Chris Harris, Rick Harris - Lean Connections - Making Information Flow Efficiently and Effectively-Productivity Press (2008) PDF

LEAN
CONNECTIONS
Making Information Flow
Efficiently and Effectively
PP7374_C000.indd 1 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

PP7374_C000.indd 2 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM
LEAN
CONNECTIONS
Making Information Flow
Efficiently and Effectively
CHRIS HARRIS
RICK HARRIS
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
A PRODUCTIVITY PRESS BOOK
PP7374_C000.indd 3 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

Productivity Press
Taylor & Francis Group
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
© 2008 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Productivity Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-56327-374-2 (Softcover)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and
information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and
publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission
to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any
future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact
the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides
licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment
has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation with-
out intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Harris, Chris, 1976-

Lean connections : making information flow efficiently and effectively / Chris Harris and Rick Harris.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-56327-374-2 (alk. paper)
1. Production control. 2. Communication in management. I. Harris, Rick, 1953 Aug. 2- II. Title.
TS157.H37 2008
658.5--dc22 2008012562
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the Productivity Press Web site at
http://www.productivitypress.com
PP7374_C000.indd 4 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

Contents
1 Getting Started................................................................................... 1
The Three Flows of Production......................................................................... 4
Information Flow............................................................................................. 4
Material Flow................................................................................................... 5
People Flow..................................................................................................... 5
Meet RNA Manufacturing................................................................................... 6
Basic Information Flow: The A3........................................................................11
The A3 Illustrated.......................................................................................... 12
Benefits of the A3......................................................................................... 18
Now You Can Begin..........................................................................................19
Key Points..........................................................................................................19
2 The Level Production Schedule........................................................ 21

Who Holds and Is Responsible for the Information?....................................... 24
Getting Started with the Schedule.................................................................... 26
Getting the Order from the Customer.......................................................... 27
Are Forecasts Always Correct?...................................................................... 27
Takt Time Is Not Enough: Leveling the Production Schedule........................ 28
What Is a Level Schedule?............................................................................. 28
What Is the Mechanism for Storing the Level Schedule?..............................31
Who Is Responsible for Getting the Level Schedule to
the Production Floor?.......................................................................... 33
Storing the Schedule on the Production Floor................................................. 35
Key Points......................................................................................................... 36
3 Making Information Flow Upstream................................................ 39

Information Overview...................................................................................... 39
RNA Begins Its Implementation of Internal Information Flow................... 43
Product Has Been Pulled from the WIP Market … Now What?..................... 45
Sizing the WIP Market.................................................................................. 46
In What Order Should the Products Run?.................................................... 49
PP7374_C000.indd 5 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

vi n Contents
How Do You Make This Information Flow?.................................................... 50

Lean Connections............................................................................................. 53
Key Points......................................................................................................... 55
4 Purchasing and Information Flow.................................................... 57
Information Flow and the Purchasing Department at RNA............................ 60
Using a Purchased Parts Market to Make Information Flow....................... 62
Information Flow from Production to Purchasing....................................... 64
Information Flow from Purchasing to Production: PFEP............................ 66
Putting It All Together...................................................................................... 68
Key Points......................................................................................................... 68
5 Making Quality Information Flow.................................................... 69
The Andon System............................................................................................ 73
How Does RNA Make This Concept Work for Its Production System?...... 75
Implementing Andon.................................................................................... 76
Quality Control Alarm Limits....................................................................... 76
Purchased Parts............................................................................................. 78
The Andon System and Information Flow....................................................... 78
Key Points......................................................................................................... 78
6 Making Uptime Information Flow.................................................... 79
The First Step to Maintenance Information Flow............................................ 82
Andon Systems and Maintenance................................................................. 83
Information Flow at the Machine..................................................................... 83
Key Points......................................................................................................... 85
7 Information at the Process Level...................................................... 87
Developing Standardized Work........................................................................ 90
The Best Method for Getting Standardized Work to the Production Floor......94
Placement of Standardized Work.................................................................. 94
Combining Standard Processes to Develop a Standard Area...................... 97
How Often Should Standardized Work Be Revised?................................... 99
Standardized Work as a Foundation to Make Information Flow.................. 100
Key Points....................................................................................................... 100
8 Information at the Team Level.........................................................101
Information Overview.....................................................................................101
A Good Method for Getting the Expectations to the Floor: The PSB...........104
Side One of the PSB.....................................................................................105
Expectations Per Hour.............................................................................105
Supervisor Data....................................................................................... 106
Management Time Frame........................................................................107
PP7374_C000.indd 6 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

Contents n vii
Side Two of the PSB.................................................................................... 108

Safety Chart..............................................................................................109
Quality Chart............................................................................................109
Making Schedule (Compliance to Kanban) Chart...................................109
Uptime Tracking.......................................................................................110
The Continuous Improvement Side of the PSB..........................................111
What Are the Physical Dimensions of the PSB?..............................................111
Key Points........................................................................................................113
9 Auditing...........................................................................................115
Information Overview..................................................................................... 115
Developing an Audit........................................................................................118
6S Audit........................................................................................................118
Standardized Work Audit.............................................................................118
Timed Delivery Route and Market Audit.....................................................119
Having the Audit Form Is Not Enough.......................................................... 120
Conducting the 6S Audit............................................................................. 120
A System to Audit Standardized Work........................................................122
Auditing the Material Delivery Route..........................................................123
Posting the Audits........................................................................................123
Key Points........................................................................................................124
10 The Glass Wall................................................................................ 125
Information Overview.....................................................................................125
Understanding the Glass Wall........................................................................ 128
Step 1: Choose a Place................................................................................ 128
Step 2: Establish a Look.............................................................................. 128
Step 3: What Information Is Needed...........................................................129
Current to Future State....................................................................................131
Measuring Production Status of the Value Stream..........................................133
Safety............................................................................................................133
Quality..........................................................................................................133
Plant Controllable Cost............................................................................... 134
Delivery....................................................................................................... 134
Uptime......................................................................................................... 134
Inventory..................................................................................................... 134
Floor Space...................................................................................................135
Pulling It All Together..................................................................................135
The Glass Wall Is Not Enough....................................................................... 136
Discipline Is the Key........................................................................................137
Key Points....................................................................................................... 138
References............................................................................................. 139
Index......................................................................................................141
PP7374_C000.indd 7 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

