Tag: continuous improvement

Five Key Elements that Drive Manufacturing Flow
If you follow the Demand-Driven Matters blog, you know we specialize in Demand-Driven Manufacturing and have identified the two key components of this method as synchronization and flow. At an enterprise level, synchronization is all about fully connecting your organization to aggregate and share information in real-time. Data from machines, tools, applications, enterprise systems – any data source – is synchronized to drive decision-making (In our view, this also enables the Industrial Internet of Things – IIoT.)

Synchronization is also an enabler of flow. In this post, I want to introduce a discussion around what we’ve identified as the Five Key Elements that Drive Flow in manufacturing production. They are:
1. Control the release – create “Pull” by gating the release of work into production.
2. Synchronize activities – align upstream operations to downstream needs, paying attention to convergence points and final assembly.
3. Continuous improvement – use the first two Elements as a baseline for defining areas for continuous improvement – and never get complacent.
4. Extend to the supply chain – synchronize activities beyond the factory to the extended supply chain.
5. Align metrics – 6 metric categories to monitor for driving action in Demand-Driven Manufacturing environments.
On their own, each of these Elements would likely improve production flow. Our position is that by working these Elements together, you take a demand-driven leap in overall flow improvement. An episode of the podcast, Demand-Driven Matters, explains this in greater detail – along with data points on actual improvements manufacturers have gained:

Recently, we’ve been hearing from more manufacturers who want to do more with what they have. That is, drive flow to the point that they’ve increased capacity to take on more work – or enter new markets. One client we worked with saw the Demand-Driven method – and its ability to drive flow – as a means to expand one of their business units without dramatically increasing headcount. Another client was able to use this method to free capacity to enter a new market – and doubled revenue in 2.5 years.

In upcoming posts, we’ll review each Element in greater detail – you can also learn more about them through the Demand-Driven Matters podcast. In the meantime, let us know if you’ve worked through any or all of these Elements – and what your results were.
November 5, 2015
Smooth the rough spots with TOC, then Lean – and fine-tune with Six Sigma
What Grade of Sandpaper Will You Use? Part Four

Here we are at the final installment of our four-part, Sandpaper blog series about when to use the tools of Lean Manufacturing, the Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Six Sigma to address constraints, drive flow and promote continuous improvement. With regard to sandpaper, I talked a lot about what level of grit you will need to smooth out your processes—and what could happen if you try to start with Six Sigma as a first step in creating continuous improvement momentum.

Refine with Six Sigma

Six Sigma is the fine grit sandpaper, best used on a relatively smooth board that you want to make like glass. After TOC has helped with global flow and directed you to the location of numerous 5s and Kaizen events, you are beyond the point of dealing with special-cause variation. You identified processes that are within statistical control, but now, you need to move the baseline for the process. To do this, you need the depth of understanding that Six Sigma lends.

I have seen countless presentations by companies that begin with Six Sigma. There seems to be this focus on how many hundreds or thousands of Six Sigma projects they performed as an indicator of the value of their continuous improvement dedication. For me, the number of projects you run in an organization that is not ready for the level of refinement that Six Sigma provides, only means doing more work, at more cost, to get fewer benefits.

There are some improvement metrics that in my opinion, are based on funny numbers. But if you start with TOC, you can really see what is changing. That’s because TOC only impacts financials if you move Throughput (T) up, Operating Expense (OE) down, or move Inventory (I) down. (It is important to note that OE includes both direct and indirect labor.) If you take 25 percent of the labor content out of a process but there is no actual reduction to the payroll expense, then you have not impacted the financials unless that 25 percent of freed-up time can be spent increasing throughput. Six Sigma is exceedingly effective, but it can be a costly, slow, and exhausting process if you are trying to apply its fine-grit approach on a very rough board.

The Right Tools at the Right Time

Let’s quickly go through the steps to using TOC and Lean Manufacturing—before you try to use Six Sigma to significantly move the needle.

