am referring to this kind of "tweaking": constant correction of little errors, shaving of slightly fat parts, whacking things with a mallet, jumping up and down on a part, adding "extra" grease....... shimming.... . These all are causing the employee struggle. This is the kind of "tweaking" I was saying we should reduce - the tweaking that results from errors, sloppiness, etc.
Just to be clear, the "good tweaking" would be small improvements making things better, simpler, a little bit at a time.
Send me an email at jeremy@theleanworkshop.com! The 300-page Quick Books function has made me curious about what you do. :) I look forward to hearing from you!
Thanks!
Jeremy
Could you show this simulation in a restaurant situation? Where you want to deliver the food to the table as close to the same time as possible. I'm struggling with applying this example in that case.
Simple and understandable
+Lean Farming Thanks! That is the goal. Nothing else matters.
Too good video
Excellente présentation du 1 piece-flow; j'ai fait sans prétention encore plus simple avec des plots de chantier sur une usine d'assemblage (à l'étranger) de véhicules afin de réguler le flux avec des embranchements et des postes à capacités différentes entre eux et limiter l'encours avec un flux tiré et non plus poussé: on a obtenu +15% en T4 2015 et +10% (de véhicules à nbre de personnes égal) par rapport à T4 sur T1 2016, plus un mode différent de management, des tableaux d'indicateurs types réutilisables à remplir au feutre et un accompagnement à distance ...
Great short video to demonstrate the power of "flow" in a Lean environment.
+Stan Stone Thanks Stan! My experience is that this gets overcomplicated and groups give up. I have had success with flow in some really complicated places by keeping it oh-so-simple. How about your experience with seeing it, or doing it? Thanks for watching and commenting, Stan!
thanks alot you are so simple and reduced my lead time to collect data about this topic @@@@
how can I apply this for hospital / healthcare facility regarding medications dispensing ?
Thanks you
Thanks! How would this system help with e.g. number 4 or 5 at 3:42?
Hi, I don't see how we save 30+ minute per hour. If the line was continued to run fully loaded from the beginning we would have a part in the customer's hands every 1 minute after the first 50-minute delay just like 1 piece flow. What am I not seeing correctly?
You have the math right but there is many other benefits; as the speaker points out.
You would think that this is commons sense, but it really isn't. I actually know a few people that do this daily and it drives me crazy. I actually sent them this video so they can see how working in a one-piece flow system will actually work better for his clients.
Very nice explanation here. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like although cycle time is significantly reduced, that's happened with the addition of more manpower. In the batch flow, you have 50 minutes of labor as one operator moves down the line running each process. In the one-piece flow, all 5 stations are running at the same time and yes it's still 50 minutes of labor but you need 5 people. Each employee carries some overhead in terms of staffing, administration, management, etc. Also, your demonstration has all processes taking the same amount of time. If each step had varying times, that could lead to wasted time as operators that are done sooner are waiting for parts compared to batch processing where it wouldn't matter.
That aside, I do see other benefits of not making big batches, especially things like sub-components for some assembly. With batch processing, you could have something causing defects (worn tool, some small change to something, some error on a recipe) and you might not know until you've made a bunch of scrap that there's been a problem.
I'm sure that companies that have employed the one-piece flow have faced these issues, do they try to tune their process so each step takes the same time?
+Fast Lane Innovations, LLC Hi! Thanks for your thoughtful comments and questions, and I promise to answer this evening. Feel free to email me at Jeremy@TheLeanWorkshop.com if you need a quick answer or a phone call, as well. Thanks! -Jeremy
You will understand the issue of batches when a batch of 5000 parts were made and they were all wrong and had to be scrapped out. with OPF you save on scrap/rework costs as well as inventory costs for the overhead to store all those big batches of parts in warehouse. Make them and get them to the customer as fast as possible is the idea.
And its not 1 operator moving to each of the 5 stations its 5 different operators doing 5 different sub tasks.