PP7374_C000.indd 8 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM
Authors
Chris Harris is one of the new breed of Lean thinkers and a coauthor of the
Shingo Prize Award-winning book Making Materials Flow, published by Jim
Womack and the Lean Enterprise Institute. He has also coauthored a book with
Rick Harris on Human Resources’ role in lean manufacturing entitled Developing
a Lean Workforce, published by Productivity Press. He began his Lean Manufac-
turing training as a team member on the assembly line at Toyota Motor Manu-
facturing Kentucky (TMMK). While at TMMK he was taught by the professionals
the proper use of takt time, standardized work, the utilization of Andon Boards
and the Andon system. Dr. Harris continued his lean training at Toyota Tsusho
America in Georgetown, Kentucky, and gained valuable hands-on experience in
returnable containers, Kanban card systems, supermarkets, milk runs, and lean
pricing. He realized the need to become knowledgeable in the implementation
of lean manufacturing in a unionized environment, receiving this training as a
front line supervisor at Delphi Alternator Division in Anderson, Indiana, a UAW
environment. While in this position he gained a keen understanding of what is
required to implement lean manufacturing in a unionized environment. From
this point Dr. Harris decided to take another avenue and went into corporate
purchasing at a tier-one automotive company. In this position he learned the
importance of Purchasing’s role in lean manufacturing, and its affect of “Global
Purchasing” on the enterprise value stream.
Dr. Harris earned a doctor of business administration degree from Anderson
University. He is vice president of operations for Harris Lean Systems (www.
harrisleansystems.com), and teaches workshops on various topics that assist com-
panies on their Lean journey. He has spoken at the Lean Summit in Poland and is
a regular featured speaker for Jim Womack and the Lean Enterprise Institute.
Rick Harris, president of Harris Lean Systems, has been helping companies to
become lean for the past 14 years. He has had great success helping large and
small companies, union and nonunion, to implement their own lean manufactur-
ing system. HLS, Inc. has been instrumental in assisting companies worldwide
with major financial improvements, (a plant in New York $42 million in 4 years,
a plant in Indiana $32 million in 3 years); he helps to educate executives, plant
ix
PP7374_C000.indd 9 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

x n Authors
managers, and plant staff in the principles of lean manufacturing. Mr. Harris
helps with the actual implementation on the shop floor and the education of the
workforce. He has pioneered the reverse-flow process to achieve an increase in
efficiency of 25%. He has extensive experience in developing new manufacturing
layouts that facilitate one-piece flow, operator flexibility, operator engagement,
first time-through quality, optimum uptime, and reduced capital investment. Mr.
Harris has also coauthored the two Shingo Prize Award-winning books Creating
Continuous Flow and Making Materials Flow published by James Womack and
the Lean Enterprise Institute. He has also coauthored a third book: Developing a
Lean Workforce, published by Productivity Press. He is one of the featured speak-
ers at the Lean Enterprise Institute’s monthly lean conference. Mr. Harris has
been a speaker at the University of Michigan Lean Manufacturing Conference for
the past 7 years, the Lean Enterprise Institute Summit for the past 3 years, the
European Lean Enterprise Institute Summit, the Maynard Forum, the PERA Con-
ference, the Mississippi State Annual Lean Conference the past 2 years, European
AME Conference, the AME Conference in Chicago 2002, and the University of
Kentucky Lean Leadership Forum the past 3 years.
Mr. Harris received his lean training while serving as a manager in assem-
bly at the Toyota plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. During his tenure at TMMK,
he continued his lean learning at the Toyota Tsutsumi Assembly Plant in Toyota
City, Japan. He was a member of the startup team at TMMK, where he gained
extensive knowledge of the Toyota Production System. Prior to his Toyota expe-
rience, he spent 15 years with General Motors, where he began as a produc-
tion operator and progressed through the ranks to become a first line manager
(www.harrisleansystems.com).
PP7374_C000.indd 10 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

Introduction
Welcome to Lean Connections: Making Information Flow Efficiently and Effec-

tively. We hope that you find the information in the following pages to be infor-
mative and beneficial. This workbook is written with implementation in mind,
and we sincerely hope you can use it to employ an efficient system of informa-
tion flow in your facility.
Why You Need This Book

