Lean Transformation efforts have always been geared toward lean production, that is, the reduction of wasted time and resources that do not return value to the end customer, with the goal of making the company more efficient with respect to market needs.
But what is Lean Transformation? The term originates from the process also known as the Toyota Method, a cornerstone of the Toyota Production System, in which the idea of doing more with less was affirmed by the need in postwar Japan to save resources. Therefore, use few available resources in the most productive way possible in order to increase factory productivity.
Let’s see what methodologies have occurred over the years to respond to productivity obstacles.
The Toyota Production System, with which the concept of Lean Production is associated, traces waste to 3 macro-categories, identified in the three Japanese terms:
- Muda: useless or unproductive activities
- Walls: unreasonably high workloads for people or machines
- Walls: unbalanced workloads on people and machines, with unsteady alternation from extreme work peaks to periods of inactivity.
In the early 1950s, a Toyota plant manager asked engineer Shigeo Shingo to solve a “bottleneck” that had occurred at three large presses.
The plant’s management proposed to buy new machinery, at a decidedly high expenditure of economic resources. For Shingo, however, the problem lay not so much in the production capacity of the department and the machines as in the mismanagement of the machines. Having obtained permission to halt production for a week, he in fact discovered that all three presses were not operating at full capacity.
He then identified all tooling activities and distinguished them into two categories:
- Activities to be performed necessarily while the machine is stopped, such as setting up the equipment inside the machine
- Activities that can be performed while the machine is in motion, such as transporting equipment to or from the machine, oiling tools, and preheating molds.
As a result of this, and a number of other measures related to the elimination of waste and low-value-added activities, he reduced setup time by 50 percent from the very first intervention.
The SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Die) methodology introduced at that juncture was the most widely used until the 1990s to minimize the critical issues associated with production stops due to setups. Its initial application was clearly dedicated to the automotive world, but over time it ended up investing all industries. It involved working on the individual machines under analysis to optimize their use and introduce a method to be adopted into the company’s routine.
Where companies often chose to increase production batches in response to the high cost represented by downtime (large batches = less downtime = more time dedicated to production), but found themselves having to manage a stiffened system, high stock levels (resulting in storage costs, product spoilage, less logistical flexibility) and mammoth lead times, the SMED methodology reversed the approach. It proposed to take action on reducing the time dedicated to tooling, with the goal of creating a more flexible production system, capable of responding to changing market needs in part through reduced inventory and streamlined lead times.
SMED gave way to other methodologies. In particular, the 1990s brought as a dowry to Lean business realities a more innovative system with even more widespread application: the Quick Change Over.
Unlike its “ancestor,” the QCO tool introduced a more extensive and accessible approach to different levels of the organization. The application, in fact, covers all the factors of production in an area (machines, people, material management) with the aim of intervening on the initial set-up through standardization of activities, blanket training and visual management systems of activities.
Subject of QCO evaluation, based on some indicators defined at the start-up stage (e.g., process lead time, overall machine effectiveness – OEE, scrap level, % rework), are the following aspects:
- Which activities must necessarily be performed with the machine stopped and which must not
- How long does it take and how much space do operators cover when retooling
- The ability to change the scheduling of machines so that similar productions are chronologically consequential
- The ability to combine or simplify certain operations in order to reduce travel and bottlenecks.
Efforts are then made to turn internal tooling activities into external ones where possible, and it is ensured that operators have to easy access to necessary tools and equipment.
Next, for the sake of clarity, instructions are prepared through tools that are as visual as possible.
The new process is tested directly by the operators who actively participated in the improvement worksite, so that immediate and empirical feedback on any issues or possible risks can be obtained.
Once the new process is shared, the actual extent of the improvement achieved is checked against the previously identified KPIs. Finally, in the logic of continuous improvement characteristic of Lean Thinking, suggestions and impressions are gathered periodically to be integrated into the process as we go along.
If QCO activities are embraced by operators and stakeholders recognize the improvements achieved(thus, the performance measurement system is key), it will become easier to spread the methodology to other areas, creating a virtuous circle that will progressively improve the entire production cycle.
In recent years, Quick Change Over application sites have covered virtually all manufacturing sectors: automotive, machining, food&beverage, apparel, woodworking, and many others.
This is because the benefits are many: major reductions in buffers (the temporary “warehouses” on the machine), significant productivity gains, and stabilized and balanced workflows that free up active time to devote to higher value-added activities.
The current context and constant technological development favor continuous evolution and adaptation of the QCO methodology, thanks in part to interventions such as those of Industry 4.0, which has brought major innovations to the equipment fleets of companies, both Italian and international.
But the benefits are not limited to the purely technical aspect: personnel involved in lean sites commonly enjoy a higher motivational boost, fostering the introjection of a continuous improvement logic that, starting from the company’s base, is not perceived as an imposition. When this dynamic becomes stable, ownership of improvement projects is accepted, and sometimes even sought after, toward the achievement of “win-win” objectives between economic-financial perspective and work well-being.
Today, requirements related to environmental impact are increasingly pushing for a Lean & Green business model, which is as excellent in terms of processes as it is in terms of environmental care.
From this perspective, combating the macro waste categories of the Lean Transformation seems to produce excellent environmental benefits as well, reducing both the resources needed for the production process and the emission of harmful substances to the outside world.
Approaching environmental issues from a Lean perspective seems to be an opportunity that needs to be seized at the drop of a hat, not only for the improvement of business productivity and competitiveness, but for the benefit of society and future generations.
What other adaptations will Lean propose to meet the new emerging priorities? Let’s not be caught unprepared.