1) Start with the coarse grit sandpaper – TOC – to point you toward critical constraints that when managed, will provide the greatest return.

As you maximize throughput through constraints and remove obstructions to flow, global throughput and flow goes up. This causes the next level of items impeding flow to come to light as you begin to see more global changes affected—and it creates momentum and visibility for “the next right thing” to do.

2) Use the medium grit tools of Kaizen events and Lean Manufacturing to refine further.

As you get rid of the more glaring impediments to flow, you begin to see where your Kaizen events should be staged. You have more data to make value stream mapping and other Lean tools smooth the process even further.

3) The fine grit of Six Sigma is a great way to finely-tune to your continuous improvement processes.

Six Sigma tools allow you to refine and adjust big picture items with laser-like focus. It allows you to understand common-cause and special-cause variation. So you can determine if you need to bring the process into control or overhaul the process to move to the next level of performance. These areas for improvement may have been hidden until you applied TOC and Lean tools that revealed the changes you need to make the most impact to both global improvement – and the bottom line.

If You Could See Me Now

When I was first working with Lean Manufacturing, TOC and Six Sigma, I made plenty of mistakes and I learned a lot about how to refine the continuous improvement journey. One of the last things I would like to say to help you— keep your eyes open.

A very wise man once said there is a vast difference between looking and really seeing something at depth. I found for myself that when I look at the surface of the issue, I don’t make as much progress as when I try to really see. If you keep these methodologies at hand and combine them with the ability to see (with context and clarity) what to do next to keep your continuous improvement ball rolling, you’re sure to experience great improvements for you, your processes and your people. Let me know what you are doing to keep the continuous improvement fire burning at your company.

-John Maher

This is part four of a four-part series. Here are the links to the earlier posts in this series:
- Part 1, What Sandpaper Will You Use?
- Part 2, Fast Results Using TOC for Demand-Driven Manufacturing
- Part 3, Using TOC, Lean and Six Sigma to Become More Demand-Driven
John’s passion for demand-driven manufacturing is equal to his interest in how this method improves the lives of employees within these environments. “I’m here to help, not to judge” comments John whose posts reflect why demand-driven matters and are based on his experience working in manufacturing environments and expertise in ERP, MRP, APS, supply chain, manufacturing planning and scheduling systems and constraints management.
August 4, 2015
The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and the Modern Marketer

For your customers, it’s more than just connectivity

I was recently reading about the Industrial Internet of Things as it relates to my business—manufacturing software. It’s exciting that technologies are now available that will liberate manufacturers from the rigid systems and processes of the past. For today’s manufacturer, the IIoT boils down to the ability to capture and connect data from multiple sources to attain truly meaningful information.

An interesting outcome of all of this is that it’s driving manufacturers to a more service-driven model to effectively compete. Manufacturing.net noted that 77% of manufacturers polled view improvements in services as a key competitive factor. (FYI – Interesting article.) They also described this movement in a blog entry:

“In this new era, manufacturers need to look beyond the single product sale transaction into a new relationship between themselves and the consumer—characterized by an ongoing delivery of value—exchanged over a platform in the form of a smart, connected product.”

Similarly, I have found that marketing manufacturing software requires me to position our services as a differentiator. Yes, most of our products can be purchased on a Cloud-based software-as-a-service model. Today’s manufacturers, however, need more than agile software, they need long-term business partners to help them navigate the changes brought on by digitization and connectivity (e.g, the Industrial Internet of Things, the Factory of the Future and Industry 4.0).

On Board Early

It’s interesting to see manufacturers really collaborate with us during the early part of the sales cycle. Long before we get to software implementation, we work with clients to address their goals and plot a course to achieve their vision. (The Orbital ATK case study is a good example.) We draw from various tools – Lean Manufacturing, Theory of Constraints and Six Sigma – to drive a demand-driven change. (Where demand equals actual customer need.)