As we go throughout the country helping people put into practice lean production
principles based on the Toyota Production System (TPS), we have found a common
problem: information flow. We find that many organizations are reasonably consis-
tent about recognizing various forms of waste and utilizing value stream maps to
create a picture of what the future state should look like. Other organizations are
good at developing stability and creating flow within their manufacturing opera-
tions. And still others are good at making material flow efficiently and effectively
throughout their facilities. However, even in companies that are good at one or two
of these aspects of lean production, the most common problem we see is a lack of
good information flow.
This book looks to answer the question, “How does a company implementing
lean production principles develop systems to effectively make information flow
throughout the facility?” Even facilities that have a good materials delivery system,
stability, and scheduling can struggle with the best way to effectively link all the
various pieces of the lean production puzzle together. This book does just that.
This workbook has been developed to help you change the way your orga-
nization views information flow. It provides the building blocks of a comprehen-
sive information-flow system, showing you calculations and methods to get the
necessary information to the individuals who need it, when they need it. In this
book, we ask you many of the same questions that we would ask you if we were
standing in your facility. Your challenge is to think about the answers, as well as
the changes that need to be made to effectively make information flow through
your facility.
xi
PP7374_C000.indd 11 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

xii n Introduction
What You’ll Find in This Book

This book follows RNA Manufacturing, a fictional company, through its implemen-
tation of a comprehensive lean production system, which it calls the RNA Produc-
tion System (RPS). RNA finds itself in the same position in which many companies
employing lean production find themselves: RNA has enjoyed many successes, but
as it continues its journey toward a lean state, constantly striving to improve its
system, the company has come to a point where it realizes it needs to effectively
connect the various parts of its RPS. RNA has analyzed the situation and decided
that the area in which it is most lacking is an effective information-flow system.
This book outlines RNA’s methods and thought processes, with an eye toward
developing a system of information flow that links the various parts of its pro-
duction system. Throughout the book, exercises ask questions about your own
production system. These exercises are designed to help you focus on your
own facility, asking you to answer some of the same questions that RNA had to
answer on its journey.
How This Book Is Organized

This book is organized into three sections. The first section (Introduction and
Chapter 1) includes this introduction and the first chapter, which explains what
information flow is and the most basic form of fostering good information flow,
the A3. The second section (Chapters 2 through 6) outlines how to make infor-
mation flow from the customer through the production floor to the supplier. The
third section (Chapters 7 through 10) details a methodology of how to make
information flow to and from management to the production floor during day-
to-day operations, and also whenever information needs to be transmitted about
the progress of lean implementation. This book does that by providing tools and
thought processes that you can implement within the four walls of your produc-
tion facility.
The following is an overview of the 10 chapters in this book.
NN Chapter 1—Getting Started: This chapter provides details about RNA

Manufacturing. These details include RNA’s set-up and various implemen-
tation methods. This chapter explains the three flows in manufacturing,
with an emphasis on information flow. This chapter then concludes with a
description of a well-known tool to make information flow at every level of
the facility: the A3 problem-solving format.
NN Chapter 2—Making a Level Production Schedule Flow: Chapter 2
addresses an issue with which we have seen many companies struggle:
scheduling. Many people understand that there should only be one schedule
per value stream, and that the schedule should be level and balanced. Most
PP7374_C000.indd 12 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

Introduction n xiii
facilities further understand that Production Control (scheduling, planning,

Production Control and logistics, and so on) needs to have the responsibil-
ity of scheduling the plant. However, when it comes to the details of how to
put the schedule together and get it to the production floor, many organiza-
tions have problems. The schedule is a very important piece of information
flow that must be handled well. This chapter discusses an efficient way to
make the schedule flow to the production floor.
NN Chapter 3—Connecting the Production Areas through Information
Flow: This chapter focuses on how to effectively connect the various pro-
duction areas in a facility. The information flow sign of choice in a lean
manufacturing facility is a kanban card, but what should it look like? Where
should it be held? When should it be moved? Who should move it? What
does the kanban card actually connect? These questions are answered in
this chapter, because it is not enough only to know what kanban cards are
and know that they are necessary. Instead, an efficient system needs to be
developed to effectively move this information.
NN Chapter 4—Making Information Flow from Production to and from
Purchasing: What responsibilities does Production have as far as Purchasing
is concerned? This chapter identifies how to effectively link the Production
organization with the Purchasing organization. Many books talk about
Production (especially the extended value stream), but this chapter outlines
effective methods of information flow to link Production and Purchasing,
both from Production to Purchasing and from Purchasing to Production.
NN Chapter 5—Making a Quality Problem Known: Much has been writ-
ten about the andon system at Toyota. This is a quality control measure
that allows any production associate on the production line to stop the
line in order to fix a problem. Many organizations want to implement this
idea because they realize the importance of quality, but they find that they
cannot mimic Toyota’s system because they do not have an assembly line
like Toyota’s. Instead, many of the firms implementing lean manufactur-
ing systems operate in manufacturing cells or workstations. So this chapter
explains the andon approach made popular by Toyota, and then applies that
same methodology to firms that are operating with manufacturing cells or
workstations.
NN Chapter 6—Making an Uptime Information Flow: It is not enough just
to be able to catch and fix quality problems—the machines need to be able
to run to make the product. You can find many books about uptime, so this
chapter deals only with making information flow from the production floor
to the Maintenance department, so that the latter knows there is a problem.
The goal we push for is two minutes. This means that when a machine
breaks down, we want to have a skilled professional there in less than two
minutes, prepared to get the machine up and running. This chapter outlines
a way to help make that happen.
PP7374_C000.indd 13 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

xiv n Introduction
NN Chapter 7—Making Information Flow at the Process Level: After

