evaluating and sustaining lean - indiana university€¦ · evaluating and sustaining lean ... fr2...
TRANSCRIPT
Dr. David S. CochranJason BarnesJoe Sepkovich
January 28‐29, 2016
EVALUATING AND SUSTAINING LEAN
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
TODAY’S AGENDA
• Welcome from the NE Indiana Advanced Manufacturing Lean Network
• Introductions:
• Name, company, position, anddescribe how you evaluate and sustain Lean
• Evaluation with the Manufacturing SystemDesign Decomposition (MSDD) assessment tool
• Collective System Design (CSD) to Design and Sustain Lean Enterprise and Manufacturing Systems
2
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
AreJITandJidokaRequirementsorSolutions?
3
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 4
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
INTRODUCTION OF THE MANUFACTURING SYSTEM DESIGN DECOMPOSITION (MSDD) EVALUATION
5
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
LEAN IS THE RESULT OF ACHIEVING ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MSDD…
6
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 7
MSDD SURVEY IS THE EVALUATION TOOL
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 8
RESULTS INDICATE AREAS THAT NEED IMPROVEMENT
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
Weinviteyoutonowtakethesurvey…
9
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
WhoaretheSystemDesigners?
10
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 12
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
FR1 – Provide a safe, healthy work environment – The Foundation
FR2 – Produce customer‐consumed quantity every time interval – from JIT
FR3 – Produce customer‐consumed mix every time interval – from JIT
FR4 – Do not advance a defect to the next customer operation – from Jidokathe best case is to not make a defect in the first place…
FR5 – Achieve FR1 through FR4 in spite of variation – Robust Design
FR6 – When a problem occurs accomplishing FR1 through FR4, rapidly identify the problem condition and resolve it in a pre‐defined way – Controllable Design
FR7 – Only Once FR1 through FR6 are achieved (the system is stable), Produce products with least time in system – Reduce cost further by reducing Standard WIP Inventory and additional Waste(s)
FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS (FRs) OF MFG. SYSTEM DESIGN … TESTED WITH LEGOS
15
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 16
COLLECTIVE SYSTEM DESIGN STEPS1. Determine System Boundary and Value Streams within a System Boundary 2. A New Tone… It’s the Work Method & System, Not the Person3. Identify Constituents/Customers (internal and external) Needs4. Translate Needs to Functional Requirements (FRs: what we want to achieve) for each
Value Stream 5. Map Physical Solutions (PSs: how we propose to achieve) to FRs, determine PS
Implementation Sequence and Standard Work Procedure Content, Sequence, Time of all work
6. Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA): Learning loop to Improve the System Design Decomposition (Map) and Standard Work
7. Establish Organization Structure (test with physical (lego) models) using Collective System Design Map… that Knows How to Identify and Resolve Problems… called “Green Sheet Standard Work”
8. Agree on Outcome Measures MFR and Implementation Measures on Doing Work MPS
9. Use cost of not achieving System FRs to cost‐justify investments in resources to achieve deficient FRs
10. Sustainability – consequence of practicing Collective System Design (CSD)
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 17
THE FLAME MODEL OF COLLECTIVE SYSTEM DESIGN (CSD) BEGINS WITH THE TONE OF PEOPLE
Structure
Tone/Mindset
Thinking
Standard Work
4 Layers ofa CSD
Precedenceof DesignRelationships
We see the resultsfrom our Thinking
We don’t seeour Thinking
CSD Flame Model
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
WHY CSD?
• Provides a methodical way to communicate design relationships from high‐level to lowest‐level of implementation
• The Design decomposition (or mapping) process results in understanding path dependency
• Gets everyone one the same page about what the system must accomplish
• Once the System Design Map is built, we use it to justify investment to achieve the deficient FRs.