Our prospective clients are not looking for us to just install software and leave. They need assurance that we will be true partners; always available to not only help them get the most out of their system, but to help use their new found digitization and connectivity to best manage constraints, drive ongoing continuous improvements and make informed decisions. Francis daCosta describes this perfectly in his book, Rethinking the Internet of Things:

“With the increasing automation of the factory floor, the autonomous or semi-autonomous lower–level control and feedback loops made possible through distributed intelligence within the Internet of Things may allow for higher production and better use of human resources. If integrator functions can handle lower-level adjustments and controls of operating machinery, human eyes and minds may be freed for longer-term analysis and optimization, based on exception and historical data collected at a higher level. (p. 135).”

So, with the factory floor more digitized and your machines and systems connected, you suddenly have access to an incredible amount of data. The question then becomes how do you turn that data into meaningful information? Information that will improve workflow, pre-empt issues, lend focus to continuous improvement efforts and more? This is the service component – and where experience really counts. In many cases, we become trusted advisors to our client’s in-house teams, not just because we know the software inside-out, but because we’ve been successful with a variety of similar manufacturing environments.

Selling Consultative Value

With the rate of change brought on by the Industrial Internet of Things, connected factories will look completely different in a decade. Because our clients know that Synchrono has always been ahead of the curve, they know we are not just selling them software—we’re selling them tools to better service their customers and better compete. And we’ll be there to help them realize it.

If you are a marketer engaged in classic features-benefits selling, I would urge you to move beyond that discussion. Practically speaking, of course, these matters are extremely valuable to clients because they can check off all of the boxes on their functional requirements list – but you don’t distinguish yourself. Communicate how you will help them win in a competitive market through stellar service enabled by a more informed workforce.

Case studies provide a great vehicle for communicating service value. For example, we have service plans that build continuous improvement processes into the implementation plan. We have ROI numbers from other clients that show how much they realized in waste reduction—and also, about the time they saved through our standard integrations into their ERP.

We can plot a compelling graph that shows cost-avoidance numbers because we have helped put an end to expensive expediting in their production environment. We have testimonials from our clients’ suppliers about how their new, end-to-end eKanban inventory replenishment software repaired adversarial relationships and helped them become more responsive to customer needs.

These are just a few of the stories we tell that were a result of the added services we provide. Clearly integrating services (and their results) into your value proposition helps differentiate your company in a cluttered market.

Customers need to know they can trust us—their supply chain depends on it. Building this trust requires sharing our strong record of success with other clients. Are there unique ways that you have done that? Let me know, I’d love to hear from you.

July 8, 2015
Using TOC, Lean and Six Sigma to Become More Demand-Driven
What Tools to Use to Get the Most of Your Demand-Driven Changes
Last time, we looked at specific companies that I have worked with and how they became more demand-driven using the Theory of Constraints (TOC) as a first step. As you saw from these real-life examples, TOC works well as a pointer to see where you need to change – and what should be the first items on the list.

I have watched TOC solutions work exceedingly well in manufacturing, scheduling, replenishment, and project management for continuous improvements that truly revolutionize environments. Just as coarse-grade sandpaper can quickly address a rough surface, TOC quickly identifies global changes that can smooth flow and impact the bottom line. However, to get to that next level of improvement, we need to start using our Lean Tools.

Kaizen

Continuous improvement of an entire value stream or an individual process to create more value with less waste.

There are two levels of kaizen (Rother and Shook 1999, p. 8):
1. System or flow kaizen focusing on the overall value stream. This is kaizen for management.
2. Process kaizen focusing on individual processes. This is kaizen for work teams and team leaders.
Value-stream mapping is an excellent tool for identifying an entire value stream and determining where flow and process kaizen are appropriate.

– Lean Institute

Tools such as kaizen (after you understand the global system) delivers profound improvements to your production process—and, ultimately, high-quality business results.

