Date post: | 21-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | diwakar-sharma |
View: | 55 times |
Download: | 1 times |
byDiwakar Sharma
Presentation TopicsIntroduction ObjectiveMethodologyAnalysis –SPSS, XLResults and DiscussionsConclusions & Recommendations
Introduction2 mins
IntroductionAircraft Industry worldwide are embracing lean
manufacturing for improving Quality of Work life by
creating, maintaining and continuously improving the environment in and around the work place
A serene environment and workable work exponentially increases
the productivity, quality of output, employee satisfaction, and helps in improving the brand image of the
companies among the customers and stakeholders.
IntroductionAircraft Industry worldwide are embracing lean
manufacturing for improving Quality of Work life by
creating, maintaining and continuously improving the environment in and around the work place
A serene environment and workable work exponentially increases
the productivity, quality of output, employee satisfaction, and helps in improving the brand image of the
companies among the customers and stakeholders.
IntroductionTo keep itself in pace with world class Aircraft
Industries, HAL’s Lean journey started with
the visit of Top leadership to Boeing, Israel Aircraft Industries, and to Rolls Royce.
learnt about Lean Initiatives taken by these aircraft majors to bring down drastically cycle times, lead times, inventory and cost
a lean consultant, who has been also assisting IAI was invited to HAL in December 2003 to make a presentation to the Top Management Team.
embarked on lean journey from December 2003 full time “Lean Resource Teams” led by Senior
Executives formed since December 2003 at all the divisions.
IntroductionLean Management was introduced in Avionics
Division, Hyderabad with
the formation of the Steering Committee and Lean Resource Team 18thJan 2004.
kick-start of lean initiatives with the visit of Mr. Crispin Brown, consultant on 20thJanuary 2004.
Since then Hyderabad has come along way. Their production increases are excellent and the progress made in production leveling is impressive and deserves praise.
Financial Performance 2005-06 to 2008-09
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
YEAR
VALU
E in
Rs
Cr.
SALES 285.41 317.12 436.18 666.01
VALUE OF PRODUCTION 464.28 544.18 756.60 887.35
PROFIT 28.32 37.83 47.51 75.70
2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
9
254
472
909
1175
10
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
NO. U
NITS
PRO
DUCE
D
MONTH
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
10
IntroductionOn the eve of completion of five years of lean
Journey, Chairman (HAL) in a message to directors and divisional head has emphasized on the necessity of alignment of leadership at all the level around the purpose and importance of successful implementation of this change initiative.
Keeping in view the progress made by Hyderabad division and the importance of the requirement of visionary leadership at all the levels it was decided to carry out research onPerception of division’s employees on progress
of lean initiatives and on the topic “Impact of Leadership on
Systematic Organizational Change through Lean Initiatives” from the perspective of HAL Hyderabad division.
Objective Understanding the current status of lean initiatives at
HAL, Hyderabad Testing of Hypothesis “There is a positive correlation
between “top” level management leadership and the successful outcomes of a “lean” change initiative.”
Capturing employee’s perception about the current status of lean initiatives at HAL, Hyderabad in order to gauges the gap between the perceptions of the management and the employees of the Avionics division, Hyderabad about the progress of lean initiatives
Development of framework for successful implementation of lean at division level
Methodology In depth review of literature Survey questionnaire
Section A – General Information Section B – Implementation Section C – Outcomes D- Status of Lean implementation at
Hyderabad division/SLRDC Interaction with senior officials Review of various documents related to
lean consultant
Visionary LeadershipVisionary Leadership Formula (f(x)) *
f(x) = [(w)(Shared Purpose) + (w)(Empowerment) + (w)(Appropriate Organizational Changes) + (w)(Strategic Thinking)]
Where:(w) = weight factor
Shared Purpose = Vision + Communication
*Adopted from Nanus’ Visionary Leadership, 1992, p-156
Productivity Outcomes Productivity Outcomes Formula (f(y)) *
f(y) = [(w)(External Outcomes) + (w)(Internal Outcomes)]
Where:(w) = weight factor
External Outcomes = Customer Satisfaction + Schedule/Delivery Performance + Quality of Product or Service
Internal Outcomes = Resource Utilization + Return on Assets + Cycle Time
*Adopted from (Ulrich, et al., (1999), Results Based Leadership: How Leaders Build the Business and Improve the Bottom Line and (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), The Balanced Scorecard
Proposed Correlation Model
Pro
duct
ivity
Out
com
es
f(y)
Visionary Leadership f(x)0 1
1
X Change Initiative
The proposed correlation model of Productivity Outcomes vs Visionary Leadership
Research Methodology Hypothesis
Existing Theories
- Leadership- Productivity
Key Questions- Leadership Equation
- Productivity Equation
SurveyCollect data for each
equation variable
Correlation Model
- Quantify Equations- Leadership Index-Productivity Index
Hypothesis- Reject
- Fail to Reject
Hypothesis h1 = Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient (r) is a positive numeric value.