FR: Functional Requirement(s): What a Value Stream must achieve to satisfy the customer(s) need
PS: Physical Solution: Proposed Solution (Hypothesis) to Achieve FR
18
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
• CSD creates a logic model / mental model of FR-PS relationships
Quality Predictable Output
IndirectLabor
DirectLabor
DelayReduction
Identifying and Resolving Problems
I
II
IV
III
V
VI
DP-R1Procedure for detection & response to production disruptions
FR-R1Respond rapidly to production disruptions
FR-R12Communicate problems to the right people
FR-R11Rapidly recognize production disruptions
DP-R12Process for feedback of operation’s state
DP-R11Subsystem configuration to enable operator’s detection of disruptions
FR-R13Solve problems immediately
DP-R13Standard method to identify and eliminate root cause
FR-R112Identifydisruptions where they occur
DP-R112Simplified material flow paths
FR-R122Minimize delay in contacting correct support resources
FR-R121Identify correct support resources
DP-R122Rapid support contact procedure
DP-R121Specified support resources for each failure mode
FR-R123Minimize time for support resource to understand disruption
DP-R123System that conveys what the disruption is
FR-R113Identify what the disruption is
DP-R113Context sensitive feedback
FR-Q1Operate processes within control limits
DP-Q1Elimination of assignable causes of variation
FR-Q2Center process mean on the target
DP-Q2Process parameter adjustment
FR-Q3Reduce variation in process output
DP-Q3Reduction of process noise
FR-Q11Eliminate machine assignable causes
DP-Q11Failure mode and effects analysis
FR-Q12Eliminate operator assignable causes
DP-Q12Stable output from operators
FR-Q122Ensure that operator consistently performs tasks correctly
DP-Q122Standard work methods
FR-Q121Ensure that operator has knowledge of required tasks
DP-Q121Training program
FR-Q13Eliminate method assignable causes
DP-Q13Process plan design
FR-Q14Eliminate material assignable causes
DP-Q14Supplier quality program
FR-Q123Ensure that operator human errors do not translate to defects
DP-Q123Mistake proof operations (Poka-Yoke)
DP-P1Predictable production resources (people, equipment, info)
FR-P1Minimize production disruptions
FR-P12Ensure predictable equipment output
FR-P11Ensure availability of relevant production information
FR-P14Ensure material availability
FR-P13Ensure predictable worker output
DP-P12Maintenance of equipment reliability
DP-P11Capable and reliable information system
DP-P14Standard material replenishment system
DP-P13Motivated work-force performing standard work
FR-P133Do not interrupt production for worker allowances
FR-P131Reduce variability of task completion time
DP-P133Mutual relief system with cross-trained workers
DP-P131Standard work methods to provide repeatable processing time
FR-P132Ensure availability of workers
DP-P132Perfect attendance program
FR-D2Eliminate wasted motion of operators
FR-D1Eliminate operators’ waiting on machines
DP-D2Design of workstations / work-loops to facilitate operator tasks
DP-D1Human-Machine separation
FR-I1Improve effectiveness of production managers
DP-I1Self directed work teams (horizontal organization)
FR-I2Eliminate information disruptions
DP-I2Seamless information flow (visual factory)
FR-D11Reduce time operators spend on non-value added tasks at each station
DP-D11Machines & stations designed to run autonomously
FR-D12Enable worker to operate more than one machine / station
DP-D12Workers trained to operate multiple stations
FR-D21Minimize wasted motion of operators between stations
DP-D21Machines / stations configured to reduce walking distance
FR-D22Minimize wasted motion in operators’ work preparation
DP-D22Standard tools / equipment located at each station(5S)
FR-D23Minimize wasted motion in operators’ work tasks
DP-D23Ergonomic interface between the worker, machine and fixture
DP- T1Reduction of transfer batch size (single-piece flow)
DP-T5Subsystem design to avoid production interruptions
