>> S Q P S Blog

I have seen examples of the 3 M’s in many places. I think it is important to understand their interrelationships before starting to implement solutions!

The 3 Ms

Muda: Waste - One or more of the 7 types -  (Overproduction, Waiting, Transport, Extra Motion, Extra Processing, Defects, Inventory)

Mura: Variation (unevenness or fluctuation ) in performance

Muri: Hard to do / burdensome (usually caused by Mura and/or Muda)

Example abound of how the 3 M’s are related. Here are some:

Example >> Poor layout of a facility (indicated by Transport Waste) would lead to “difficulty in getting the job done in a timely manner” which leads to accidents and making mistakes due to always being in a rush

Example >> Unstable process (Variation or Unevenness) - think of situations where machine alarms keep going off, - would create Waste downstream (Waiting, Defects)  creating Muri - hard to do for operators - like sorting / inspection / disposition.

Example >> Searching for tools or information (Extra Motion) would result in less time focusing on value-adding activities.

Example >> Documentation too wordy / confusing  / not visual  (Extra Processing) would result in spending too much time in finding what is needed in a timely manner.

In the previous post, I outlined how lean projects can be manged through Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycles. Here, I’ll be walking through an example.

Plan

This step includes drawing current value stream (VS) map in terms of processes (or activities), calculating processing times on the value stream, and analyzing for waste. After conducting some brainstorming, the PDCA team can list opportunities for removing such waste by reducing, re-organizing, realigning, training. Finally, we prioritize such opportunities start implementation with those with highest impact first.

In this example, a pizza shop takes orders for delivery over the phone and processes manually.  Customers complain about delivery time being long. Here is how the process works:

• The order taker writes down all order information (type of pizza, size, ingredients, ..etc.) as well as the address.
• Order gets verified by the manager before forwarded to the kitchen. In case of any missing information, the order taker calls the customer back for corrections
• Prepare pizza
• Pizza sits in queue before baking
• Bake, cut, package and label pizza
• Pizza waits in warmer for delivery
• Deliver pizza

The goal here is to eliminate all complaints due to “long delivery time”and increase customer satisfaction.

Times form the above value stream can be summarized as follows:

Lead Time: The time from the customer calling in until the pizza is delivered. In this example, the Lead time is 44 minutes.Value-Adding: All activities that add value to what the customer experiences / pays for. Those steps amount to 15 minutes which is about 34% of the lead time.

Delays / Waiting amounts to 8 minutes.

The PDCA team has conducted root-cause analysis to eliminate waste (and shorten delivery time). The team decided that the manual system for orders created delays and inefficiencies. So it was decided to implement a computerized system for entering orders and communicating them to the kitchen using computer monitors. Also, it was decided to hire an additional delivery driver. The future value-stream table is expected to look as follows:

Do

• Prepare and implement action plan for  computerized system
• After implementation, let the system run and stabilize
• Collect delivery times data again for measuring progress

Check

• Data analysis after implementation of plan show a reduction of  lead time by an average of 11 minutes. This is a reduction of approximately 25% of lead time.
• Complaints due to long delivery time were reduced by 60%.

Act

The updated  value stream after implementation will become the “current” for the next PDCA. As can be seen from the updated value stream table, delays due”waiting for oven space” and “waiting for driver” are still there and could be minimized or eliminated by coming up with efficient methods and creating additional capacity.

Mustafa Shraim

Meetings!

In Part 1, I classified waste that can be generated from meetings. At the end of that post, I suggested tracking meetings for a period of time with regard to meeting objective, number of people attending, duration, progress made, etc. After getting such information, we may be able to answer some questions like:

• What objectives or goals were achieved?
• What is the proportion of time spent in meetings to solve ACTUAL quality / customer problems?
• How much time per employee was spent in meetings?

Other questions or metrics may also be established but it is important to have a baseline. Then after improvements are made, metrics can be compared against those baseline figures.

Here are some improvement ideas:

• Restrict meeting duration (e.g. 30 minutes) - and publish start and end times before the meeting. Also start the meeting ON TIME and end ON TIME
• Restrict Agenda - most of the time agenda is too broad and/or goal is not established
• Publish goal / agenda ahead of time so participants are ready. The alternative is that during the meeting someone might say “I’ll look into it” without any time frame. Lack of agenda will lower participants’ expectations of the meeting.
• Restrict participation to those who can add value!
• Assign roles for taking minutes, keeping the team focused on topic, and keeping track of time. These roles may be assigned to one but preferably more participants
• Summarize meeting minutes right after the meeting and share with participants. Don’t forget to include action items, responsibilities, and due dates!

Meetings!