@TheLeanWorkshop I have a question. I know you used a simplified explanation but not all process take the same time, one process may require more time than another. So my question is, if process one takes 30 minutes and process 2 takes 15 minutes, after 30 minutes, the part is given to process 2 which only requires 15 minutes of work. Therefore, once process 2 has completed the work they would have to wait an additional 15 minutes before they are given the next part to work on. Of course this means idle work and therefore lower productivty. What is the solution to this problem. Can JIT still work?
Great question! Sorry I missed it until now. Yes it can still work. You have to chop up your processes 1 & 2 into smaller “process elements.” Then, find out the rate of customer demand (let’s say it is one purchased every 8 minutes?) then run your processes in 7- or 8-minute sub-processes (depending on how many people you have available - it could also be 4-minute bites, using more people, or whatever works). Then you don’t have a “30” vs. a “15”, instead you have a series of 4’s or 7’s or 8’s. I hope that makes sense.
If all else fails, yes, you can add a buffer where some 30’s accumulate, then you would work to achieve something better over time. I hope this helps!
My company has lengthy setup times and machines that create more than one product. I see how this is efficient with dedicated machinery, but I cant imagine how I would implement it across all of our processes.
Great video. I am not a consultant, but try and promote Lean at the company I work for. May I use your video? I have read many of the comments and it should be noted that single piece flow is a goal. Just like zero defects. You don't just start single piece flow, you begin working toward it.
+Tim Grant Hi Tim! Of course you can use the video. Regarding working toward flow, I equate it to pulling off a band-aid. I have done both the "slow build" and the all-at-once implementation of one-piece-flow. Personally, I prefer to tear off the band-aid (requires lots of experience and preferably more than one sensei to support the team through the chaos), because by working in a one-piece situation the problems are most quickly brought to the surface. It enables you to get to stability much sooner, and ultimately you may win the race of "proving the value of this effort before people burn out and revolt." ;)
Regarding a goal of zero defects, that was a little bit lost in translation. Think of it more as a goal of "zero defects passed forward." That's a little more on target with the spirit of it. If you need anything, let me know, and I would love to hear your team's feedback on the video, if you have time. Thanks!
Wonderful video! I love it!
I am a little curious about the "email at the end of the day" being a batch that doesn't make sense, how would that influence the workflow in your example if the middle 3 workers received email that took them 5 minutes to process each?
I'm not trolling, I'm actually curious. Does it simply cause a 5 minute delay but typically save you 10 minutes later?
I love lean, but never thought of applying it to my email workflow.
+Chris Adams Hi Chris - great question! Let's look at it simply, first: responding to all my TH-cam questions at the end of the day would be more convenient (for me), and more efficient, in a sense. But you (the 1st customer of the day) would wait 8 hours for an answer. Strike 1.
Regarding the workflow in my example:
If emails were an aspect of the product being produced by those 5 people, and Person 2 only handled her emails at the end of the day, then her Monday morning emails wouldn't get processed/passed to #3 until Monday night. As a result, #3 wouldn't work on it until Tues morning.
But to follow a little further: Let's say #3 also had that policy. On Tuesday morning, #3 would have that "piece," from #2, ready to be worked on. But #3 wouldn't even look at it until Tuesday night! Now we have something a customer asks for Monday morning, it only needed 2 MINUTES of work, and we've blown 48 HOURS which the customer has to wait.
Make sense? :) Strike 2.
I'm not sure if this directly answers your question? I hope so. If not, let's try again! The truth is, this has many, many facets we could touch on. The cost of lengthy interruption, the benefits of being so flexible that you can do "one of these, then one of those, then one of that..," the idea that if I do everything at once before passing them all and I am making mistake, I make 10 mistakes instead of one, before my internal customer notices my error. (Strikes 3 - 12) :) Let me know if I didn't directly answer your question! (It's a lot of "stuff" at once.) And thanks!
TheLeanWorkshop great info, and very sensible!
I'm an IT Director fascinated by lean, and oftentimes get stopped mid-project by emails, in person visits, etc. I constantly feel that stopping my work to address new work (not related to the current project) will disrupt the flow of my team and decrease our productivity.
On the other hand, like you mention there is a benefit to being so flexible. Sometimes it helps to sacrifice productivity in favor of being effective for the organization. I simply struggle with when to batch non project-related work vs being available throughout the day.
