Английский язык. Практический курс для решения бизнес-задач - [13]

The most readily-visible consequence of this was better service from the company’s suppliers. If we were working together on agreed plans and the supplier could arrange activities based around a long-term relationships then we might avoid a major problem that plagued us in the West – that just as we played off suppliers against each other, they played off their customers. They never knew what demand they may get so they sought more orders than they could, in reality, fulfil. They then reacted to screams and shortages and tried not to fall out too often with each customer. All of this meant all customers holding safety stock to cope with the repeated failures.

Partnership approach brought other benefits – if we worked as true partners then we would not need to spend so much effort in continuously expediting. We could leave behind this ludicrous situation where we had to keep asking «is that order going to be on time?». We could also expect our suppliers to warn us of problems in advance. If their key piece of plant broke down and they told us now of the impact this might have in a week or two, then we could set our own plans to work around the problem.

4. The Elimination of Variety

Variety was recognised for its cost in that it complicated the manufacturing process. A sunroof on every Toyota Corolla was not only a marketing trick but a practical manufacturing improvement as having to make two different types of roof and two different types of headlining introduced potential problems.

5. Shortened Cycle Times

One point which we all understood was that our overall cycle times for our product dictated the level of work-in-progress (WIP). If we have an average lead time of four weeks for the components going through our welding department, then we will have an average WIP level of four weeks’ worth of production.

The Japanese had addressed this in a number of ways, primarily in a fundamental redesign of factory layout and process flow. We learned that rather than have one area of the plant for presses, another full of lathes, another drills, and so on, they had switched to «focussed factories» where each area of the plant made a particular type of component. The unit making drive shafts had saws, followed by milling, turning, drilling and so on. These focussed units then brought the opportunity for multi-skilling and teamwork which helped to provide for productivity improvements – as well as significantly reducing the movement of materials through the factory.

6. «Pull»

The kanban was then the final piece in the jigsaw. One of the major benefits of kanban is that it is very simple; it is also quite visible to all concerned and its logic is clear. It worked when all the issues preventing immediate response had been addressed and was the mechanism by which a build up of stock could be prevented. The yellow card attached to the container, or the floor space between two work benches, was the signal to initiate production of more of the item. If the assembly line stopped, then the subassemblies ceased being used and no more signals were generated. This contrasted markedly with the position in Western plants where an assembly line problem quickly led to a massive pile-up of inventory with items being mislaid and damaged.

Culture

Few of the Japanese ideas for change in manufacturing were totally new. Frederick Taylor and Henry Ford had promoted many of them at the start of the 20th century. Where the Japanese did have much to teach us was in the total commitment of everybody to these new ways of working. We began to hear of stock levels being reduced to the point that every slightest problem immediately caused a major hold up, and this was actually treated as a reason for celebration. «A problem is a pearl, «we heard, meaning that finding a problem in a process was a good thing. Why? Because the problem was there and we didn’t know about it, but now we do, so we can fix it.

The Move to Lean from JIT

As we understood more of JIT we learned that stock levels and lead times were not the only targets of the Toyota Production System and its followers in Japanese industry. We began to realise that our aim must be to eliminate waste in all its forms. «What is waste?» we asked ourselves, and turned to people like Mr Ohno and Mr Shingo and were told that «waste is anything which does not add value.»

We knew already of some wastes – for example, inspection adds no value. Why not just get the process right and then we needn’t carry out this activity? Similarly, why expedite our suppliers when, if we had chosen good partners and had a true partnership with them, this would not be needed? Why move items to a dedicated packing area if we could perform the packing in tandem with the assembly operation for the product and eliminate this movement? Why move parts from one end of a factory to another, and back again, if a little more thought in laying out the plant differently might take out this activity?

So, JIT became Lean when it was recognised that parts arriving only when required and only in the quantities required is only a part of the story.