Everyone has probably been in meetings before and had thoughts such as: “what a waste of time!”, “useless”, “we have to meet again on this?”, “who’s in charge here?”. It has been reported that meetings carry a lot of waste (muda). They take long and/or there are many of them… so they generate waste such as:

• Waiting >> Others in the organization may be waiting on decisions to be made or someone that needs to be doing their job so other work downstream can get done!(double waste here)
• Waiting >> Meeting does not start on time because not everyone is there on time!
• Overproduction >> Long meeting for lack of agenda and/or leadership
• Waste of talent >> Keeping talented individual from doing their work by having them in so many meetings
• Over-processing >> Too many people in a meeting for an issue that can be resolved by a few
• Mistakes / Defects >> Not involving the right people could lead to making mistakes or scope-creep
• Extra Motion >> In and out of many meetings

What can be done about meetings? Before answering this question, meetings should be tracked for a period of time (like three months!). Include objectives, number of people, time, progress made, etc.

When the customer experiences a product or a service, he/she evaluates such experience. Most of the time, this evaluation does not formally reach the product maker or service provider for many reasons. However, this evaluation is often felt by the provider through returns, repeat business or new business through word of mouth.

When the customer is dissatisfied,  it is usually due to a problem. For minor problems, most people don’t complain about the service or return products. In some instances, it is just not worth their time to do that. But in most cases, they do something else if they can.

For the provider, it is a lost opportunity that is not measured immediately. A customer suddenly cancels subscription or does not plan on renewal the next time around. Or may be one mentions such a problem to friends who are considering the product or service. Some put their lack of satisfaction on social media outlets making ripple effects. In all cases, it is a customer issue that was not accounted for but will likely have  impact on the bottom line.

In summary, cost of poor quality may be extended to the lost opportunity and customer good will using the Taguchi loss function. This can be estimated by taking a sample of most recent complaints then determining the projected overall cost.  In general, as the issue (problem) with the product or service is experienced by more customers, the loss (to society) becomes more severe. Ideally, our target loss is zero which can only be achieved with perfection.

 Number of complaints

I recently co-authored an article summarizing a Six Sigma project. The article was about a Six Sigma project in e-mail marketing in which design of experiments was used.

The project did not exactly follow the Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control or DMAIC as we know it. Instead, The headings of the DMAIC process were as follows:

• Define / Measure
• Measure / Analyze
• Improve
• Control

The Define/Measurephase includes some Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles in determining and verifying factors to be included. For example, checking feasibility of that certain level combinations can be run. When we move to the Measure/Analyzephase, we are actually collecting and analyzing data based on the experimental design . Sometimes we need to do preliminary analysis before we add more samples and conduct more detailed analysis.

The point is that smaller PDCA cycles are often within each phase and between consecutive phases. The phases of the projects are dynamic in nature and not static. In the end, each project is unique and so should be treated.

When a company implements Six Sigma methodology, it usually hopes to achieve Six Sigma Quality. This means keeping a defect rate at about 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO). For example, if an airline uses delayed or lost baggage as a measure of their performance, then it should keep that number below 4 lost/delayed luggage pieces per million on the average.

Can an organization declare they are at a Six-Sigma quality level when they’re only tracking one metric? In the case of an airline, what about on-time arrival? waiting time for check-in? double-booking? and complaints about their online reservation process? The answer is obviously “No”. All experiences by the customers must be accounted for. So once each of the experiences by the customer is less than 4 DPMO, we can say that the organization is at a Six Sigma level from customers’ perspective.

One more thing; What’s important to the customer is decided by the customer.

Everyone knows that becoming Lean is a gradual ongoing process. Some gains, particularly those involving value stream maps, may have a significant impact on reducing lead time and associated costs. However, other gains, such as applying the 5-S system, contribute to the overall success but in smaller increments.

Gradual ongoing gains may also be realized from applying Lean concepts in quality management systems (QMS). From experience, many organizations have implementation problems and are heavy on documentation for reasons such as:

• The belief that all tasks require work instructions or procedures
• One person owns the QMS. As a result he or she is free to introduce additional items (procedures, forms, frequency of events) without real evaluation of the impact on leanness
• The QMS has redundant and/or more-frequent-than-needed tasks. This includes the circulation for signature on an updated document or over-documenting a simple step
• Copies of documents where they are NOT needed
• Change of the QMS guard which  means adding more documents. Usually, it is easier to add than eliminate documents thinking that all existing documents are needed (or they would not be there in the first place!!)
• Just in case mentality: thinking that having more would likely impress the external auditor

How do these examples affect leanness?

 I am sure that there are many examples and questions about this issue.  A Lean QMS group on LinkedIn was started to share ideas and experiences. Please join as it is open for all!