Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

5S should be more than just housekeeping.

When properly implemented, 5S is part of total Lean


Manufacturing Strategy. Many of the benefits and effects are systemic in nature, i.e. they cannot be
evaluated in isolation from the other elements of Lean. 
Nevertheless, we have attempted to identify typical improvements in the table below. Since there
seems to be few documented, rigorous studies of 5S benefits, the improvements in this table come
from the experience of our clients and readers. they are necessarily anecdotal. Some narratives about
experiences with 5S are at our Commentary page.

Potential
Benefit Commentary
Improvement
Many 5S programs use Safety as one of the S'. An
organization's concern for safety can be a
Up to 70%
Safety significant contributor to morale and pride. It can be
Reduction
measured with Lost Time Injury rates or other
measures of safety performance. 

Cleaning out the junk will sometimes open significant


space by itself. If an analysis and localized re-layout of
departments is part of the 5S effort, there may be 5%-60%
Space significant savings. However, such space savings Reduction
must be consolidated into larger blocks of space to
be useful. 

Measurement of productivity can occur in many ways


and at many levels such as overall factory productivity,
work team productivity or micro-motion productivity. 15%-50%+
Productivity Overall factory productivity is the most important from a Increase
competitive viewpoint but many other factors can
influence this other than 5S. 

Pride and morale are notoriously difficult to


measure but critically important. While there are
Significantly
Pride & Morale survey tools for such measurement, they are time-
Improved
consuming. The practical effects are seen primarily in
absenteeism, turnover and productivity. 

Absenteeism results from many causes but pride and


morale are two of the more important. Improvements in 20%-50%
Absenteeism absenteeism, if other factors remain constant, can be Reduction
assumed as resulting from increased pride and morale. 

If 5S teams prepare before-and-after spaghetti


diagrams, they can measure reductions in walking 
20%-50%+
Wasted Motion distance. There are, however, other motion savings at
Reduction
the micro level (reaching, bending, etc.) that are more
difficult to measure directly. 

The rigor, discipline and analysis inherent in 5S can


contribute to the development of the "Kaizen Mind."
This is a culturally induced attitude of constantly looking Number of 
for and implementing improvement, particularly at the Suggestions
Kaizen Mind level of an individual worker or a work team. For more 1500%+
on this see "The DNA of Toyota" and Quick & Easy Increase
Kaizen. One way to measure this is with the number of
suggestions per employee. 
Decoding The DNA of The Toyota Production System
Corporate Culture In Lean Manufacturing
The Essence of Lean Manufacturing This unspoken, unrecognized belief gives rise
to unspoken, unrecognized rules for work
Many manufacturers imitate the Toyota
processes and behavior. Spear and Bowen
Production System or its variant, Lean
identified four such rules. They also identified
Manufacturing. Most improve their operations
an over-arching rule, included here as rule # 5. 
but few approach the efficiency and quality
achieved at Toyota. Each rule derives from hypotheses about
the production process. If the hypotheses are
The usual list of elements and techniques
correct, there are no problems. When problems
such as kanban, workcells and SPC do not
arise, as shown by the indicators, the operation
capture the essence. Such lists, including our
is fixed according to the responses.
own, are manifestations of an underlying
approach and attitude, part of Toyota's The rules imply two distinct, simultaneous
Corporate Culture. but  interconnected processes:
In an article for the Harvard Business Review, ← A production process that makes
Steven Spear and H. Kent Bowen identify product.
aspects of Toyota's Corporate Culture that help ← An improvement process that makes
Toyota renew, adapt and prosper year after the production process better and
year. better (Continuous Improvement).
The authors contend that one central tenet of
this corporate culture is responsible for JIT and The rules are not absolute dictums but,
Toyota's continuing success. That tenet is: guides, and ideals. Even Toyota has not
ALL work processes are controlled, implemented them for every case. Moreover,
scientific experiments, constantly these are rules for Toyota's business and may
modified and improved by the people not apply directly to others.
who do the work.
The Unspoken Rules of Toyota