Are interruptions lean, or is eliminating unrelated (but still important) interruptions lean?
(So while I'm fascinated by lean, I'm obviously not too knowledgeable about the details!)
+Chris Adams -Great questions! In short, flexibility is very much in the spirit of TPS (the Toyota Production System). Interruptions however... I would have to look at that situationally. In a situation where you are wearing multiple hats, one option is to split the difference and "schedule in" small frequent "interruption windows" where people can reach you without too much waiting, but allowing you to concentrate during the rest of the time. It touches on something we call "heijunka." Of course that's without looking at your situation specifically, but it's a thought.
A simple illustration how the one-piece flow is much more time efficient than the batch processing method.
"Flow" for me is the keyword here, having a product flowing down processes instead of waiting for a set number of products to be completed at one stage isn't efficient.
I can see why this is a more efficient way to handle one-piece workflows, but as one commenter brought up, what about those who are juggling multiple responsibilities? I don't think it's very efficient to be glued to my email inbox while trying to complete various projects and tasks. Emails often interrupt me, so I lose my footing with whatever project I'm doing and almost have to "re-learn" the part I left off at if high concentration is necessary. Which could leave margin for error. Maybe I need to think about this in a different context.
Would you concede that there exist caveats to strict adherence to one-piece flow?
For a tiny company or one man operation offering a wide variety of quality products requiring not only machine work but also high-level manual skills, one piece flow comes up against several challenges; these relate to capital, set-up time, and quality. (I'll try to refer to your video example.)
First, one needs enough physical space and equipment to have all five operations set up at once. Order quantities need to be predictable and large enough to justify the required capital investments. If the same machine or work space must be used for more than one operation, then set-up time for just one piece becomes a major cost consideration. Minimizing set-up time enough to make one-piece flow economical may be impossible; or if imperfectly implemented, it can also jeopardize quality.
Second, if challenging manual skills and finesse are required for successful execution of many different operations, the goal of executing the first piece of each operation to the required quality, even after proper set-up, may not be attainable or consistently repeatable. Again, quality may suffer.
(Imagine competing in the decathlon using one-piece flow. Your score (quality) would be based on your first jump, first throw, etc... Imagine sitting on the bench until the final seconds of the game, and then coming in to shoot just one free throw. Where the quality of products still pends manual skills, strict adherence to one-piece flow requires exceptional ability: you need to drag your clubs out of the bag, skip the practice tee, and split the fairway with your first swing of the driver.)
I see the benefits of one-piece flow and try to implement it where consideration of the factors I mention make it practical for my scale and scope of operations. But for those of us working more on a level of cottage industry than production plant, I think a fundamentalist adherence to the one-piece credo is impractical and ill-advised. A hybrid approach blending batch with one-piece strategies according to one's resources, the variety and quantities of products involved, and the level of quality required is a more efficient and realistic approach.
Lean is based largely on reduction to simplicity; but not everything is or can be made simple, especially when quantities are small, products varied, and requirements for skill and quality high. To accept one-piece flow as a powerful tool, must we also accept it as a religion?
Michael this is a great comment - thank you! I want to do it justice, so forgive me if this is a long reply..
The answer is no - absolutely not! In my 16 years, there is nothing in the TPS/Lean world, for me, that needs to be followed blindly! I guess an exception to that would be the very core principles: kaizen-related stuff, eliminating waste to clear the path for creating value, growing people, etc...
At its core TPS/Lean is a whole lot of experimenting. It is NOT about starting with the answers (flow, or pull, or kanban, or 5S, or 3S, of 7S*) and then "finding nails, to use my hammer."
I frequently create products as one-offs (imagine "art" for the sake of discussion). I agree with you that even if I make 10 of them, I may never make even one more, and in that case I can't find the way that setting up some kind of work cell benefits me, or the product. But..... considering flow, and considering whether/how it could help does flex my brain muscles and improve my overall ability to produce and improve. Often times, while trying to give flow (or whatever else) my best shot, I find a way to automate something, I think of a new jig, or a new error-proofing trick, and that helps me even when I work on a one-off.