A way of thinking

The TOC thinking processes allow you to build current and future reality trees that give you an excellent understanding of the environment, its core conflicts, and the root causes that are holding the company back. Its buffer management methodology lets you identify disruptions to flow and pare out disruptions to find the points in the organization that, if resolved, would have the largest impact on increasing global flow. Now you have a “board” that is smooth enough to let you switch over to medium sandpaper and start employing the tools of Lean to resolve the disruptions that TOC has pointed out.

Just as I have never seen a more effective tool than TOC when you’re first starting a company on the continuous improvement path, I have yet to see a methodology as effective at rapidly improving processes (once the focal point is known) as the process of Kaizen. Use Kaizen—along with the tool set that comes with the Lean methodology –and watch your improvements exponentially increase.

Costly mistakes

In order to get the largest global benefits, you need the pointer – TOC. This is another place where sandpaper comes into play. If you take a really rough board and use medium sandpaper (Lean tools) on it, you can still get it as smooth as you would if you started with coarse paper (TOC) and then moved to medium paper. The difference will be in the time, effort, and expense that it takes to reach the same point when compared to using the coarse first and then the medium. I have seen companies use only Lean tools to achieve phenomenal success. However, the kaizens were directed only from intuition; I have found over and over again that real leaps in global performance were not made until an enormous number of kaizens had been completed. If your management has enough patience, tenacity, time, and cash to wait until tens or hundreds of kaizens are completed, you can be successful. If not, the Lean transformation is doomed to fail – not because it doesn’t work, but because we started with the wrong methodology and focus.

I want to be clear here: When I say global improvement, I am talking about improvements that show up on the bottom line.

Numbers Game?

There is often a problem with how improvement results are measured. Too often, they are measuring local optima, with cost accounting principles that ignore whether or not actual bottom line or global flow gains are made. For example, if you cut the setup time in half on a specific machine – from one hour down to 30 minutes, and then you setup the machine 1,000 times each year with an overhead burden of $500 an hour, you do not get to say that you achieved $250,000 in cost savings. The cost/ depreciation does not change for that machine and the cost of your overhead does not go down due to this improvement, either. There are only two possible ways that actual impact to the bottom line occurs:

1) If you are able to ship more product because of the change. (It must leave your shipping dock and the customer needs to be invoiced for it to count.) Extra throughput through the resource does not count if the other resources in the chain cannot get it through at the same rate.

2) If you can send the operator home early or give them days off – but this certainly doesn’t get you $250k.

You need the pointer to make sure that the changes you make have the largest impact on the bottom line and for me, TOC is the best methodology for determining this. TOC will show you the areas that, if improved, have direct impact on global throughput.

Yes, I recognize that Lean has value stream maps. However, those are snapshots of the system at one point in time, and they are product-specific flows. They do NOT look at the aggregate and interconnected environment that most manufacturers live with every day.

A Smoother Board

It has been my experience that Lean produces the most refined, disciplined, and productive manufacturing process. If I walk into two environments, one that only used TOC and one that used only Lean, and they both made it five years into the journey with management staying committed, I would fully expect the Lean company to have had the most success in transforming their operation. If we looked at the same two companies one year in, the reverse would be true.

This is not about which methodology is better. The fortunate thing for companies is that TOC and Lean are pieces to the same puzzle and if used together, the results are formidable.

Next time we’ll talk about an even more fine-tuned refinement tool- Six Sigma. Until then, please let me know how you have used the tools of TOC, Lean and Six Sigma to refine your continuous improvement projects.

-John Maher

This is part three of a four-part series. Here are the links to the earlier posts in this series:
- Part 1, What Sandpaper Will You Use?
- Part 2, Fast Results Using TOC for Demand-Driven Manufacturing
John’s passion for demand-driven manufacturing is equal to his interest in how this method improves the lives of employees within these environments. “I’m here to help, not to judge” comments John whose posts reflect why demand-driven matters and are based on his experience working in manufacturing environments and expertise in ERP, MRP, APS, supply chain, manufacturing planning and scheduling systems and constraints management.
May 19, 2015
When Manufacturing Improvements Have Too High a Price

Engineering design fiascos – spending thousands to save pennies

This is a true story. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. It’s meant to illustrate how using constraints-based thinking can uncover the hidden price of cost-cutting projects.