    Rule Implied Hypotheses Problem Signals Responses

Specifications ►The person or machine ►The work procedure ►Improve training


document all work can perform the work as varies from
►Improve Process Capability
processes and include specified specification
How People content, sequence, ►If the work is done as ►Modify the work specification
1 Work ►Defective Products
timing and outcome. specified, the product is
defect-free.
►Customer requests have ►Responses do not ►Determine true mix and
Connections with a  known, specific volume keep pace with demand.
clear YES/NO signals and mix. requests. ►Determine true supplier
How Work ►The supplier can respond ►Supplier is idle capability.
2 Connects
directly link every
customer and to requests. waiting for requests. ►Retrain/improve/modify.
supplier.
►Every supplier in the flow ►A person or ►Determine why supplier was
Every product and path is required and machine is not unnecessary;  redesign flow.
service travels a suppliers not on the flow needed. ►Determine reason for
The Physical
3 Arrangement single, simple and path are not required
►Unspecified supplier
unspecified supplier; redesign
direct flow path. flow.
performs work.

Workers at the lowest ►A specific change causes ►Actual result varies ►Determine why the actual
feasible level, guided a  specific, predictable from expected result. result differed from the prediction.
How To by a teacher (Sensei), improvement in productivity,
4 ►Redesign the change.
Improve improve their own quality or other parameter.
work processes.
Integrated failure tests ►Automatic alarms prevent ►Defects are passed ►Analyze and institute new or
automatically signal defects or sub- standard through to the next improved alarms.
Problem deviations for every performance. operation.
5 Alarms activity, connection & ►Sub-Standard
flow path. Performance.
In this table, "Supplier" refers to an upstream operation, inside or outside the facility. "Customer" is the downstream operation.
Rule # 1
Specifications document all work processes and include content, sequence, timing
and outcome.
Rule #1 is one of the most important and least understood of the rules. At Toyota, each process
is specified with detailed instructions. For example, when assemblers install seats with four bolts, the
bolts are inserted and tightened in a precise sequence. Every worker installs them in the same way,
every time.

This regimentation increases the linkage between the way work is done and the results. If
everyone worked in different ways, the link would be broken or obscure. How do we reconcile such
regimented work with the experimentation and concern for individuals that is supposed to be a part of
the system? The answer is that while individual workers cannot vary the process, teams are required
to actively analyze, experiment, change and improve the process.

Rule #1 links closely with the widespread use of TQM, SPC and associated problem-solving
skills. If workers do not possess those skills, Rule #1 is pretty much worthless and even
counterproductive.

This is often seen in an insistence on detail work instructions. Detailed work instructions are all very
well if the process is stable and/or workers have an adequate TQM background.

What usually happens is that engineers write unrealistic instructions with little input from workers.
Nobody involved has an adequate TQM background. Workers cannot follow the instructions and they
are promptly ignored. There is little feedback to the authors. The authors are busy writing new work
instructions for other parts that will also be ignored.

As a result the processes appear to have documentation, but, in practice, do not. Processes are
inconsistent with inconsistent results. Nobody recognizes the inconsistencies or responds to them.
Quality problems continue, pretty much as before. the whole thing is, at best, a waste of time. At worst
it diverts efforts from a serious attack on problems.

Rule # 2
Connections with clear YES/NO signals directly link every customer and supplier.
This implicit rule gave rise to kanban, Direct Link and other lean  scheduling. It tells us that every
operation should send its products to subsequent "customers" directly using methods and algorithms
that are clear and precise. It precludes separate warehouses and separate people or departments
whose only function is inventory management.
Rule # 3
Every product and service travels a single, simple and direct flow path.

Toyota's U-shaped workcells are the ultimate manifestation of this rule. It means that every piece
of finished product has been through the same equipment and precisely the same process. It improves
consistency, makes trouble-shooting easier and simplifies material handling and scheduling.

Rule # 4
Workers at the lowest feasible level, guided by a teacher (Sensei), improve their own
work processes using scientific methods.

Rule #4 ties closely with Rule #1. It prevents Work Instructions from becoming moribund
memorials rather than living guides. It enlists the entire workforce in the improvement (Kaizen)
efforts.