Ho: β1 = 0
H1: β1 ≠ 0
Where:Ho = Null hypothesisH1 = Alternate hypothesis β1 = Slope of trend line
Analysis
The survey was distributed to approximately 317 people as sources of data and information
The total number of surveys collected was 87, representing a response rate of 27.4 percent
Out of 87 responses 16 were discarded based on the answer to questions C3 & D.1.13.
Demographics of Survey Sample Please indicate your Organization
Fig. 8.1 : Organisation
SLRDCHAL HYDERABAD
Pe
rce
nt
100
80
60
40
20
0
19
81
Which of these titles best describes
your role in the organization?
Fig. 8.2 : Role
Technical Workforce
SR. TECHNICAL STAFF
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT
SENIOR MANAGEMENT
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
22
57
19
In which functional area of
the organization do you work?
Fig.8.3 : Functional area of organization w here respondent w orks
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0 44
37
74
17
44
17
Leadership
Which of the following statements best characterizes
the evolution of the lean change initiative's vision?
Fig. 8.6 : Role of Enterprise Leader
in formulating the initiative’s vision
Suggested by the Ent
Written by LRT in co
Composed by LRT in c
Composed by LRT, rev
Composed and announc
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
30
2226
6
15
Which of the following leaders is recognized
as the most influential driver
of the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.7 : The leader w ho is recognized as the
most inf luential driver of lean initiative
ED
AGMs & DGMs
LRT Head
Middle Managers
COP
Senior Technical Sta
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
26
7
46
97
Shared Purpose
The organization's level of understanding
of the lean initiative's vision is best characterized
by which of the following statements?
Fig. 8.8 : The organization’s level of understanding
of the lean change initiative’s vision
understood by all
understood by most
understood by some
not understood
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
13
3937
11
The visibility of the lean initiative's vision
to the organization is best characterized
by which of the following statements?
Fig. 8.9 : The visibility of the lean initiative’s
vision to the organization
very visible and all
very visible through
some locations throu
displayed in lobby
None of the aboveP
erc
en
t
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 7
19
48
7
19
Empowerment What is the extent of employee decision making
applied within your organization?
Fig. 8.10 : The extent of employee decision
making w ithin an organization
some employee
Signif icant decision
to most employees, a
to all employees, an
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
59
28
9
Appropriate Organizational Changes
Which of the following statements best describes
the level of integration between the organization's goal
and the lean initiative's vision?
Fig. 8.11: Level of integration betw een the organization’s
functional objectives and vision objectives
integrated and all
integrated and most
integrated but often
not integrated confl
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
15
39
28
117
Which of the following statements best describes the process
or processes employed to enable integration between
the organization's goal and the lean initiative's vision?
Fig. 8.12 : The process employed to enable integration betw een
functional and vision objectives
w ithin & b/w depts w
w ithin & in mtgs b/w
only w ithin dept
no processes employe
MissingP
erc
en
t
30
20
10
0
28
202022
9
Strategic Thinking To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)
have the following strategies been
implemented during the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.13 : Extent of clear goals and objectives
implementation strategy
Effectively implemen
Too much implementat
Not enough implement
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
80
60
40
20
0
22
69
To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)
have the following strategies been
implemented during the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.14 : Extent of strategic alliances implementation strategy
Effectively implemen
Too much implementat
Not enough implement
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
28
59
6
To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)
have the following strategies been
implemented during the lean change initiative?