Several years ago, a friend of mine was working in the quality group at a large automotive company. We will call my friend Harry for the story. Harry’s position was to use statistical analysis to determine design flaws from a large data warehouse containing warranty data, recall data and state-by-state accident information collected about the products the company manufactured. This data was used to identify areas where leading indicators could prevent major recalls and point out where engineering might improve products. Although this effort was important to the organization, Harry thought that there were better ways to move the company ahead faster than looking at data from the past, which in many cases, was a byproduct of compromises in the design process.

After many years of working in the quality group, Harry decided to contact the CEO of the company. Harry felt that if they were to look at the issues and conflicts in new product development and in product design engineering, the company would be able to eliminate the design compromises, which led to the negative effects of recalls and warranty costs.

To Harry’s surprise, he received a response from corporate leadership and from an engineer named Edwin. Edwin was the Director of Engineering and Competitive Practices for the organization and was responsible for identifying methods or systems that competitors were using, and determine which should be adapted to benefit the company. Edwin wanted to know if Harry’s recommendation was possible, and arranged a meeting.

A fateful meeting

Another colleague with the company and I were lucky enough to be invited to the meeting with Edwin and Harry. The conversation started with questions and answers about the current process for new vehicle design. We were all interested in learning how new improvements to current models came about in the company.

Edwin told us that during a new design, his group had little influence on the timeline, which would be handled by some other part of the organization.    So, we asked for an example of how engineers were introduced to this process. Since Harry and I are Theory of Constraints Jonahs (A Jonah is someone who uses the socratic approach to problem resolution), we wanted to understand the baseline for the process and find out what they considered to be a successful project. We also wanted to learn how they chose products and measured performance. Edwin told us that the number one measurement was cost savings on an assigned project.

We were told that the group manager’s annual goal was to reduce component costs on each vehicle, for example, by $0.04/vehicle on a vehicle platform. In one case, the engineer looked at reducing the cost of the door locking system by $0.01 to $0.02. If the car is a 4-door, they would hit their cost-savings target over the total of vehicles they made that year. These goals are typically in the $400,000 to $5,000,000 range across the entire vehicle line.

An engineer redesigned the door-locking mechanism to reduce the cost of the components in the car — and sold the group’s idea to management. After some back and forth between various levels of the organization, the project was approved, and design money and resources were budgeted.

We asked several questions to determine if this was, indeed, a cost savings. Here’s what we learned from Edwin:

Q: How many door locking mechanisms does the company currently use?

A: Seven.

Q: If there is a new design, is one taken out of service?

A: Not usually; not until it is determined to be obsolete. Warranty and Service have a large influence on the determination of obsolescence.

Q: Since this is a door-locking mechanism, will the vehicles that use this new design have to be sent through crash testing to determine if the new device meets safety standards?

A: Yes.

Q: More than just the normal yearly testing?

A: Yes, since it was a change to a safety device, extra testing will be required to ensure the design meets or exceeds standards.

Q: Do the suppliers of the mechanisms need to fill the supply chain with parts so the new design can be used in production?

A: Yes, the suppliers would have been working with the design team during the process, so they would know what the supply chain needs to be prepared for production. They are very good about keeping up with the design process.

Q: With a new design, how often is it ready on time for assembly to begin the new model year?

A: There are frequent delays for the new model year, and there will have to be some work to change over the new mechanism.

“I’m sorry, but I do not see how there is any cost savings in the method you described,” I said.

They answered, “Of course there is, the company saved $0.02 per vehicle!”

I explained that because the process described added a new assembly, each step represented new inventory to support the new assembly. Since the old design wasn’t discontinued, the inventory for the old design would not be removed from the system, so no savings there. If the new design is not ready for the model year changeover, the delay to production can be quite costly, the old parts would have to be used until the new parts are available, and then the old inventory would need to be removed, new inventory added and the assembly line would need training. In addition, the dealership network would have to be notified about when the old style was changed and in which vehicles. The dealership technicians would also need training on the new mechanism.