FR-T53Ensure that support resources (people/automation) don’t interfere with one another
FR-T51Ensure that support resources don’t interfere with production resources
FR-T52Ensure that production resources (people/automation) don’t interfere with one another
FR-T1Reduce lot delay
FR-T5Reduce systematic operational delays
FR-T3Reduce run size delay
DP-T3Production of the desired mix and quantity during each demand interval
FR-T31Provide knowledge of demanded product mix (part types and quantities)
FR-T32Produce in sufficiently small run sizes
DP-T31Informationflow from downstream customer
DP-T32Design quick changeover for material handling and equipment
DP-T53Ensure coordination and separation of support work patterns
DP-T51Subsystems and equipment configured to separate support and production access req’ts
DP-T52Ensure coordination and separation of production work patterns
DP-T2Production designed for the takt time
FR-T2Reduce process delay(caused by ra > rs)
FR-T23Ensure that part arrival rate is equal to service rate (ra=rs)
FR-T22Ensure that production cycle time equals takt time
FR-T21Define takt time(s)
DP-T23Arrival of parts at downstream operations according to pitch
DP-T22Subsystem enabled to meet the desired takt time (design and operation)
DP-T21Definition or grouping of customers to achieve takt times within an ideal range
DP-T4Material flow oriented layout design
FR-T4Reduce transportation delay
DP-P142Parts moved to downstream operations according to pitch
FR-P142Ensure proper timing of part arrivals
DP-P141Standard work in process between sub-systems
FR-P141Ensure that parts are available to the material handlers
FR-1Maximize long-termreturn on Investment
DP-11Production to maximize customer satisfaction
FR113Meet customer expected lead time
FR-112Deliver products on time
DP-1Manufacturingsystem design
FR-11Maximizesalesrevenue
DP-13Investment based on a long term strategy
FR-13Minimizeinvestment over production system lifecycle
DP-12Elimination of non-value adding sources of cost
FR-12Minimize manufacturing costs
FR-111Manufacture products to target design specifications
DP-111Production processes with minimal variation from the target
DP-112Throughput time variation reduction
DP-122Reduction of indirect labor tasks
DP-121Elimination of non-value adding manual tasks
FR-122Reduce waste in indirect labor
FR-121Reduce waste in direct labor
DP-123Reduction of consumed floor space
FR-123Minimize facilities cost
DP113Mean throughput time reduction
FR-T221Ensure that automatic cycle time minimum takt time
FR-T222Ensure that manual cycle time takt time
DP-T223Stagger production of parts with different cycle times
FR-T223Ensure level cycle time mix
DP- T221Design of appropriate automatic work content at each station
DP- T222Design of appropriate operator work content/loops
FR-D3Eliminate operators’ waiting on other operators
DP-D3Balanced work-loops
FR-Q31Reduce noise in process inputs
DP-Q31Conversion of common causes into assignable causes
FR-Q32Reduce impact of input noise on process output
DP-Q32Robust process design
FR-R111Identify disruptions when they occur
DP-R111Increased operator sampling rate of equipment status
FR-P121Ensure that equipment is easily serviceable
DP-P121Machines designed for serviceability
FR-P122Service equipment regularly
DP-P122Regular preventative maintenance program
COLLECTIVE SYSTEM DESIGN (CSD) CAN EXTEND MSDD
Key Requirements
Quality On‐time & Rapid Delivery Resource Allocation
Problemsolving
Predict‐able
output
Delay reduction
Operation Costs
In‐vest‐ment
Quality
t
p t Xt
19
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
DESIGN LANGUAGE EXPRESSES THINKING
MFRFR
PSStandard
Work
A PS is a hypothesisto achieve an FR
CustomerNeeds
1st Stepof Design
MPS
3rd Stepof Design
(as needed)
2nd Stepof Design
4th Stepof Design
(as needed)
Collective System Design (CSD) expresses the Thinking with FRs and PSs:
Functional Requirement (FR)
Physical Solution (PS)– Measure on an FR is MFR
–Measure on a PS is MPSNot every FR or PS requires a measure.