Fig.8.15 : Extent of committing new resources implementation strategy
Effectively implemen
Too much implementat
Not enough implement
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
28
6
57
6
To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)
have the following strategies been
implemented during the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.16 : Extent of building the organization’s human capital
implementation strategy
Effectively implemen
Too much implementat
Not enough implement
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
26
65
Productivity Outcomes External Value
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, 5 and
Very = 6, 7) have the cust. satisfaction improved since
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.17 : Extent of customer satisfaction improvement
Very
Somew hat
Somew hat
Somew hat
NOT AT ALL
NOT AT ALL
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
9
20
13
31
467
9
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, 5 and
Very = 6, 7) have the Schdule / Delivery improved since
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.18 : Extent of schedule/Delivery performance improvement
Very
Somew hat
Somew hat
Somew hat
NOT AT ALL
NOT AT ALL
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
28
1113
22
11
4
9
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, 5 and
Very = 6, 7) have the Quality improved since
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.19 : Extent that quality of product or service has improved
Very
Very
Somew hat
Somew hat
Somew hat
NOT AT ALL
NOT AT ALL
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
11
35
1515
47
66
Productivity Outcomes Internal Value
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and
Very = 6, 7) has Resource Utilization improved since
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.20 : Extent of resource utilization improvement
Very
Very
Somew hat
Somew hat
Somew hat
NOT AT ALL
NOT AT ALL
Missing
Per
cen
t
40
30
20
10
06
30
20
13
20
64
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and
Very = 6, 7) has ROA improved since
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.21 : Extent of return on assets improvement
Very
Very
Somew hat
Somew hat
Somew hat
NOT AT ALL
NOT AT ALL
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
1517
11
24
7
4
911
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and
Very = 6, 7) has Cycle Time improved since
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
Fig. 8.22 : Extent of Cycle Time improvement
Very
Very
Somew hat
Somew hat
Somew hat
NOT AT ALL
NOT AT ALL
NA
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
7
28
15
11
22
446
4
Overall Outcomes To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and
Very = 6, 7) do you believe the lean change initiative
was successful
Fig. 8.23 : Extent that lean initiative w as successful
Very
Somew hat
Somew hat
Somew hat
NOT AT ALL
NOT AT ALL
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0
11
2828
22
7
4
Correlation Model PRODUCTIVITY VS LEADERSHIP INDICES
y = 1.7328x - 0.8458
R2 = 0.4738
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
LEADERSHIP INDEX
PR
OD
UC
TIV
ITY
IND
EX
y = 1.7328x – 0.8458 r = 0.6883 Where:
y = y coordinate on graphx = x coordinate on graphr = Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
Hypothesis Testing of the Model Ho: β1 = 0 , i.e., the sample population’s trend line slope is zero H1: β1 ≠ 0
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.67147728
R Square 0.45088174
Adjusted R Square 0.44268595
Standard Error 0.15435539
Observations 69
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 1.310735767 1.31073577 55.01379 2.70206E-10
Residual 67 1.596314233 0.02382559
Total 68 2.90705
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept -0.8084165 0.190794091 -4.2371149 7.08E-05 -1.189243199 -0.427589788 -1.1892432 -0.427589788
0.675 1.69009979 0.227864445 7.41712817 2.7E-10 1.235280331 2.144919253 1.235280331 2.144919253
Normal Probability Plot
Sample Percentile
0.2
Null hypothesis is rejected
“significance of F” column is the probability that the population sample’s slope is 0
With a numerical value for “significance of F” equaling 2.70206 E-10
this means that it is highly unlikely that the population of this sample’s slope is zero and it is highly unlikely that there is no prediction due to regression from this model given the sample statistics obtained
Hence, it is highly likely that this regression model adds significant predictability of the dependent variable.
