Quote:
Originally Posted by mattf
In any case, @craiglpress my company is probably a part of that 77% "thinking" about lean, but either doesn't want to or can't for whatever reason that might be. Times are tough and when I look at a selection of printers in the area, I can see which are going to survive and which are not. And its not because of bad quality or horrible interaction for customers, but the vision and business model of the company.
|
I can understand your frustration but I would suggest that the percentage is much higher than 77%. I have said for a long time, there is a cultural problem in the industry. Not only printers but graphical arts educational institutions and technical institutions have failed to move in a direction that leads to understanding of the process that can be used to develop predictable and consistent technology.
In good times or bad times, the industry does not want to look at ideas unless they are products from some supplier or they look at the process in the ususal way, which does not lead to any fundamental understanding.
Lean is a useful tool but it is sadly not capable of getting to the core problems that hold individual printers back. Gathering data is pointless without understanding what the fundamental problems are. Sure, Lean can help in reducing wasted movements and other areas but it will not fundamentally change the messy situation printers are in.
There are lots of issues in the process. I understand very well a particular area that leads to consistency and predictability of density control on press. If an industry does not want to understand the fundamental causes, then they are always going to have a problem that will be frustrating and wasteful.
Changing the culture is THE biggest problem and the Lean consultants are not leading in this direction. They are just skirting around fundamental issues and working the Lean formula.
When you get a process to work better in a fundamental way, lots of side benefits result. Less training required, predictable and consistent results, less waste, easier to schedule and plan for. These become marketing weapons because they are measureable quality and delivery performance that can be shown to customers and lower costs that will show up on the bottom line that also support pricing strategies.
The quality movement of the 70's and 80's stressed the reduction of process variation and increase of predictability. That is the main value of SMED. To get to a very short makeready, you have to be consistent and predictable. You have to know what fundamentally causes variation and the lack of predictability and then take steps to fundamentally correct the process. That is the whole point of SMED.
I think the modern view of Lean has strayed away from the earlier Quality movement in a very serious way and provides no future options. It seems to only provide an improvement in what you have now which will lead to a slow decline.
Measuring colour bars and making adjustments is not the goal. It is a sign of failure. But the industry wants to continue to lie to itself and still put the view forward that measuring and correcting is the right thing to do. It isn't. It is backwards and prevents progress. Lean is preventing progress.
Making fundamental change is messy. It has risks. Risks can be greatly reduced if you have knowledge. But an industry that will not take the slightest risk is stuck with what is available and has not control of its future.