the schedule makes it to the production floor, then what? This chapter
helps to answer that question beginning at the process level. The chapter
provides the building blocks of an efficient lean manufacturing system. By
developing standardized work at the process level, there can be control in
the process. Without standards there is variation, and variation in the pro-
cess makes it difficult to react to customer demand. In short, to effectively
react to the schedule given by Production Control, a production process
needs to be as reliable as possible. This chapter provides a method of
making information flow to the production associates so that they (and
management) have standards of how to produce the product in a reliable
consistent manner to make the schedule given to them by Production
Control.
NN Chapter 8—Making Information Flow at the Team Level: A value
stream can be made up of many teams of production associates, but many
manufacturing companies are not able to track the progress at this level in
an immediate and efficient way. Also, many firms ask production associ-
ates to meet expectations but do not do a good job of communicating those
expectations to them. Finally, most manufacturing firms’ management time
frame on the production floor is one day or one shift, versus a lean manage-
ment time frame of one hour. This chapter addresses all these concerns by
providing the three-sided production status board that gives management a
way to identify, act upon, and correct problems in a timely fashion.
NN Chapter 9—Audits as a Way of Making Information Flow: Audits
are an excellent way to make information flow throughout a manufactur-
ing facility, yet many organizations are still not properly auditing their pro-
cedures and using that information to improve the facility. We believe the
reason for this oversight is twofold. The first reason is that the audits them-
selves are not designed for the people who are auditing. The second reason
is that there is not a system of auditing that provides consistent auditing with
continuous improvement in mind. This chapter provides methodology to
create an effective auditing system.
NN Chapter 10—Lean Connections, Bringing It All Together with the
Glass Wall: How is your lean implementation going? What are the improve-
ments currently under way and what is the status? How are the value
streams in the facility doing as they pertain to quality, uptime, safety, profit-
ability, and so on? This chapter provides a methodology that helps managers
in lean manufacturing organizations answer the preceding questions. The
glass wall is an effective way to help manage the facility by taking the vari-
ous forms of information flow and connecting them in one place. The glass
wall is a central place that holds valuable lean implementation and perfor-
mance information on the value streams in the facility.
PP7374_C000.indd 14 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

Introduction n xv
How Each Chapter Is Organized

Each chapter starts with the same three questions as they pertain to the particu-
lar chapter’s subject. These three questions are as follows.
1. What Is the Information?

Exercise: How would you assess current information flow in your facility? What is
the information flow in your facility?
The exercises in these sections will get at the heart of what each chapter is
about. Each chapter is based on a certain part of overall information flow in a
production facility, and this question is in place so that when it is answered, the
PP7374_C000.indd 15 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

xvi n Introduction
information flow described in the chapter is clearly defined. Note that there are
lines on which to write under each question, so fill in these lines as you come
across each exercise.
2. Who Needs the Information?

Exercise: In your facility, who needs information?
This question is asked because you must understand the customer. Different
forms of information are required for different customers. For example, quality
information is needed by the Quality department, or maintenance information is
needed by the Maintenance department. This section in each chapter identifies
the customer of the information flow being discussed.
PP7374_C000.indd 16 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

Introduction n xvii
3. Who Holds and Is Responsible for the Information?

Exercise: Who is responsible for information flow in your facility?
This is the final question asked at the beginning of each chapter. Its purpose
is to identify the person or group that holds and is responsible for the informa-
tion. For example, a production associate may be the one who knows when
there is a quality problem or a maintenance problem (such as when a machine
breaks down). The associate holds the responsibility for getting that information
to the customer, such as the Quality or Maintenance departments. Is there a sys-
tem for associates to be able to do that?
By answering these three questions at the beginning of each chapter, you begin
working with the type of information at hand. You know, by answering three
questions, what the information is, who needs it, and who has it. Your charge,
then, is to develop a way to make that information flow from those who have it to
those who need it in an efficient way that fits into your current production system.
PP7374_C000.indd 17 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

xviii n Introduction
Where to Begin
This workbook was written to give you a step-by-step method for implementing
a collection of information-flow tools and linking them together as part of your
overall lean production system. The book starts at the customer (as should any
lean process). It then follows the process back to Purchasing. It would probably
be a good idea to read the book from beginning to end to see how all the infor-
mation-flow tools connect together, and later return to the chapters that explain
the tools you are implementing. However, if you are currently implementing
information-flow tools, just jump in wherever you need to.
Whatever way you choose to go about using this book, we believe it would
be a good idea to complete the exercises in the text. They are set up to get you
thinking about your own processes and to put you on the path toward making
information flow in your facility. Our advice to anyone implementing lean manu-
facturing systems is to start now, keep going, go faster, and never stop learning
as you implement. Best wishes on your lean journey.
PP7374_C000.indd 18 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

Chapter 1
Getting Started
This chapter provides background information that will be helpful as you read
this book. It offers an overview of RNA and the three manufacturing flows in a
production facility. It also explains a problem-solving methodology that can be
used in a production facility to make information flow at all levels.

Exercise: How would you define information in your facility?
PP7374_C001.indd 1 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

2 n Lean Connections: Making Information Flow Efficiently and Effectively
Information explains which products to make and when to make them. It can
also explain a quality problem—where it came from, the reason for the problem,
and the corrective action to make sure that the problem does not happen again.
Information can also be a maintenance problem that needs to be addressed—
how is the Maintenance department notified, how do we know when a repre-
sentative from that department will get there to fix the problem, and how do we
know when the problem is fixed? How does Purchasing know when to order
products? How does management know that processes are being followed? How
does management know if the implementation of lean initiatives is on schedule?
Granted, the above questions and statements are not all-encompassing, but
they can get you started thinking about the different forms of information in
your facility. In short, information can be described as “data needed by someone
to make a decision that is best for the facility.”