Scenario One – Avionics division, Hyderabad vs SLRDC, Hyderabad
For Avionics Division, Hyderabad: y = 1.6817 x - 0.8025 r = 0.6762
For the SLRDC, Hyderabad: y = 1.9426 x -0.9962 r = 0.7452
HAL, HYD vs SLRDC
y = 1.6817x - 0.8025
R2 = 0.4572
y = 1.9426x - 0.9962
R2 = 0.5553
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
LEADERSHIP INDEX
PR
OD
UC
TIV
ITY
IN
DE
X
HAL HYDERABAD
SLRDC
Linear (HAL HYDERABAD)
Linear (SLRDC)
Scenario Two – Comparison of Different Leadership Roles within the Sample
For the Sr. Management Segment:
y = 1.2414x - 0.3513 r = 0.6084
Functional Scenario - Leadership vs Productivity Indices
y = 1.2414x - 0.3513
R2 = 0.3701
y = 1.7567x - 0.9254
R2 = 0.4891
y = 1.2998x - 0.4864
R2 = 0.341
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
Leadership Index
Pro
du
cti
vit
y I
nd
ex
SENIOR MANAGEMENT
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT
ENGINEERS
Linear (SENIOR MANAGEMENT)
Linear (MIDDLE MANAGEMENT)
Linear (ENGINEERS)
For the Middle
Management Segment:
y = 1.7567x - 0.9254 r = 0.6994
For the Engineer Segment:
y = 1.2998x - 0.4864 r = 0.5839
Status of Lean Implementation at HAL, Hyderabad Results on perception of
respondents about success of implementation of lean initiatives at Hyderabad
Division / SLRDC
5 “S” Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Most of the employees of the division are fully aw are about 5S" w rt
success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
07
48
13
28
4
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Your department is consistently maintaining and improving 5S rating"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
07
50
1917
7
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"w ork areas w ithin organization focus on sustaining their basic 5S"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
AgreeNeither Agree nor dDisagreeStrongly Disagree
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
39
24
33
4Awareness about 5S
Improvement in 5S rating
Sustaining 5S
Kaizen Events
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Most of the employees are fully aw are about the aim of KEs"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
AgreeNeither Agree nor dDisagreeStrongly Disagree
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
43
20
30
7
Awareness about kaizen events
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Most of the w ork areas are sustaining the improvements through KEs"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0 4
41
31
22
Sustaining improvements through kaizen events
A3 Plan Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Departments are extensively using A3 Plan for their day-to-day w ork"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 4
17
50
20
9
Use of A3 plan
TPM
Effect of TPM
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"TPMs have enhanced the confidence of shop f loor operators"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
41
31
9
66
PDM Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"People in your department are fully aw are about division's PDM"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 6
17
57
13
6
PD
M
awarene
ss
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"People in your department are fully aw are about PDM metrics"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
50
40
30
20
10
0 4
11
24
43
13
6
PD
M m
etrics A
warene
ss Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"PDM's Measure and Action is fully integrated w ith functional objective"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
04
15
31
22
11
17
PDM metrics integration with functional objectives
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Integration of PDM's Measure w ith measurable quality objectives"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
30
20
10
0 2
2426
28
7
13
PDM metrics integration with measurable quality objectives
LDMS Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"LDMS is practiced by most of the functional areas"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
6
37
28
17
13
Practice of LDMS
Outcomes of Lean Implementation at HAL,
Hyderabad Results on perception of
respondents about outcomes of implementation of lean initiatives at Hyderabad
Division / SLRDC
Capacity Enhancement Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Capacity Enhancement has empow ered the functioning of A&T Shops"
show ing visible change initiatives in the Division
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15
56
17
11
Positive effects of capacity enhancement
Production Leveling
Production increase and Production leveling
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Excellent production increase and impressive production leveling "
show ing visible change initiatives in the Division
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
22
52
15
47
Reduction in the production problems
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"reduction in the production problems due to design issues "
show ing visible change initiatives in the Division
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
40
30
20
10
0
9
37
28
15
66
Reduction in the production problems due to design issues
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"reduction in the production problems due to material issues "
show ing visible change initiatives in the Division
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 4
48
22
11
69
Reduction in the production problems due to material issues
Transformation of functioning with process view
The functioning of the functional areas is becoming process focused
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"functioning of the functional areas is becoming process focused "
show ing visible change initiatives in the Division
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor d
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Missing
Pe
rce
nt
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
48
24
13
4
9
Conclusions & Recommendations2 minsConclusionMajor contributionsRecommendations- There are 8 key
Recommendations
BACK UP SLIDES
What is Lean?A broad collection of principles and practicesaim is to refashion the production process in a
manner that includes the elimination of waste, the removal of inventory buffers, a focus on quality and continuous improvement as a lean enterprise.