I want to offer you three things to consider:
1. "5-piece flow": Let's say we can't currently get down to one-piece flow. Can we go from 10 to 5? Can we move along the first 5 once they are ready, without waiting for the other 10? Could we at least cut some lead times in half? Could we avoid 50% of the reworks where Step 2 makes and error and Step 3 catches it? Remember my question in the last part was "what if we worked CLOSER TO one-piece...?" :) Just a thought.
2. For everyone reading this: don't confuse "finesse required" and "poorly designed product or process": Sometimes finesse is required (heart surgeon, oil painting...), but sometimes we are "finessing" one part into another with a big mallet because we haven't designed or executed them correctly. This is struggle we should be trying to eliminate. We all know the difference, but sometimes managers just let workers struggle with the latter.
3. "One-project flow": Let's forget one-piece flow for a moment, and "zoom out" to a higher level view of a one-person shop. Does the person have lots of projects going on at once? It is because of necessary parts of the process (epoxy curing, cast pieces cooling...) or is it because the person has a hard time finishing one thing before starting the next? I think aiming for "one-project flow" (i.e. "finish one thing before starting another) can take the average solo worker a long way.
The point of the video was not to convert everyone/everything into one-piece flow, but to offer an approachable, simple explanation of one-piece flow for beginners or for people who are tired of trying to slog through the multitude of academia-styled Lean guru books on the market. I find the majority of that stuff to be an actual barrier to entry - and written by people who have lived their lives with very clean hands.... My videos and my consulting are intended as the opposite: an approachable pathway into the TPS/Lean/kaizen spirit.
I hope this makes sense! There is no one right way. Do what works for you! Toyota did, and still does... regardless of "Lean dogma" ;)
*(as an example.... I have a Toyota document outlining how to do "7S" - not kidding. I can't share it publicly because of an NDA, but I would be happy to show it to you privately some day)
Thanks again, and call me if you need anything.
-Jeremy
essy to understand
So basically, in the first example of batching, the employees that aren't occupied at their stations are just sitting there waiting? Who would ever think to let everything build up before moving it onto the next work station? Of course its inefficient to hire 5 workers that don't work simultaneously. The first person could just move from station to station at that point. Who knew this wasn't obvious haha
Hi, Jeremy, I would love your permission to use this video as part of our Lean training at my company. Are you open to providing that permission? Thanks for considering it!
Hi Michele! Of course! Please email me at theleanworkshop@gmail.com when you have a moment. :)
Great video, but seems this is considered the process are run in a perfect way. It's a concept. Usually we don't have enough headcount to be fulfilled in each stations. The headcount planning are always reflect to the demand and balance to takt utilization. Means the headcount allocation in a stations is not always 1, it can be less with point something. Thus, we still have to wait for the headcount planning to support the next process. Its kind of a batch run at the end.
Thanks! Don’t consider your points a “but”, though. Running something well means the ancillary functions also have to run well - and that includes staffing, consideration of team dynamics, and growing and engaging people, among other things. Congratulations - you just uncovered some weak spots in your business to fix next! This, is the purpose.
So, yes I agree with OPF and Pull. However, examples like this assume that all workstations are empty at the start and this drives waiting that makes the two sets of numbers so dramatically different. But, as yourself... how often do you come into a workplace and all workstations are empty waiting for a product to flow through stations 1-4 ? You don't restart every process from fresh each day. So any improvements you make with OPF will not be as dramatic as this.
Thanks for your comment. Some do start fresh every day. Nobody leaves half-processed bread, half-painted products, 75% done ice cream (nor their required equipment) sitting on a production line for tomorrow’s start of shift. Also, shipping departments, Logistics, DC’s complete everything, every day. (And yes, start at zero waiting for product to flow through empty stations. Also, nobody leaves a half operated-on patients laying there until morning.
Many production lines leave the line wet, as you described, but many do not. It is important to look beyond the old school examples or to not think outside of the one thing someone produces themself.
So to answer your question of how often I see this example in the real world? Daily, everywhere.
@@jeremysullivan1706 Hi, on a simplistic level what you say sounds like it's right....but most of your examples don't stand up to scrutiny. They _do_ have unfinished product on the lines overnight and stations are primed to go from the start of the day.
