Lean vs. TQM, BPR, TOC, Six Sigma, Etc.

[David Dodd]

When I talk with managers about lean, one question that usually comes up in one form or another is, "What makes lean different from other business improvement methods?" Since the early 1980s, we've seen numerous business improvement techniques appear on the stage, including total quality management, business process reengineering, theory of constraints, six sigma, and lean manufacturing. So, it's understandable that managers would wonder whether or how lean differs from other improvement methodologies.

Lean differs from other improvement methods in several ways, but two of the differences are particularly noteworthy. First, lean focuses on improving entire value streams, while most of the other improvement methods tend to focus on individual processes. In lean terminology, a "value stream" is all of the activities that a company must perform in order to produce and deliver a product or service to a customer. So, a value stream is really a system that is composed of numerous individual processes. Lean organizations do work on improving individual processes, but lean practitioners always remember that the real goal is to improve the whole value creation/delivery system and that improving one process won't necessary improve the performance of the value stream.

Another important difference is that most process improvement methods tend to focus on improving the productivity or efficiency of major value-adding processes, while lean emphasizes reducing or eliminating non-value-adding activities (waste). When a lean practitioner looks at an activity or process, he/she will ask a series of questions: Does this activity/process add value for a customer? If not, can we change the way we work to eliminate the need for the activity/process? If not, can we change the activity/process so that it will consume less resources (time, effort, space, etc.)?

Taiichi Ohno, one of the principal architects of Toyota's lean production system, captured both of these fundamental lean ideas when he said, "All we are doing is looking at the time line from the moment the customer gives us an order to the point when we collect the cash. And we are reducing that time line by removing the non-value-added wastes."

 

[rich apollo]

Lean differs from other improvement methods in several ways, but two of the differences are particularly noteworthy. First, lean focuses on improving entire value streams, while most of the other improvement methods tend to focus on individual processes.

David, you've hit on precisely the issue that keeps me somewhat skeptical of LEAN. Every so often another one of these ideologies becomes de rigeur.

One question I've never heard asked - does Toyota (the model LEAN company) owe their success to LEAN practices, or is it simply that they made (and stuck to) a commitment to constant process review?

Would any operation model that included consistent audits of workflow yield comparable results, or is LEAN truly superior?

LEAN may focus on "improving entire value streams", but don't you still have to break that "value stream" down to basic, "individual processes" and improve those to do it? I don't understand the difference?

 

[mattf]

David, you've hit on precisely the issue that keeps me somewhat skeptical of LEAN. Every so often another one of these ideologies becomes de rigeur.

One question I've never heard asked - does Toyota (the model LEAN company) owe their success to LEAN practices, or is it simply that they made (and stuck to) a commitment to constant process review?

Would any operation model that included consistent audits of workflow yield comparable results, or is LEAN truly superior?

LEAN may focus on "improving entire value streams", but don't you still have to break that "value stream" down to basic, "individual processes" and improve those to do it? I don't understand the difference?

You always have to break down a process to the basics. In any type of improvement methods you need to see the basics in order to understand what is going on in the whole process. Lean takes it a step further by focusing on how the individual tasks affect the grand scheme of things. Its all well and good if I can reduce the time to print a job by 30 minutes in terms of washup, makeready and so on. But if the finishing cutter doesn't have a process in order to handle this increased workload then the value of that fix on the printer is nil.

Another example: Shipping department implements lean practices into the department. They now can ship 20% more in a day then they were able to in the past. That's all well and good, but how can you take advantage of that increase in capacity if your other sections aren't stepping up to improve their processes. Sure, at face value I was talking about different processes, but in the end my mindset is where can we eliminate waste to improve the overall workflow.

If we can ship 20% more packages a day that's awesome. That means shipping can handle more work coming through. But if the finishing department doesn't try to improve on their end all that extra capacity is wasted. Utilizing the whole workflow to be collectively efficient is the name of the game. Other business improvement methods have tunnel vision. See what the specific department is doing and nothing else, improve what they are doing and nothing else. Never see the big picture. Never understand that what they do now might affect someone else down the line in a certain way. That is what lean brings.

Sure, Toyota does a constant review, because they are constantly trying to adapt a better lean system. Lean manufacturing never ends, there will always be a way to improve on the system that was just created, or Kaizen. On top of all this, Kaizen also is all about eliminating waste, which is the whole idea behind lean manufacturing.

 

[rich apollo]

Isn't that the theory of constraints?