Exercise: In your facility, who needs information?
PP7374_C001.indd 2 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

Getting Started n 3
If you followed the preceding description of different forms of information,

the person or people who need the information could vary a great deal. For
example, it could be Quality, Maintenance, Production, Purchasing, and so on.
The question of who needs the information is directly related to the type of
information. This concept does seem elementary, but as you go through the vari-
ous forms of information flow in this book, you may find that the answer is not
always that simple, and there are times when multiple people and multiple areas
need the information.

Exercise: Who is responsible for information flow in your facility? In your facility,
is information a useful tool for everyone, or is it controlled tightly by those who
have the information, perhaps to give them a sense of importance?
Now that you know there is information and that there are people who need it,
you can reasonably ask the next question: “Who has the information?” The infor-
mation can rest in many different places. However, sometimes the information
needed will have to be created; for example, a level production schedule. Because
PP7374_C001.indd 3 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

many organizations do not have a level production schedule, the schedule must be
developed and made to flow to those who need the information.
For a facility to be at its best, information has to flow freely. It cannot be a
source of power or importance in an organization. Often times, we find that infor-
mation is held by a person and let out only on a need-to-know basis. Yet informa-
tion is often needed by more than just people who receive it. In order for a facility
to be at its best, information needs to flow quickly and efficiently to those who
need the information.
The Three Flows of Production

There are three types of flow in production. The first, likely the most important,
and the flow that facilities tend to struggle with most, is information flow. The
second type of flow is material flow and the third is people flow.
Information Flow
Information flow is a significant hurdle that many organizations face. Whether those
companies are implementing lean production or not, organizations have difficulty
making information flow effectively in their facilities. In many production facilities,
especially those that have been in place a long time, information is withheld in
order to give the holder importance, instead of being a way to help the organiza-
tion. Take, for example, a production supervisor. A production supervisor, whose
main job in a mass production facility is to schedule and chase parts, may view his
or her production schedule with a sense of importance. If someone wants to know
what to run next, that person has to talk to the supervisor. Others in the organiza-
tion may feel that if they are the only ones who have certain information, they are
important to the organization. Take, for example, process knowledge. Many organi-
zations control their process knowledge by passing it from generation to generation.
This means that the person who operates the process now will train the person
who will do the process next. This may sound good, but the problem is that they
are the only two people who know how to do the process. When they are gone on
vacation, for example, the facility does not run very well. The method for running
a production process should not be a secret; instead it should be knowledge that is
easy to acquire and improve.
Another information flow hurdle is in the form of metric information that manage-
ment receives. Many times, management does not get necessary information until
it is too late. Good information flow gives management the tools they need to ask
the right questions. For example, receiving only a quarterly report means that three
months go by without new information. Furthermore, the information received may
have little to do with lean implementation or day-to-day operations. Metric informa-
tion flow is important to management because it can provide them the tools they
need to make decisions for the facility. Metric information, as a rule, needs to mea-
sure what you need it to measure, be correct, be timely, and be easily accessible.
PP7374_C001.indd 4 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

Getting Started n 5
Information flow can be described in many ways, but the best way we
have found to assess how a facility’s information flows is to ask questions. For
example:
NNDoes everyone on the production floor know their hourly target?

NNDoes everyone know what to do if they have a quality problem?
NNDoes everyone know what to do if they have a maintenance issue?
NNDo supervisors know how their area is running right now?
NNIs the implementation of lean production systems on schedule?
NNWhat is the uptime in each value stream?
NNHow is quality in each value stream?
NNDoes everyone in the facility know what they are going to run next?
NNDoes purchasing know when a part has been consumed?
NNDoes everyone know what product to run and when?
These are just a few questions that are used to see the current state of infor-
mation flow in a facility. This list of questions is certainly not all encompassing,
but it can get us started thinking about information flow.
Material Flow
Material flow concerns the movement of material from supplier to the facility,
materials moving through the facility, and then to the end customer. Material flow
is closely related to information flow and they can and are often moved with by
same method. Questions that can be asked about material flow are:
NNHow does someone know where to move material?

NNHow does someone know when to move material?
NNHow often is material moved?
NNAre your inventory levels correct, based upon your material movement
system?
NNCan you explain your material movement system?
NNDo you have good control over your purchased component inventory?
NNDo you have good control over your work-in-process inventory?
Once again, these questions are not all-encompassing, but they can get you
started on the right track.
People Flow
People flow is the third type of flow in production, and it deals with how a
facility effectively moves its people. By answering the following questions, you
can begin to assess the people flow in your facility.
NNDo production associates know where to be?

NNDo production associates know when to be there?
PP7374_C001.indd 5 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

NNHow many pieces can be expected with the addition of a production

associate?
NNCan the production associate go from value-added step to value-added step
without interruption and without introducing non-value-added time?
NNAre the production associates’ tasks repeatable?
NNAre the production associates’ tasks consistent?
The focus of this book is on information flow. However, it is important to

recognize all three types of flow because of the overlap among the three types
of flow.
Meet RNA Manufacturing

RNA is a company that manufactures toy trucks for retail distribution. Its facility is
approximately 250,000 square feet, with 300 employees. RNA has been implement-
ing lean production for about two years and has had some significant success:
NNInventory turns have gone from 11 to 55.