If we just take your first example of "half baked bread" seem obvious at first glance - but looking at the end to end process, as you need to, I'm sure you'll find delivered wheat waiting to be ground overnight, you'll find ground flour waiting to be mixed and baked. Lots of stations ready to go at the crack of dawn, primed to go and not waiting for the batch of wheat to progress from the start point. I hope that helps you understand my point a little better.
Oh, and on the topic of baking bread....try persuading a baker to bake every loaf individually and see how far you get ;-)
It's as I said, reducing batching is a great approach. However, you need to temper the expected benefits against the reality of the process.
@@johnmccurdy1011 Thanks for your participation. I encourage you to learn more deeply, then to post your own video explaining the realities you feel you have better knowledge of. Looking forward to your videos.
I think this is cool, but I think there is an underlying assumption that the workers at each step only do one task and are not responsible for anything else. What about staff who have multiple responsibilities? Multiple projects, and tasks related to those projects?
Is there any way I can get a down load of this video?
+Jack Lassiter Hi! Thanks for asking. I know one way that I can't explain in the comments, and/or I can try to get it to you another way. Email me at Jeremy@TheLeanWorkshop.com and I'll be happy to help.
Glad you like the video. Can I ask what makes this one worthwhile, for you? -Jeremy
TheLeanWorkshop
Yes you can ask!! I am an operation manager and Lean Implementor and I think this short video is a great way to show newly hired people the concept of lean and not batching. I have 17 assembly cells and 25 assembly associates and I think this would be a good tool to put in our new hire package.
Hi Jack - 17 assembly cells, all working to avoid batching, sounds terrific. I'll make sure you get the video, and I am especially happy to help new people who are just getting their feet wet! I received your email and I'll reply there as well.
Thank you so much Jeremy!!
So tell me. How would this work in a cabinet shop. Let's make a simple example. We have 12 custom cabinets. 6 uppers and 6 lowers. Uppers are al same height. Different widths. Lowers are all same height/depth, different widths. Some lowers have 1 drawer. One lower has bank of 3 doors. One has no drawers.
Do I cut one piece of plywood at a time? Then take that piece to the line boring machine, then to the assembly bench. Then repeat process then tops and bottoms. And now assemble 1st cabinet. Then cut back of cabinet and install.
Next I guess would be to go to lumber yard for next piece or pieces of plywood. And so on. It seems as if process is not very efficient.
What am I missing?
Hey thanks for your thoughts. It's not that you are missing anything, but there are supporting functions that support the simple example I created here. The separate steps - cutting, drilling, assembly, whatever - should be physically arranged for flow when possible. So, part of what you are missing is setting your sights on product flowing, shorter distances, and more uninterrupted.
You also can't be telling me that you are batching in a custom cabinet shop (when your batch size is "1"), so I would need more details.
Since you aren't making 1000's of doorknobs on a production line, your challenge is to figure out how you can make your workload flow "better" - not flow perfectly. Just better flow. Every day. I hope that helps.
Regarding heading off to the lumber yard: when that is the next biggest fish to fry, start doing (or requiring of your vendor) smaller and smaller milk runs of materials. Not "one piece." Just smaller and smaller quantities of inventory, delivered more and more frequently. When you exhaust the economic room to improve that, and it's the only thing left to fix, move your shop adjacent to the lumber yard and carry zero inventory. (check for industry examples on this exact concept - attaching your vendor's factory wall to your factory wall, so to speak)
Lastly, beware of "efficiency." What is efficient for one isolated island, is likely making the next step wait, and hiding defects, causing a multiplier effect on rework, increasing WIP, and on and on...
I hope this helps!
Jeremy
Interesting. But what happens if the person 2 can make three pieces while person one finishes only one?
Thanks for asking! I'm going to ask three back, and the answer is inside these:
1. Why would person 2 want do that? :)
2. What is the pace of person 1's work?
3. What is the rate that the customers are asking for the item? (How often are they asking for one more to be produced?)
I'm anxious to hear your response :)
Thanks! -Jeremy
+TheLeanWorkshop
Hi, thanks for your prompt answer. Very unussual and very helpfull as well. Sorry for not making my self more understandable. As you said you made your example simple for better understanding of the underlaying mechanism. But my situation is a bit different as those examples are lets say factory workers. And the process for person 2 enables him to finish his work three times faster than the person 1.