 

[mattf]

Isn't that the theory of constraints?

Not necessarily. Think about it:

TOC looks for a constraint in the workflow in order to improve on that specific process. Once it is resolved or managed, it will change and pop up as something else. There will always be, according to TOC, at least one constraint in the system.

Sure, both TOC and Lean have a continuous improvement ideology. However, TOC looks for the constraint and creates a plan to fix it. Once a plan has been created, ALL other processes must be aligned with the decision on how to exploit that one specific constraint. Once the constraint has been resolved, there will be another one in its place, and it goes from there.

Lean on the other hand is not looking for a constraint, but is looking to eliminate waste in the process. I would argue that constraints and waste are two different ideas. TOC is looking for a specific constraint to fix while Lean is trying to eliminate waste within many "constraints". If you eliminate the waste you improve the process. TOC is more specific to a problem, while lean is more inline with process management.

I might be off on my analysis, but this is how I interpret both ideas as being different.

 

[marvin]

David, you've hit on precisely the issue that keeps me somewhat skeptical of LEAN. Every so often another one of these ideologies becomes de rigeur.

One question I've never heard asked - does Toyota (the model LEAN company) owe their success to LEAN practices, or is it simply that they made (and stuck to) a commitment to constant process review?

Would any operation model that included consistent audits of workflow yield comparable results, or is LEAN truly superior?

LEAN may focus on "improving entire value streams", but don't you still have to break that "value stream" down to basic, "individual processes" and improve those to do it? I don't understand the difference?

Without a constancy of purpose towards continuous improvement by the workers within the company, then Lean as well as any other quality management method will only become a fad. There are many companies that are successful due to the implemention of previously said methods, but there are many more that fail thinking that this is the quick fix to their all of a sudden dire needs.

Arguing about which method is better is usually a never-ending debate. There are many valuable tools in each that can really help depending on the situation of the company. Where these methods do help in is identifying where the improvement is needed and a proven method of doing making that improvement.

You asked if Toyota owed their success to Lean or simply process review. In my opinion I would have to say initially process review, or more so to continuous improvement. Lean or even TPS did not exist until Toyota created it, so they relied on previous advice from gurus and methods such as Statistical Process Control. From there they went on to make great strides in quality methods (Lean/TPS) which lead them towards their dominance in the market today.

I do agree with mattf in that it is the company that must be optimized, not the individual or department.

 

[eastppress]

You have been touching on Lean's Load Balancing along with other Lean initiatives. Elimination of waste, cell redesign, cross-training and multi-purposing people who have available time due to eliminated waste is a system-wide benefit of Lean. When moving Lean concepts into adminsitration and sales, including avoiding waste and maximizing margins from mismatches of orders and cutomers to company products and capabilities, asset management, HR and safety, companies magnify the benefits of Lean. I believe that Lean has a successful formula for overall profit improvement through macro and micro mixes of emphasis combines with continuous review and improvement. I also believe some integration of Six Sigma and other improvement methodologies can augment Lean's methodologies.

 

[PDeuth]

In time all these different methods get to the same place, provided they are applied diligently and ceaselessly. None of them work if they are not. It is a matter of culture that determines the choice of method, I believe. I believe, too, that each method has a particular benefit or strength and that a wise quality manager will avail him/herself to as many as possible - more tools in the quality toolbelt are better than fewer.
In the end it comes back to the system. Can your system function well? Does your system deliver desireable outcomes consistently? Is your business making money, increasing market share, and taking care of all its' stakeholders? "All work is done in a system of interconnected processes," W. E. Deming. He drew a SIPOC diagram on a board when he visited Japan and explained to the industrial and business leaders of Japan the significance of it. The rest is history.
There is no substitute for working on the system, for getting down in the trenches, so to speak, and achieving results. The particular tool or tools one uses matters little. In printing I want: to print the right thing; to print it right; and to make the work flow seamlessly. A system, and processes, that do that are the goal.
I personally like lean, six sigma, TOC, TQM, and the Baldridge Model for management. Those tools and techniques are merely mine, and I came about them rather haphazardly. No matter, they work for me at this point.

 

[KRizzo]

TPS is were Lean Manufacturing came from.

Value Stream Mapping reveals where to attack waste and helps determine what Lean tools to use. So one does not fall into the efficiency in isolation trap.

There are basically 20 components or tools (broken into three catagories) used by Lean Manufacturing.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

TPS is were Lean Manufacturing came from.

