Lean Manufacturing Continuous Improvement: Common Sense, not Rocket Science

Lean Manufacturing Continuous Improvement

Common Sense, not Rocket Science

Randall L. Kies II

Copyright © 2021 Randall L. Kies II

All rights reserved

First Edition

Fulton Books, Inc.

Meadville, PA

Published by Fulton Books 2021

ISBN 978-1-63860-893-6 (paperback)

ISBN 978-1-63860-894-3 (digital)

Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Setting the Record Straight

Head Count or Profit

Example 1

Example 2

Lean/CI in the Classroom

Short Story

Easy Money

Example 3

Timing Is Everything

Reliability and Availability

Who? What? Where? When? Why?

Task Lists

To my wife, Angelina, who has been an integral part of this writing. She is the voice of the employees who have been on the receiving end of poor training and terrible application of the tools within Lean/CI. She spent thirty years on the factory floor, and she will be the first to tell anyone that Lean/CI is not rocket science. It is clearly common sense and should be treated that way.

Preface

How much money have we saved? How many people were laid off? One manager may argue that there are no savings generated from Lean Manufacturing (Lean) activity unless you are reducing head count. Another manager may think the savings contribute to additional sales and profit, streamlined operations, and additional investment in the company’s future. There is also the human element where employees may enjoy a boost in morale. Which is it? Who’s right?

Where do you stand with regards to Lean thinking and continuous improvement (CI) implementation? Is it worth the investment? What do you think with regards to savings calculations? Do we have to reduce head count to claim savings? Can we use additional sales, improved quality and safety, and streamlined operations to quantify savings and reinvest in the future?

After thirty-five years of learning, teaching, and practicing Lean/CI methodology, it seems as if savings is the item that creates the most debate. It is obvious that reducing head count is a definite cost saving for a company. That is considered a gimme as far as I’m concerned because it is the easiest savings to calculate and achieve with very little effort. Honestly, it is generally understood that head count changes with the tides of sales. More sales equal more people and vice versa.

There has always been the thought that others will pick up the slack in order to make up for the difference when reducing head count. Historically, this is true, but people are getting tired of working harder and not smarter. Management wants more for less, but the only way to get there is to lay employees off.

Sadly, this thinking is archaic, and our companies are falling back in their ability to compete in a global market as a result. Companies are also missing the opportunity to reinvest in growth to become even more competitive. There are savings to be had, and head count reduction is not the only way to quantify improvement activity.

What about the other stuff? Are those savings as well? Here is where the argument always begins, and common sense takes a back seat to the egos at the management level. Some managers are telling me that we cannot claim savings on quality, efficiency, or additional capacity improvements.

Really? Why would you believe that? Prove it to me. Please explain why I am wrong. The response every time is crickets. Although I have not challenged my managers in this fashion, the scenario comes to mind every time the subject comes up. The idea of saying no because you can no longer holds any value to me.

My thought is the managers that argue against anything less than head count are sadly misinformed. They cannot see the forest through the trees because they are expecting a home run for every project that is completed. They want to see a change in head count, and anything less is unacceptable.

Success is about how the manager looks and not about the achievement of the team. Honestly, these people are out of touch with reality and have completely undermined the real purpose of Lean/CI. The practice of the craft is treated like rocket science, and common sense is thrown out the window.

The goal of this writing is not to argue the types of savings that can be generated. Instead, the purpose will be to share the real calculations that add up to real money without any argument. It will also focus on the common-sense application of Lean/CI tools in place of old-fashioned, status-based, uninformed decision-making.

These types of decisions have cost companies a lot of money. Some companies don’t even realize how much opportunity is missed by allowing managers to make bad decisions. The calculations for the improvements referenced within were developed during my tenure as