So, direct answerts to your questions are:
1. Person 2 has a task that is done faster.
2. Pace is not relevant, the task, just takes longer to finish.
3. The finished product is stacked and waits for the future use (customer in your language).
Thanks for your responses! It is a little difficult to diagnose without seeing, but I want to offer a different way to think about your situation. The rate of customer demand (there is demand, even if the finished product is being stored somewhere) should drive the pace of the work. One more "thing" should be finished at the same rate as one more thing is being used/asked for. In most cases, producing ahead of that rate is simply overproduction and should be stopped. There are times when the rule should be broken, however I would really have to see the situation better to know if this is one of those cases.
Generally, someone producing faster than others should be avoided. If you'd like to dig in a little deeper, I'd be happy to help! Just let me know. -Jeremy
Thank you Jeremey for your thoughts and your videos. Will digg deeper into this.
Very good! Let me know if I can help or explain a little more. - Jeremy
This video was simple but showed how wasteful some processes are and how with just a simple change waste can be reduced which is a better utilization of the company resources
Where is the bottleneck in this process?
+sabry ayad there is no bottleneck in this example. This is a study with "all else being equal" for the sake of eliminating factors which would confuse the main point of discussion. Of course layers of complexity can be added once this fundamental understanding is achieved, but I find that many learners jump ahead to consider complexities which don't yet exist, and in doing so, delay getting started (or delay getting their hands dirty.) :). Thanks for posting! Did I answer your question? Just let me know. -Jeremy
Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I was asked to use this simulation in a mail processing exercise. Specifically, having letters folded, placed in envelopes, addressed, sent and collected under both the one piece and the batching methods. At which step would the bottleneck occur? Does it happen more frequently with the one piece or the batching method?
I am happy to help. Have you run the simulation yourself, yet? I recommend doing so. In TPS/Lean, we say there is no substitute for your own observations. But to give you an answer, the bottleneck(s) will occur in different locations depending on many many factors: work content within steps, how work content is distributed (is stapling (or whatever) the last part of step 2 or the first part of step 3?), where things are located, types of materials.. on and on.. Do bottlenecks happen more frequently with one than the other? I will let you tell me what you find. :) Are you a student, or working at a company? Feel free to email me any time.
Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I am an MBA student .The answer is the bottleneck occurs more frequently with the batching process.As you stated , it happens at various steps. Thanks again.
I work for the company that has implemented flow manufacturing system and I can honestly tell you that I have not seen so much time, money and human energy wasted ever before. I bet all you guys making nice comments about this video are managers. But I'm just a simple production pieceworker and quite frankly, I never know what's waiting for me when I get to work. But I'll get to this later and explain step by step, why this system DOESN'T work for every company
Hi Skamravec, and thanks for commenting! I was a production worker for many years (and I still am, in my "other life," so I can relate. I look forward to your comments! - Jeremy
With respect Skamravek, sounds like your company is a perfect candidate for LEAN. I started as a line worker in both of my main trades. I get your feelings but LEAN does work when applied right and that means including all staff at every level. In both the print trade and fabrication/manufacturing, this works. Our company has had 4.5 years of distributing quarterly profit sharing. LEAN did that.
I totally agree with you. This is a nice warm and fuzzy idea and the teamwork works well for the University of Alabama football team and the Navy SEALs. But for low to even moderately paid workers, never worked in my world. I double dogg dare an "expert" to show me how this works in the real world. Probably some degreed engineer who actually never ran his own company.
@@SuperAlfaDogg Excellence isn't for everyone. So I don't blame you. However, I am not a "degreed engineer" - I was in manufacturing for half my life (making things...) and I still am (making my own things...). It works for all non-losers and people who aren't lazy.