Every step costs

Every step they took added cost. Their $0.02 savings was eaten up before they began. In reviewing the entire process, we quickly realized that no one at the company had a holistic view of the process. Further, they didn’t have any comprehensive information to fully judge the impact of a change upon the system due to the silos and structure of the organization.

Edwin maintained that because they were measured for the $0.02 cost savings, they only needed to concentrate on that– they did not have any knowledge or responsibility for what the rest of the company was doing.

I simply said, “I think you are using the wrong measurements.”

On my way back from the meeting, Harry said, “What do you think is the number one warranty cost for the company?”

“I don’t know, please tell me,” I said.

“Door locking mechanisms,” he answered. “How about in the 1990s?”

“The same?” I asked.

“Yes,” he added. “In fact, the number one warranty item since the 1960s has been door locking mechanisms.”

He went on to tell me that in the late 1980s, the company did a study between its door lock mechanisms and another car manufacturer’s design. At that time, Harry’s company’s door lock had 13 parts in the design compared to 7 parts in the competitor’s lock mechanism. Fewer parts are often more cost-effective—as there is less time to assembly them, fewer parts in the supply chain, and simplicity is its own form of effectiveness.

The company they used for the study was well known for their impressive reputation for quality. Keep in mind, he said– each new engineer goes through a required training course that uses this comparative study to show the differences between Harry’s company design and the premier competitor’s design. The objective is to reduce complexity and still provide world class quality. And, these engineers need to demonstrate that they understand the study and its implications for the company before they are allowed to do any design work.

“We have been teaching this class for 15 years. Do you know how many parts our current design has?” Harry asked me.

“I would guess eight or nine?” I looked at him hopefully.

“No,” Harry sighed. “We have 12 parts in our design and the competitor’s mechanism is now using 6 parts.”

I didn’t know what to say to that, other than shake my head in dismay.

Epilogue

That was 10 years ago. Since then, there have been several senior leadership changes at the company. And even though that company, like many others, further fractured into a flatter organization, it maintains many of the traditional silos.

This company eliminated or sold many vehicle lines to preserve cash to strengthen the parent company. And, after a long and hard struggle, they are again profitable. The company is making a better quality vehicle today, but the number of recalls is still higher than the global average for the same type of organization.

Many organizations still focus on cost savings to the detriment of a holistic view of constraints. They base design and engineering decisions on what looks like it will save money rather than the costs of instituting these changes. Next time, we will talk a bit about why erroneous metrics make projects like the $0.02 -savings door lock look good.   Let me know about your experiences with constraints management—or share a story like this one. I’d love to hear from you.

– Rick Denison



Rick is the “Dr. Who” of manufacturing operations and logistics. And while Rick doesn’t travel through time, he is adept at leading change – and saving time – in a diverse range of manufacturing environments through Lean manufacturing, Six Sigma, and TOC techniques. Rick’s posts address how demand-driven matters and draws from his background in process improvement, change management, project management, information systems implementation, and profitability analysis.

March 26, 2015
How TOC Can Move Your World – and World View

Archimedes once said, “Give me a lever long enough,
a fulcrum, and a place to stand, and I shall move the world.”

Learn how production professionals use Constraints Management to meet negativity head – on to manage meaningful change

Here’s the last part of our three-part series about the Theory of Constraints (TOC). In the next couple of postings I’m going to dig right in to looking at what actually happens when I’ve used TOC at client companies. But there’s more gold to be mined from this topic—and I wanted to make sure I included in this series some common “fulcrums” –or common organizational assumptions that might sound familiar to you.