Rule # 5
Integrated failure tests automatically signal deviations for every activity, connection
and flow path.
This is the concept of Jidoka or Autonomation. It prevents products with unacceptable quality from
continuing in the process. The manifestations of this rule are many, varied, imaginative and
unique to the process. Examples are detectors for missing components, automatic gages that check
each part and visual alarms for low stocks.
_____________________________

References
SPEAR, Steven and BOWEN, H. Kent, "Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System.",Harvard Business Review, September-
October, 1999.
DAVIS, Stanley M., Managing Corporate Culture, Ballinger Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
Just In Time, Toyota Production System & Lean
Manufacturing
Origins & History Lean Manufacturing
 
Lean Manufacturing is the latest buzzword in manufacturing circles. It is not especially new. It derives
from the Toyota Production System or Just In Time Production, Henry Ford and other
predecessors.
The lineage of Lean manufacturing and Just In Time (JIT) Production goes back to Eli Whitney
and the concept of interchangeable parts. This article traces the high points of that long history.

Early Developments
While Eli Whitney is most famous as the inventor of the cotton gin. However,
the gin was a minor accomplishment compared to his perfection of
interchangeable parts. Whitney developed this about 1799 when he took a
contract from the U.S. Army for the manufacture of 10,000 muskets at the
unbelievably low price of $13.40 each.
For the next 100 years manufacturers primarily concerned themselves
with individual technologies. During this time our system of engineering
drawings developed, modern machine tools were perfected and large scale
processes such as the Bessemer process for making steel held the center of
attention.
As products moved from one discrete process to the next through the logistics system and within
factories, few people concerned themselves with:
← What happened between processes
← How multiple processes were arranged within the factory
← How the chain of processes functioned as a system. 
← How each worker went about a task
This changed in the late 1890's with the work of early Industrial Engineers. 

Frederick W. Taylor began to look at individual workers and work methods. The
result was Time Study and standardized work. Taylor was a  controversial figure.
He called his ideas Scientific Management. The concept of applying science to
management was sound but Taylor simply ignored the behavioral sciences. In
addition, he had a peculiar attitude towards factory workers.
Frank Gilbreth (Cheaper By The Dozen) added Motion Study and invented
Process Charting. Process charts focused attention on all work elements
including those non-value added elements which normally occur between the
"official" elements. 
Lillian Gilbreth brought psychology into the mix by studying the motivations of workers and how
attitudes affected the outcome of a process. There were, of course, many other contributors. These
were the people who originated the idea of "eliminating waste", a key tenet of JIT and Lean
Manufacturing.

The Ford System


And then, there was Henry Ford. 
Starting about 1910, Ford and his right-hand-man, Charles E. Sorensen,
fashioned the first comprehensive Manufacturing Strategy. They took all the
elements of a manufacturing system-- people, machines, tooling, and products--
and arranged them in a continuous system for manufacturing the Model T
automobile. Ford was so incredibly successful he quickly became one of the
world's richest men and put the world on wheels. Ford is considered by many to
be the first practitioner of Just In Time and Lean Manufacturing.
Ford's success inspired many others to copy his methods. But most of those who copied did not
understand the fundamentals. Ford assembly lines were often employed for products and processes
that were unsuitable for them.
It is even doubtful that Henry Ford himself fully understood what he had done and why it was so
successful. When the world began to change, the Ford system began to break down and Henry
Ford refused to change the system. 
For example, Ford production depended on a labor force that was so desperate for money and jobs
that workers would sacrifice their dignity and self esteem. The prosperity of the 1920's and the advent
of labor unions produced conflict with the Ford system. Product proliferation also put strains on
the Ford system. Annual model changes, multiple colors, and options did not fit well in Ford factories.
At General Motors, Alfred P. Sloan took a more pragmatic approach. He
developed business and manufacturing strategies for managing very large
enterprises and dealing with variety.  By the mid 1930's General Motors had
passed Ford in domination of the automotive market. Yet, many elements of
Ford production were sound, even in the new age. Ford methods were a
deciding factor in the Allied victory of World War II.   
Ironically, Henry Ford hated war and refused to build armaments long after war
was inevitable. However, when Ford plants finally retooled for war production,
they did so on a fantastic scale as epitomized by the Willow Run Bomber plant
that built "A bomber An Hour."