One piece flow works ONLY when you have people of the same mindset, skills ability and willingness to work in all five workstations. Assuming that machines never brake down and every guy is going to give 100% output day in day out is unrealistic. That's how socialism and communism operates and we all know it doesn't work well. (except Bernie Sanders and Hillary, lol) Trust me, I have lived under those rules for 30 years of my life.
Well, back to the video. Let's assume the guys at the workstations 1 and 2 use machines to perform their operations. The operations at the workstations 3 and 4 are done manually. The workstation 5 is partially machine, partially manual.
Now. Let's assume the workload and time to perform the operations is all balanced between all five workstations which can result in happy one-piece-flow manufacturing.
Here is the reality: On Monday, the workstation #2 is down because of machine failure. while mechanics are working on it, ALL five workstations guys are out of work, and usually sweeping the floor. The company pays them the minimum wage and suddenly we have two groups of losers. First is the company paying people even if no products are made. Secondly, the pieceworkers are making much less money and quite frankly wasting their time.
After 3 hours the machine is fixed but at the end of eight hours workday, total of 15 hours of manpower was wasted.
I hope you know what I'm coming from. Next day it can be some other problem in other workstation. That includes machine failure, shortage of parts. people tardiness etc. so if I'm working for instance, at the workstation#3, my income depends on how well machines and people work at the other workstations.
I can honestly say, since this new system was introduced at my workplace, there is almost every day that something goes wrong and it puts us behind the schedule and then we have to work Saturdays just to catch up.
In the past, the pieceworker who was more skillful and was able to perform faster than the others, was rewarded by better paycheck. Nowadays, the pieceworker who has been on the job for 10 years earns the same money as the guy who just got hired a few months ago. Therefore, good workers are quitting and company is replacing them with new once who don't even know what a screwdriver is, I'm kidding you not. And before you know, company is outsourcing jobs because it is no longer profitable. Or, in "better" case. they re-time the piecework and come up with a new lower piecework price. In other words, you are doing the same amount of work (if not more) but for less money.
Hi Skamravec! Thank you for this comment and explanation. It is clear that you have put a lot of thought into this, and it is clear that you care about your work and others, as well.
Although I'm not there to see with my own eyes, it sounds like you are stuck with a poor implementation of these production methods. I have seen 99 bad implementations for every 1 good one. Typically these are well-intended and the group is trying its best, but the depth of understanding or experience isn't there.
To address your workstations being down, and this causing delays: Yes - and this is the point. Toyota has created a system for itself which is intentionally fragile. Intentionally very fragile. And the end game is to uncover even the smallest problem more quickly so it can be addressed. In a regular workplace, if a poor performing machine or process doesn't affect many other people, then there is little motivation for supervisors to maintain or improve that function. The person working there will struggle indefinitely. (We've all seen this.) However, if everyone's output is tied together the motivation is intense and real. (sounds like teamwork, doesn't it?) Separating people and tasks from one another is a way that lazy managers can ensure that their lack of maintenance and attentiveness has the least effect on the most people. Bad, bad policy. So running people as a team, you can see that as soon as one person has a problem, all the others are affected. The point is then to keep your stuff running and well-maintained.
Regarding piece work, well, that's a whole different level of train wreck.... ;)
Thanks so much for posting, and I hope I helped, at least a little!
-Jeremy
You guys have a lot of patience, really a lot ^^
skamravec - With the scenario you've just described, the true problem isn't the One-Piece flow setup. The problem is that your facility is poorly run from a management standpoint, there is poor training of newer employees, and you're relying on "superstar" workers to go above and beyond what they should be doing, to sustain a batching process.
The facility you describe looks a lot like the place I've worked for over 20 years. The batching process may not cause production to stop, but it's requiring to not only have a lot of punched material in the area, it requires us to keep a lot of raw material on site as well. We end up double storing parts even before the main operator grabs the finished piece. And to keep finished inventory levels where they should be, we still have to work Saturdays, even Sundays.
A good one-piece flow setup will not only increase your productivity, it should expose problems that can be eliminated or quickly addressed, with good problem solving. If you had a machine going down, the root cause of that machine going down should be examined. This examination may also lead to a backup plan being developed, in which one of the other machines in the area picks up the slack of the downed machine, until it is fixed.
Great video