Design
ImplementationMeasure
“Verification”
Outcome Measure
“Validation”
Standard work is a record of problems solved to date
Structure
Tone/Mindset
Thinking
Standard Work
CSD Flame Model
20
COLLECTIVE SYSTEM DESIGN DECOMPOSITION / MAP
Legend: FR – Functional RequirementPS – Physical SolutionMFR – Performance Measure on FRMPS – Performance Measure on PSKPP – Key Performance Parametermain dependencysecondary dependency
Functional Requirement
Physical Solution
Performance Measure(on the FR)
Collective System Design Map:The Implementation Sequence of
PSs is critical –
Performance Measure(on the PS)
FR
MFR
PS
MPS
FR2
PS2
MPS1
FR3
MFR3
PS3
FR1
MFR1
PS1
MPS1
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 22
COLLECTIVE SYSTEM DESIGN STEPS1. Determine System Boundary and Value Streams within a System Boundary 2. A New Tone… It’s the Work Method & System, Not the Person3. Identify Constituents/Customers (internal and external) Needs4. Translate Needs to Functional Requirements (FRs: what we want to achieve) for each
Value Stream 5. Map Physical Solutions (PSs: how we propose to achieve) to FRs, determine PS
Implementation Sequence and Standard Work Procedure Content, Sequence, Time of all work
6. Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA): Learning loop to Improve the System Design Decomposition (Map) and Standard Work
7. Establish Organization Structure (test with physical (lego) models) using Collective System Design Map… that Knows How to Identify and Resolve Problems… called “Green Sheet Standard Work”
8. Agree on Outcome Measures MFR and Implementation Measures on Doing Work MPS
9. Use cost of not achieving System FRs to cost‐justify investments in resources to achieve deficient FRs
10. Sustainability – consequence of practicing Collective System Design (CSD)
PDCA LEARNING LOOP TO IMPROVE CSD MAP & STANDARD WORK
StandardWork
A PS is a hypothesis to achieve an FR
Plan
CheckStudy results using
MFR and MPS
ActWhat needsto change?
CSD MapFR1 FR2 FR3
PS1 PS2 PS3
DoImplement the Standard Work
Updated MFR / MPS
Collective System Design (CSD)implements a Learning Loop
through Standard Work23
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 24
COLLECTIVE SYSTEM DESIGN STEPS1. Determine System Boundary and Value Streams within a System Boundary 2. A New Tone… It’s the Work Method & System, Not the Person3. Identify Constituents/Customers (internal and external) Needs4. Translate Needs to Functional Requirements (FRs: what we want to achieve) for each
Value Stream 5. Map Physical Solutions (PSs: how we propose to achieve) to FRs, determine PS
Implementation Sequence and Standard Work Procedure Content, Sequence, Time of all work
6. Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA): Learning loop to Improve the System Design Decomposition (Map) and Standard Work
7. Establish Organization Structure (test with physical (lego) models) using Collective System Design Map… that Knows How to Identify and Resolve Problems… called “Green Sheet Standard Work”
8. Agree on Outcome Measures MFR and Implementation Measures on Doing Work MPS
9. Use cost of not achieving System FRs to cost‐justify investments in resources to achieve deficient FRs
10. Sustainability – consequence of practicing Collective System Design (CSD)
Limited resources typically cause FRs to be taken off the table. CSD mapping enables assessment of the consequences that
would result if enterprise FRs are eliminated. 25% of the direct labor build hours
were waste as a result of not achieving these 6 FRs on the program
System Design Certification teaches leaders how to achieve life cycle cost and quality targets
FR ID FR Description Direct Labor Hrs
Indirect Labor Hrs
Total Labor Hrs
111 Product Design Process 1,516 8,781 10,297
Q1 Mfg Products To Spec 6,384 5,971 12,355
P11 Production info Available 3,316 NA 3,316
P12 Tool Availability 1,471 3,866 5,337
P132 Worker Availability 630 NA 630
P15 Part Availability 5,145 6.409 11,554
TOTAL 18,462 25,027 43,489
USE COST OF NOT ACHIEVING FRs TO JUSTIFY INVESTMENT IN RESOURCES
25
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved 26
PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE SYSTEM… WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON DECISION MAKING?
Thursday, January 28Participants
Friday, January 29Participants
© 2016 David S. Cochran, all rights reserved
CONTACT US
David S. Cochran, Ph.D.Associate Professor and DirectorIPFW Center of Excellence in Systems Engineering
Office (260) 481‐0341Email [email protected]
Jason BarnesAssociate DirectorIPFW Center of Excellence in Systems Engineering
Office (260) 481‐6370Email [email protected]
Joe Sepkovich Senior Research AssociateIPFW Center of Excellence In System Engineering
Office (260) 445‐8798Email [email protected]
27