I also want to clear up some of what you might think. A common notion about constraints as they are viewed as a “negative.” However, constraints are neither good nor bad; they are just part of any organization. To clarify, try and picture an organization that has no constraints. What would you expect to see from this type of organization? The organization would produce with unlimited growth. In nature and in business, there aren’t any systems that produce at unlimited capacity and exhibit unlimited growth. So if there are no systems that produce at unlimited growth, then all systems have constraints.

As people working in systems, we can either acknowledge or deny that constraints exist. Regardless of the choice, constraints will have an effect upon the organization. If we want to grow our organization, then we might as well pay attention, right?

Too Many Places at Once

In my last blog posting, (Which Systems is More Complex?) I discussed the complex view of organizations, with the belief that change is incremental. Many changes will equal organizational improvement.

For contrast, I also discussed that with TOC in that there is only one or very few true constraints within any system. Improve the constraint, and you will make a significant impact upon the system.

What if you do not have a method to find the weakest link? Random chance allows that every once in a while, one of these actions will touch an organizational constraint and generate an impressive single-event, a growth-oriented action. The opposite might also happen: The same random choice may damage a constraint and produce a single, one-time negative result. If you think about the last 20 years of organizational history, I’m sure you can find a few such cases of one or the other, but more likely the latter. These events will be on the scale of urban legends within the organization. Like New Coke in the 1980’s, a disastrous merger like Daimler/Chrysler, or spinning off acquisitions to conserve cash.

The Cost Conundrum

Traditionally, most improvements are efforts to save cost. People think that if cost is removed from the delivery of a product or a service, it will result in higher profits. The vast majority of the U.S. Economy believes this to be true, and that, in conjunction with the high affinity for innovation, creates a compelling mix. But when we compare TOC with other improvement methods, its speed and accuracy bring about significant change – faster. We find our constraints and then we can react.

The TOC View of Problems

Traditional view: “A problem is something I don’t like”, or “Something that bothers me”, or the classic “Something that keeps me up at night.”

TOC view: “A problem is a conflict that prevents a system from reaching its desired objective.” With this definition, there is a second fundamental belief in physics that “There are no conflicts in reality.” There are only invalid assumptions about the conflict.

Assume Control

TOC translates conflicts as follows: If there is a conflict, then there must be an underlying assumption about that system that created the conflict. The solution comes from identifying the assumptions about the conflict, validating the existence of the assumptions, and eliminating the negative assumption about the conflict so that a solution can be built that will allow the system to reach its desired objective.

In every organization, managers face many issues on a daily basis. Typically, most of these issues stem from a single core problem (conflict) that the organization hasn’t been able to previously identify. Many managers are aware that these conflicts exist, however, these type of conflicts are very difficult to solve as most have conflicting objectives that result in compromises.

Does this sound like you?

The existence of conflict can be validated by looking back in time for periodic shifts in organizational philosophy. As an example, if in the past, your organization was emphasizing centralized management and now it is emphasizing profit-center autonomy, then these switches indicate the existence of an unresolved core problem. Efficiency is another example of an unresolved core problem. If at the beginning of any reporting period, organizational efficiency is emphasized, and then at the end of the month, all the rules are broken (forgotten) to achieve shipments and revenue targets. This again is a sure sign of an unresolved core problem.

TOC has a number of system tools that tackle the “new normal” head on. Next time, we’ll look at these tools as they applied to an automotive manufacturer—we’ll uncover their core assumptions and watch how their teams took control with TOC.

– Rick Denison

Rick is the “Dr. Who” of manufacturing operations and logistics. And while Rick doesn’t travel through time, he is adept at leading change – and saving time – in a diverse range of manufacturing environments through Lean manufacturing, Six Sigma, and TOC techniques. Rick’s posts address how demand-driven matters and draws from his background in process improvement, change management, project management, information systems implementation, and profitability analysis.

February 10, 2015

“test”

White Paper - The Next Generation of Planning and Scheduling Solutions

White Paper | Gaining Clarity

Test_form

White Paper | Gaining Confidence

White Paper | Gaining Confidence

Please complete and submit the following information to download the white paper. Thank you for your interest in Synchrono!