Value Stream Mapping reveals where to attack waste and helps determine what Lean tools to use. So one does not fall into the efficiency in isolation trap.

There are basically 20 components or tools (broken into three catagories) used by Lean Manufacturing.

How would the solving of the density control problem on offset presses, ie., having consistent and predictable density control without the need for an operator to make ink adjustments, affect the VSM method of attacking waste?

 

[KRizzo]

In the real world of offset printing, ink density variation is inevitable. effectively applying TPM and process control techniques can tighten the variation.

VSM
The press process data box includes quality rate (total production minus spoilage). Improved ink density control and roller maintenance could increase the quality rate.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

In the real world of offset printing, ink density variation is inevitable. effectively applying TPM and process control techniques can tighten the variation.

VSM
The press process data box includes quality rate (total production minus spoilage). Improved ink density control and roller maintenance could increase the quality rate.

Ink density variation is not inevitable and is caused by a specific problem in the process. If it was inevitable or inherent, it would be the same for all press designs and that is not the case.

The tightness of variation can be designed into the process. How much variation would one want?

Predictability is obtainable when the variation is designed out. Of course there is variation in everything but for practical purposes, SID variation can be designed out of the offset process.

Since there is so much doubt that the process can become very consistent and predictable, let us just consider the hypothetical question.

"If one would have a press that could be preset to the density targets and run consistently at those targets for the whole run with tight control, without the need of the operator or a closed loop system making any adjustments, would that not be a benefit to the Lean effort?"

 

[PDeuth]

Ink densities will vary. As important as it is to know how much they vary is to know that they do. Having a grasp on the variation on press will help the opreator to refrain from tampering and chasing the density: adjusting a stable press makes things worse. Control charts will provide a guide.
It's interesting that Lean does not get into much statistical process control. There is a way of thinking, a notion, that variation is waste and sloppiness, which needs to be cleaned up and eliminated. That works for me. Ink density variation, then, is waste, it's messy, and it ought to be eliminated to keep the process tidy. Total Production Maintenance is aimed at the causes of that variation; prevention is the wise way of keeping the process clean and tidy.
I read a wise article that said the choice of method ought to depend on the culture of the organization. Most printing companies - and all that I've worked in - are command and control structured. The open sort of culture that Lean requires would be a stretch in printing. Management would have to learn about systems and systems thinking for Lean to take hold. Management would have to change, and the command and control structures be eliminated. For this reason, a structured approach like Six Sigma is a good cultural fit. Six Sigma is, like printing, rigidly hierarchical.
The wise Quality Manager will work with the system he/she has, and choose one program and stick with it. It matters not which one, in the end, for they all take an organization to the same place. It matters that one not waver and that one not quit.

 

[Mark H]

It matters not which one, in the end, for they all take an organization to the same place. It matters that one not waver and that one not quit.

I must, respectfully, disagree. While a student of Deming, practical application has shown that no single process identifies all problems, solves all issues, removes all waste, or increases all profit centers. In short, what works for one, may not work for all.

After nearly 24 years working and managing production environments I have learned to mix and match best practices. Picking what works for a given situation and adapting the processes to create a workable, affordable, timely solution. If my first selection doesn't fit the bill, I modify it (just as you will modify the process being observed) in order to create the desired outcome.

This, of course, means that I have to be knowledgeable and fluent in more than one process improvement methodology in order to apply their theories and processes effectively and also flexible enough to know when the road I've chosen isn't working and be able to shift accordingly.

Mark H

 

[kiet79]

I must, respectfully, disagree. While a student of Deming, practical application has shown that no single process identifies all problems, solves all issues, removes all waste, or increases all profit centers. In short, what works for one, may not work for all.

After nearly 24 years working and managing production environments I have learned to mix and match best practices. Picking what works for a given situation and adapting the processes to create a workable, affordable, timely solution. If my first selection doesn't fit the bill, I modify it (just as you will modify the process being observed) in order to create the desired outcome.

This, of course, means that I have to be knowledgeable and fluent in more than one process improvement methodology in order to apply their theories and processes effectively and also flexible enough to know when the road I've chosen isn't working and be able to shift accordingly.

Mark H

Totally agree. People who really involving in manufacturing sure will know that theoretically work not mean that it works in actual practice, and that's why we always doing trail run on the new method or new process. There are too many "unexpected factor" which need to be solved by doing some modification