Lean production is about expanding capacity by reducing costs and shortening cycle times between order and ship date
Lean is about understanding what is important to the customer
LEAN: An Attitude that drives ActionZero Tolerance for
Waste
Relentless pursuit of Waste
Leadership, managers, supervisors…. Everyone just won’t tolerate waste
Waste of all kinds:Time, effort, money, materials,
opportunitiesEverything
EveryoneSeeking out waste
Identifying where it is
Eliminating it Everywhere
TPS or Lean is successively TPS or Lean is successively
overcoming all the obstacles to overcoming all the obstacles to
linking every step into a continuous linking every step into a continuous
FLOWFLOW sequence, precisely sequence, precisely
**synchronized with the demandsynchronized with the demand of of
the end customer.the end customer.
( * TAKT TIME ( * TAKT TIME concept )concept )
Make the work flow
The work cannot help but move
fast!
Lay the work out in the minimum
space
in a Nutshell
GOALS
Reduction in cycle time
Quality Improvement
Reduction in Inventory
To become World Class Enterprise
Lean is solidly supported by two pillars of :
Continuous Improvement Continuous Improvement
Respect for People
Such an environment can only be
created where there is “Development of Development of
PeoplePeople” through knowledge
management & learning organization.
Removing obstacles, Removing obstacles, engage the minds of people engage the minds of people
to support & to support & contribute their ideas contribute their ideas
to the organizationto the organization
Eliminating WasteWaste is just one-third of the equation for making lean successful.
Eliminating unevennessunevenness in the production schedule and Eliminating overburdenoverburden to people and equipment are just as important.
Make an ongoing effort to teach individuals how to work together as teamswork together as teams toward common goals
WASTE
Lean Philosophy
ValueValue WasteWaste
Quickly
Continuously
Process mapping.
Identify the Value Stream.
Eliminate non-value added
activity
VALUE STREAM MAPPING:-
i) Current state.
ii) Future state. ( Repeat Above
)
( To Tackle Unevenness in Production ( To Tackle Unevenness in Production )
( To Achieve ( To Achieve Teamwork )Teamwork )
The relentless effort for Waste elimination and
continuous improvement is effected by the
following TPS tools, which is application of know
solutions to known problems. * Policy Deployment Matrix * Policy Deployment Progress Review * Lean Daily Management System * Visual Control 1 Piece flow Kan Ban Cellular layout
SMED Kaizen event ( VSM, TPM, Poka Yoke, 6 etc.,)
MEASURES & GAPS
SPECIFICGOALS
ACTIONS
“LOCATIONS”
POLICYDEPLOYMENT MATRIX R
ES
OU
RC
ES
You providethese
You are“given”These
You agreeWith these
You Ownthese
You commitTo these
Looks at variant, Initiate necessary actions
MeasuresAnd targets
PlanedBaseline
Status May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
Plan
Do
Check
ActGoals Measures
Commitments
Actions
Results
CorrectiveAction
Results
MeasurementGaps
Measurement
Policy Deployment Matrix
Measure Follow-up
sheets
Target AchievementWorksheets
PolicyDeployment
ProgressReview
PDPR: Policy Deployment Progress Review
Information is displayed in an interesting and exciting way to inform and stimulate employees and visitors.