Just In Time and

The Toyota Production System


The Allied victory and the massive quantities of material behind it (see "A Bomber An
Hour") caught the attention of Japanese industrialists. They studied American production
methods with particular attention to Ford practices and the Statistical Quality Control
practices of Ishikawa, Edwards Deming, and Joseph Juran.
At Toyota Motor Company, Taichii Ohno and  Shigeo Shingo, began to
incorporate Ford production  and other techniques into an approach called
Toyota Production System or Just In Time . They recognized the central role of
inventory.
The Toyota people also recognized that the Ford system had contradictions and
shortcomings, particularly with respect to employees. With General Douglas
MacAurthur actively promoting labor unions in the occupation years, Ford's harsh attitudes and
demeaning job structures were unworkable in post-war Japan. They were also unworkable in the
American context, but that would not be evident for some years. America's "Greatest Generation"
carried over attitudes from the Great Depression that made the system work in spite of its defects.
Toyota soon discovered that factory workers had far more to contribute than just muscle
power. This discovery probably originated in the  Quality Circle movement. Ishikawa, Deming, and
Juran all made major contributions to the quality movement. It culminated in team development and
cellular manufacturing.
Another key discovery involved product variety. The Ford system was built around a single, never
changing product. It did not cope well with multiple or new products. 
Shingo, at Ohno's suggestion, went to work on the setup and changeover problem. Reducing
setups to minutes and seconds allowed small batches and an almost continuous flow like the original
Ford concept. It introduced a flexibility that Henry Ford thought he did not need.
All of this took place between about 1949 and 1975. To some extent it spread to other Japanese
companies. When the productivity and quality gains became evident to the outside world, American
executives traveled to Japan to study it. 
They brought back, mostly, the superficial aspects like kanban cards and quality circles.  Most early
attempts to emulate Toyota failed because they were not integrated into a complete system and
because few understood the underlying principles.
Norman Bodek first published the works of Shingo and Ohno in English. He did much to transfer this
knowledge and build awareness in the Western world. Robert Hall and Richard Schonberger also
wrote popular books. 

World Class Manufacturing


By the 1980's some American manufacturers, such as Omark Industries, General Electric and
Kawasaki (Lincoln,Nebraska) were achieving success. 
Consultants took up the campaign and acronyms sprouted like weeds: World Class Manufacturing
(WCM), Stockless Production, Continuous Flow Manufacturing (CFM), and many other names all
referred to systems that were, essentially, Toyota Production. 
Gradually, a knowledge and experience base developed and success stories became more frequent. 

Lean Manufacturing
In 1990 James Womack wrote a book called "The Machine That Changed The World". Womack's
book was a straightforward account of the history of automobile manufacturing combined with a study
of Japanese, American, and European automotive assembly plants. What was new was a phrase--
"Lean Manufacturing."
Lean Manufacturing caught the imagination of manufacturing people in many countries. Lean
implementations are now commonplace. The knowledge and experience base is expanding rapidly.
The essential elements of Lean Manufacturing are described at our page "Principles of Lean
Manufacturing." They do not substantially differ from the techniques developed by Ohno, Shingo and
the people at Toyota. The application in any specific factory does change. Just as many firms
copied Ford techniques in slavish and unthinking ways, many firms copy Toyota's techniques in
slavish and unthinking ways and with poor results. Our series of articles on implementation includes a
"Mental Model" to assist the thinking process and guidance on strategy and planning.
There is no cookbook for manufacturing. Each firm has its own unique set of products, processes,
people, and history. While certain principles may be immutable, their application is not.
Manufacturing Strategy will always be a difficult, uncertain, and individual process. Strategy
("The General's Art") is still, largely, an art. But, that should not prevent us from bringing the available
science to bear on the problem.
Developing your Manufacturing Strategy is what this site and Strategos is all about.
_____________________________
Special thanks Norman Bodek who contributed details about developments at Toyota and the transfer of these discoveries to the West. 
SORENSEN, CHARLES  E., My Forty Years With Ford. New York: W.W. Norton, 1956.
KANIGAL, ROBERT, The One Best Way, New York: Penguin, 1997.
LACEY, ROBERT, Ford: The Men and The Machine, Boston, MA, Little Brown, 1986.
5S "Sort"
Sorting Out The Junk

First Step Who Decides?