NNRNA no longer builds to forecast but to customer pull.
NNRNA now has only one schedule per value stream (but is still having prob-
lems effectively getting the schedule to the production floor in an efficient
way).
NNRNA has enjoyed a 30% productivity improvement.
NNRNA has seen a 28% reduction in inventory.
NNScrap has been reduced by 29%.
NNCustomer responsiveness or service is at 98% (which means that 98% of the
time, RNA can provide what a customer needs, when the customer needs it),
versus 84% before lean.
As you can see, RNA has been fairly successful in its lean journey, but as
most successful lean implementations go, RNA sees much more opportunity to
improve. The company plans to focus its new efforts on developing good infor-
mation flow throughout the facility.
The first step RNA made in its implementation was to draw current- and
future-state value stream maps. This gave the company a plan to change. Value
stream maps also act as a good tool to show both information flow and mate-
rial flow and how they interact. However, a future-state value stream map shows
only what the information flow and material flow should look like, not actually
how it is done (see Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2).
The next step RNA took in its implementation was to develop continuous flow
in its production processes. This gave it stability and consistency in the produc-
tion process. It also allowed it to create and improve good people flow in its
facility (see Figure 1.3).
PP7374_C001.indd 6 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

Getting Started n 7
Figure 1.1 RNA current state map.
The third step in RNA’s implementation was to develop a timed material

delivery system to support the production processes and control the inventory in
the facility. RNA, like most facilities implementing lean production principles,
found that when it implemented a timed delivery system (Harris et. al., 2003), that
was the point of no return. In other words, after a facility implements a timed
delivery system, it links its processes together into an efficient system where
improvements are evident. Thus it becomes difficult to revert back to the old way
of manufacturing. Implementing a timed material delivery system gave RNA a
way to effectively and efficiently make material flow.
This timed material delivery route will serve as an important part of making
information flow. Whenever possible, RNA takes current systems and adds aspects
to them for the benefit of the facility. There seemed to be a good fit between its
timed delivery routes (which run every hour on the hour delivering product to
production areas, picking up empty containers, and picking up pull signals) and
making information flow quickly and efficiently throughout the facility.
One way RNA began this information-flow initiative was to train its work-
force and take steps to develop it into a lean workforce (Harris and Harris, 2007).
PP7374_C001.indd 7 5/3/08 9:59:58 AM

Figure 1.2 RNA future state map.
Although RNA saw big benefits from this training in the involvement and support
for the change to lean, the company was still lacking good information flow on
the production floor.
As a result of its efforts to develop a lean workforce, RNA’s structure on the
production floor has also changed to a team concept based on practices of Toyota.
The production associates are members of a team. A team may consist of four to
eight production associates, depending on the difficulty of the process. There are
four to five teams in a group. The groups are divided by value stream, so there
is likely more than one group per value stream. The leader of the group is the
production supervisor, or is also often called the group leader (salary). There is
also a leader on each team called the team leader (hourly). This person is a pro-
duction associate, but with additional responsibilities. The person responsible for
the entire value stream is the value stream manager. The organizational chart in
Figure 1.4 shows how the production floor is organized.
RNA’s structure is not the only significant change the company has undergone.
Its plant layout has also changed dramatically. Figure 1.5 and Figure 1.6 outline
the differences.
PP7374_C001.indd 8 5/3/08 9:59:59 AM

Getting Started n 9
A B Cell 11
Min.2 Min.1
Max 4 Max 3
STOP
STOP
Figure 1.3 People flow.
Plant Manager
Lean
Coordinator
Value Stream Manager
Group Leader Group Leader
Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader Team Leader
Team Member Team Member Team Member Team Member Team Member Team Member
Figure 1.4 Sample organizational chart.
PP7374_C001.indd 9 5/3/08 10:00:02 AM

**Denotes one skid of inventory.
Entrance
and
office
Receiving area
and
Shipping
Dock
Operations
Office Area
Empty
area due Empty area
to floor due to floor
space space
gained gained in
in creating
creating continuous
continuous flow
flow activities
activities
Figure 1.5 RNA plant layout before lean activities.
One other very significant point that deserves mention is that the Produc-
tion Control and Logistics department (PC&L) controls production in the RNA
facility. The PC&L (also called Material Control, the Materials department, and
Production Control in other companies) has the responsibility of scheduling the
facility and procuring all the purchased parts in the facility. This is a major
departure from the way many production facilities have operated in the past,
but it is a necessity in a lean production organization. You may have noticed back
in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 that PC&L is at the top of the value stream map. That is
because in the RNA facility, PC&L is the nerve center or brain of the RNA
Production System (RPS).
There is no doubt that RNA has been successful, but like all good facilities
that are successfully implementing lean systems, the company wants more. RNA
chose information flow as the next big step in its implementation because the
company now sees it as necessary for continued success.
The first step that RNA took to make information flow was to introduce a base
of good information flow in a production facility—the A3 problem-solving format.
PP7374_C001.indd 10 5/3/08 10:00:03 AM

Getting Started n 11
READY FOR NEW Entrance

BUSINESS!!!! and
Receiving office
and area
Shipping
Dock
Operations
Office Area
Figure 1.6 RNA plant layout after lean implementation.
Basic Information Flow: The A3

One tool that can be used immediately by a facility to foster information flow is a
tool made popular by Toyota called the A3. The A3 is a problem-solving method
that forces someone to obtain good information about a problem and evaluate
that information. A3 is so named simply because it is the size of paper that the
problem solving method is written on (the A3 size is 11 × 17 inches).
Some of the most effective facilities that use the A3 make it a rule that you
cannot go to your supervisor with a production problem until you have completed
an A3. This includes every position in the company, from production associate to
upper management. This approach forces information to be gathered and makes
the information flow upward.
The reason the A3 is covered in this opening chapter is that it can be imple-
mented in your facility right now. If your facility has developed a training program
such as the one described in Developing a Lean Workforce (Harris and Harris, 2007),
you can simply add a training session on how to do an A3. The A3 does not have
to be part of an overriding information-flow system; instead, it can stand alone.
The following pages provide an outline of the A3 problem-solving format. If it
seems simple, that is because it is. The tool is simple, but using the tool to make
information flow takes discipline and persistence.
PP7374_C001.indd 11 5/3/08 10:00:04 AM