Notice BoardsPerformance BoardsPhotographsColoured Floor PaintSigns
Lean Daily Management System(LDMS)
LDMS: Lean Daily Management System
To-Do List
Daily “PDPR”
“Clock” ChartWork plan
• Focal Point for daily management
• Very reactive•Stand-up morning meetings (or more frequent)• Focus on what we need to do to achieve the daily “plan”
• The “standard work” (when it exists)
• Combination of leading and trailing indicators
• Clock chart gives “leading” potential problems that must be solved to stay on “plan”• Daily “PDPR” give recent results
• To-Do list provides “instant” PDPR/b
• Action items to ensure that the plan can be recovered
• Everyone contributes their views on potential problems
• Can use mechanical Andons to give even faster reactivity
To-Do list is used to detail clock chart problems and to collect
any issues needing action
Clock chart provide a visual indication that
all that is needed to
complete the plan is available
or notThe daily work
plan or standard work is the
“anchor” to see if any gaps exist
that must be corrected
The results are measured daily any
gaps to target performance reviewed and
corrective actions identified
A simple mechanical Andon
provide a visual control visible from
a distance
DAYS
3029
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
1817 16 15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
32
131
LDMS - CLOCK CHART
HOUSE KEEPINGD
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUETAKT TIMEEQUIPMENT/TOOLING
FG
E
QUALITYSTANDARD WORK IN PROGRESS
SAFETY
DESCRIPTIONSYMBOLS
BC
A
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
BLUE
RED ACTION REQUIRED
NO ACTION
LDMS – CLOCK CHART
Clock Chart The Criteria for selecting potential problems depends on the individual machine/cell/line
While selecting the criteria, make a list of potential problems
Discuss with the Operators/Supervisors, they will explain what problems they face daily
01302928
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
1817 16 15 14
1312
11
10
09
08
07
06
05
04
0302
BA
D
G
IJ
E
C
H
F
CLOCK CHART FOR DSG-01 VALVE ASSEMBLY
IS TESTRIG RUNNING OK?
TESTER AVAILABLE ?
SKILLED ASSEMBLY
BIN PARTS AVAILABLE
HAND TOOLS AVAILABLE ?
ENSURE HEIJ UNKA
AS PER SCHEDULE ?
IS COIL KEPT
AS PER STANDARD ?
AVAILABLE ?
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
PERSON AVAILABLE ?
AT WORKSTATION ?
IS SPOOL AVAILABLE
BOX IS FULL ?
AS PER STANDARD ?
IS IRON CORE AVAILABLE
COMPRESSED AIR
Daily PlanThe daily plan is defined and
displayed It explains the expectations
from the cell / machine for the day or shift.
Daily PDPR The Daily “PDPR” gives the details of the
PCDQS targets for the machine / cell and the actual results for the previous day.
If the clock chart is fully green, the targets are expected to be achieved.
Any failure results in an entry into the TO-DO list to facilitate immediate corrective action.
To Do ListLEAN INITIATIVE
REF. NO. AND DATE
1
DATE RAISED
2
NAME WHO
RAISED 3
WASTE PROBLEM/ OPPORTU
NITY 4
AGREED ACTION
5
RESPONSIBILITY
6
TIME/DATE OF
COMPLETION 7
PROGRESS INDICATOR
8
1, 1.08.2004 01.08.04 Govind Raj
Layup sequence sheet not available
Layup sequence sheet will be supplied K.Suresh
1.08.04 0930hrs
2, 02.08.2004 02.08.2004Soma sekhar
Sealant tape not available
Sealant tape will be giiven MN Suresh
02.08.04 1000 hrs
LDMS -TO DO LIST
LDMS: Process tree
Team gathers
each morning about 15 mins after
start of work for stand-up meeting
At start of working time (shift|) the team leader
ensures that yesterday’s results and
today’s plans are updated on board
Did we achieve yesterd
ay’s targets
?
Group writes up the
problems/root causes on the to-
do list
Did we complete
all the to-do list actions as per plan?
Group reviews to-day’s plan
Do we have
everything we need
to complete to-day’s
plan?1) PDPR-chart 2) To-Do list 3) Daily Plan 4) Clock chart
Group agrees actions to be implemented
and completes to-do list
Rapid Implementation
5) To-Do listTo-Do list
Off to
work
No! No!No!
Yes! Yes!
Yes!