In my last post I described the pacing of pulse and unstructured flow lines. Another common way to structure the pacing of flow lines is the continuously moving line. In this type of line, the parts are always moving, and the processes and workers move along with the part until the process is completed.
Flow lines are often the best and most organized approach to establish a value stream. Hence, for flow lines or flow shops you can organize the processes much more easily than for many other types of production systems.
In this series of posts I will look at and compare different ways to pace your production processes. Please note that this is not line balancing about the work content for each process, but rather different options on when to start the work for each process. In the first post I will look at unstructured pacing and pulse lines. In my next post I will go into detail for the continuously moving line.
A famous step toward perfection in a lean production system is a lot size of one. However, few people realize what enormous effort and rigor Toyota applies to achieve this goal. During my visit to a Toyota plant and the APMS conference in Tokyo in 2015, I saw quite a few stunning examples of this quest. Let me show you …
In my previous posts I explained what “Just in Time” is, and started with different actions on how to make “Just in Time” work. As it turns out, there are a lot of things you can do, and one blog post was not enough. So here’s part two on how to make “Just in Time” work! As before, be warned that most of these methods or actions are not easy!
Just in Time (JIT) is the delivery of parts just when you need them. In my last post I explained what JIT is all about. In this post (and the next one) I will go into much more detail on different measures you can take toward JIT. But be warned, most of them are not easy, either in implementing or in convincing cost accounting about it beforehand.
Just in Time (or JIT) is a powerful method to reduce costs and increase efficiency. However, it is also very difficult to achieve. Most times when a Western company tells me it does JIT, it turns out that this is merely wishful thinking. Let me tell you what JIT really is. I will also talk a bit about the history of JIT. Finally, I will show you a few negative examples of wishful thinking common in modern industry. In my next posts I will go into more details on how to make it work.
In my last posts I explained the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act), common mistakes, and its history. However, there is a whole fruit stand of additional versions with some modifications that have popped up: PDSA, SDCA, OODA, ODCA, DMAIC, LAMDA, FACTUAL, Kata, and 8D – and probably more that I do not know of. Let me explain a bit on the different offshoots and alternatives of the PDCA.
In my previous post I explained how the PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) should work. However, while most people know the PDCA in theory, I find that the practical implementation is often lacking. And, quite frankly, I am also sometimes sloppy with the PDCA way more often than I would like to admit. Time for some reflection and observation on what works, and why so often it does not.
Hence, in this post I will show common pitfalls and problems when doing a PDCA. Also, simply because it is one of my pet interests, I will also show a bit of the history of the PDCA and its origins in quality control.