Sorting through objects in the workplace is the This can be a delicate issue. Generally, let the
first step. Everything that moves should person who uses or owns the item decide.
have a tag-- tools, parts, furniture and When several people within the work group
personal objects. While the procedure is use the item, negotiation may be required.
simple, the decisions are sometimes
agonizing.

The Tags
← Allocate a central ?Red Tag Area? where items go that
cannot be simply thrown in the trash.
← Include disposal instructions if necessary.
← Appoint a review board for questionable items. (You may
not need it but someone else may.)

← Allocate a ?Yellow Tag? location near the workplace. 


← Review on a specific date. 
← Store occasionally necessary items in out of the way
locations.

← Leave ?Green Tag? items in the workplace. 


← Set their final location later.
5S "Shine"
Clean, Polish & Paint

The Second Step Guidelines for Shine


With only essential items remaining, ← Each work team should establish their
it is time to clean and paint. In own measure of ?clean?. 
some 5S programs, cleaning and ← Establish a regular schedule for
painting are considered separately. routine cleaning and deep cleaning. 
Either way, it is likely to be done over time. 
← The entire team participates. This is
The first cleaning leaves some dirt and oil. The not something for a special janitorial
next cleaning looks better and third cleaning crew. 
will prepare for painting. All floors, equipment,
← Ensure that every crew has adequate
and almost every surface should get paint.
cleaning supplies and equipment.
5S "SET in Place"
Determining Locations

After Sort and Principles of Ergonomics can assist at the sub-


Shine, "Set" micro level. Horizontal and vertical reach
determines zones help to determine the best sub-micro
and location. The heaviest and most frequently
identifies the used items should be in the nearest reach
location of zones. 
each item.
The methods Once people develop awareness, their body
for sense will alert them to excessive reaching,
determining walking or awkward positions. They learn to
such locations may be elementary and intuitive "SET" items instinctively.
or formal and elaborate. 

Often the elementary methods work quite


well, especially during in the early phases.
Workers simply look at each item, visualize its
use, estimate the frequency of use and then Reach Zones
select a location. After a few days, they can
review and revise their locations.

Locations should be identified at both a micro


and sub-micro level. String diagrams can
assist at the micro-level.  

 
"String Diagram" for Material Flow

Boundaries

Boundaries identify the designated and When combined with addresses and
location and space for each item. They nameplates, boundaries are a powerful tool for
encourage recoil, that is the proper return of an ensuring that every item returns to its proper
item, as shown below. They also tend to place, every time. 
prevent people from placing other items in a
designated space. 
The barrel should be here. A missing barrel is not Here, a boundary designates
obvious. the proper location.

Clearly, something is missing. An address informs us what Is A complete address on both


missing. the barrel and location,
encourages its return.
5S "Standardize"
At minimum,
standardize the 5S
activities shown at the
right. In some
programs,
standardization is used
as an opportunity to
standardize normal
work activities and
develop work
instructions.  

Standardize 5S
Activities
← Aisle
Marking
← Cleanliness
Standards
← Color
Schemes
← Cleaning
Schedules
← Signage
5S – Sustain
Sustainment is usually the most difficult part of This cannot be outsourced or solved with
5S. The attitudes and activities must be software. Management, top management,
institutionalized and repeated until the must reinforce it constantly with time, attention
become part of the culture and the fabric of and repetition. Former military people,
everyday work.  especially battalion or company level line
officers are usually quite good at this. They are
The table below summarizes eight common
also good candidates for Management
tools that help with sustainment. A combination
Champion and for the Management Watch. 
of several or all of these tools is usually
necessary. 

Eight Tools To Sustain 5S

Вам также может понравиться