The A3 Illustrated
On the next few pages, you will follow RNA from problem to solution using
the A3 format. The first block to be completed is the objective block. What is
expected by solving the problem? What exactly is RNA looking to accomplish?
The theme, objective, targets for RNA is to increase uptime to the expected
95% level while better utilizing manpower efficiency, better utilizing floor space,
and incorporating lean techniques at the marriage press machine. This has to be
done while staying in line with the five-year flow plan of the facility.
It is very important for everyone to keep the goal in mind, so the A3 includes
a theme, objective, targets box (see Figure 1.7). RNA managers found out through
their previous implementations that when people lose sight of the end goal, the
solutions sometimes fix the immediate problems but are not in line with the
long-term goals. RNA wanted to be sure that everyone involved with the solv-
ing of the problem realized what the goal was. As RNA has found time and
time again, information flow is the most difficult of the flows for a manufactur-
ing plant to manage effectively, and the A3 format of problem solving seeks to
address that inefficiency. The objective box, then, is in place to clearly define the
goals of solving the problem.
In the background box, the problem itself is explained. For example, the situa-
tion that RNA is dealing with is as follows: “The automated press that marries the
wheels to the wheel base accounts for an average of eight maintenance hours per
week (downtime), along with the cosmetic quality problem (the pressed wheel
appears to be bent).”
The background box (see Figure 1.8) is also where the problem is grasped and
the degree of the problem is evaluated. RNA evaluated its problem as follows:
The marriage machine is supposed to run at 95% uptime. The majority of the
preventive maintenance items are to be done weekly. PM compliance on this
marriage machine has been 100% for the past year, yet the uptime has continued
at the 65% level. Also, after further review of the big picture, this machine disrupts
Theme, objective, targets:

“To increase uptime to the expected 95
percent level, while better utilizing manpower
efficiency, better utilizing floor space, and
incorporating lean techniques at the marriage
press machine while also staying in line with
the five-year flow plan of the facility.”
Figure 1.7 A3 first step.
PP7374_C001.indd 12 5/3/08 10:00:04 AM

Theme, objective, targets:

“To increase uptime to the expected 95 percent level, while
better utilizing manpower efficiency, better utilizing floor
space, and incorporating lean techniques at the marriage
press machine while also staying in line with the five-year
flow plan of the facility.”
Problem Situation and Background:
“The automated press that marries the wheels to the wheel
base accounts for an average of 8 maintenance hours per
week (downtime), along with a cosmetic quality problem in
which the pressed wheel appears to be bent.”
“The marriage machine is supposed to run at 95 percent
uptime. The majority of the preventive maintenance items
are to be done weekly. PM compliance on this marriage
machine has been 100 percent for the past year, yet the
uptime has continued at the 65 percent level. This machine
disrupts our product flow from the standpoint of qual-
ity problems, downtime, size, floor space, and the batch
production this machine requires. It requires two fulltime
operators, one loading and one unloading that appear to be
a maximum of 50 percent utilized.”
Figure 1.8 A3 second step.
our product flow from the standpoint of quality problems and downtime, as
well as the size, floor space, and batch production that this machine requires. It
requires two fulltime operators, one loading and one unloading, who appear to
be a maximum of 50% utilized.
The background box is important because it allows everyone to see the sever-
ity and importance of solving the problem. In this example, there are eight hours
of maintenance each week. If RNA internally charges $100 an hour for its main-
tenance time, these eight hours would equate to more than $800 in maintenance
time per week, which is roughly $3,200 per month and $38,400 per year. This
number does not include the other, more expensive, problems that are caused by
downtime. Those items are the cost of premium shipments, missed shipments,
hourly wages continuing to be paid during downtime, parts to fix the machine,
inventory to cover downtime issues, and so on. It is very expensive for a com-
pany to experience machine downtime. RNA may want to include the actual
dollar figures in this box.
The next box in the A3 problem-solving format is the cause analysis box. In
this box (see Figure 1.9), you discover the point of cause and the root cause of
the problem. In the RNA case, “The point of cause is that the motor running the
machines press had an electrical failure. The root cause of the many failures of
this marriage press is the design. The machines was designed in the early ’70s and
was not designed for quick changeovers. It was designed to run a large volume of
a single part number before being changed over. As we have continued our lean
implementations, we have found ways to quickly change over, but other problems
have arisen, including the downtime issues we are experiencing. In short, the
machine is very old, is very large, and was designed for batch production.”
PP7374_C001.indd 13 5/3/08 10:00:04 AM

Theme, objective, target: Cause Analysis:

“To increase uptime to the expected “The point of cause was that the motor
95 percent level, while better utilizing running the machines press had an
manpower efficiency, better utilizing floor electrical failure. The root cause of the
space, and incorporating lean techniques many failures of this marriage press is the
at the marriage press machine while also design. The machine was designed in the
staying in line with the five-year flow plan early seventies and not designed for quick
of the facility.” changeovers. It was designed to run a large
volume of a single part numbers before
being changed over. As we have continued
our lean implementations, we have found
ways to quickly change over, but other
problems have arisen in the form of the
downtime issues we are experienceing. In
short, the machine is very old, is very large,
and was designed for batch production.”
Problem Situation and Background:

“The automated press that marries the
wheels to the wheel base accounts for an
average of 8 maintenance hours per week
(downtime), along with a cosmetic qual-
ity problem in which the pressed wheel
appears to be bent.”
“The marriage machine is supposed to run
at 95 percent uptime. The majority of the
preventive maintenance items are to be
done weekly. PM compliance on this mar-
riage machine has been 100 percent for
the past year, yet the uptime has contin-
ued at the 65 percent level. This machine
disrupts our product flow from the stand-
point of quality problems, downtime, size,
floor space, and the batch production this
machine requires. It requires two fulltime
operators, one loading and one unload-
ing that appear to be a maximum of 50
percent utilized.”
Figure 1.9 A3 third step.
It is important for an organization to understand the cause of the problem.

RNA wants to get away from simply treating the symptoms of the problem and
instead fix the root cause for long-term success. It is for this reason that RNA
needs both the point of cause and the root cause of the problem. In this case,
the point of cause was the bad motor, but just replacing the motor does not fix
the real problem. The real problem is the machine and its lack of flexibility to
change over quickly and often, along with the large amount of downtime. By
using this format of problem solving, RNA is able to realize that it does not need
to buy another motor, but rather find a different method to marry the wheels to
the wheel base.
The next box (see Figure 1.10) is the countermeasure box. What is the planned
action? This is the question to be answered in this box. The planned action for this
problem follows: “We have found a manual press that takes only one operator,
has no changeover time, requires about 20% of the floor space that the current
PP7374_C001.indd 14 5/3/08 10:00:04 AM

Theme, objective, target: Cause Analysis:

“To increase uptime to the expected 95 “The point of cause was that the motor run-
percent level, while better utilizing manpower ning the machines press had an electrical
efficiency, better utilizing floor space, and failure. The root cause of the many failures
incorporating lean techniques at the marriage of this marriage press is the design. The
press machine while also staying in line with machine was designed in the early seventies
the five-year flow plan of the facility.” and not designed for quick changeovers.
It was designed to run a large volume of a
single part numbers before being changed
over. As we have continued our lean imple-
mentations, we have found ways to quickly
change over, but other problems have arisen
in the form of the downtime issues we are
experiences. In short, the machine is very
old, is very large, and was designed for batch
production.”
Problem Situation and Background: Countermeasure:

“The automated press that marries the wheels “We have found a manual press that takes
to the wheel base accounts for an average of only one operator, has no changeover time,
8 maintenance hours per week (downtime), takes up about 20 percent of the floor space
along with a cosmetic quality problem in that the current marriage press machine
which the pressed wheel appears to be bent.” takes, and appears to have very little down-
“The marriage machine is supposed to run time. This is a manual press that will be
at 95 percent uptime. The majority of the very efficient and solve the root cause of the
preventive maintenance items are to be done problem. This manual press costs $1,500,
weekly. PM compliance on this marriage so the cost will be absorbed by less than a
machine has been 100 percent for the past month of maintenance costs.”
year, yet the uptime has continued at the
65 percent level. This machine disrupts our
product flow from the standpoint of quality
problems, downtime, size, floor space, and the
batch production this machine requires. It
requires two fulltime operators, one loading
and one unloading that appear to be a maxi-
mum of 50 percent utilized.”
Figure 1.10 A3 fourth step.
marriage press machine requires, and appears to have very little downtime. This is
a manual press that will be very efficient and solve the root cause of the problem.
This manual press costs $1,500, so the cost will be absorbed by less than a month
of the current maintenance costs.”
The countermeasure box is critical to the success of using A3s, because it
creates an environment in which, when someone comes to management with
a problem, he or she has thought through the problem, including a potential
solution. Whether this solution is ultimately used is not necessarily the point; the
point is that the person completing the A3 is thinking in a problem-solving way.
Instead of just pointing out a problem, the associate has to say, “Here is the
problem, and here is my plan to solve the problem.”
The next box is the schedule box (see Figure 1.11). You know the problem, the
background of the problem, the severity, the point of cause, root cause, and the
solution, so the next logical step is the implementation plan. Now that you have all
of this information, you need to plan its implementation. “Our schedule is for Mr.
PP7374_C001.indd 15 5/3/08 10:00:04 AM

Theme, objective, target: Cause Analysis: Implementation Schedule:

“To increase uptime to the expected “The point of cause was that the motor “Our schedule is for Mr. McCo-
95 percent level, while better utilizing running the machines press had an nnaughhay to purchase the
manpower efficiency, better utilizing floor electrical failure. The root cause of the machine on April 14th. We receive
space, and incorporating lean techniques many failures of this marriage press is delivery of the machine on Friday,
at the marriage press machine while also the design. The machine was designed April 23. We plan to insert the
staying in line with the five-year flow plan in the early seventies and not designed machine into the manufacturing
of the facility.” for quick changeovers. It was designed cell on the Saturday, April 24. We
to run a large volume of a single part have discussed this with Produc-
numbers before being changed over. As tion, and Ms. Ruby will be inside
we have continued our lean implemen- the manufacturing cell along with
tations, we have found ways to quickly our maintenance representative
change over, but other problems have Ms. Audrey to train the operator
arisen in the form of the downtime and ensure a solid start up.”
issues we are experiencing. In short, the
machine is very old, is very large, and
was designed for batch production.”
Problem Situation and Background: Countermeasure:

“The automated press that marries the “We have found a manual press that
wheels to the wheel base accounts for an takes only one operator, has no change-
average of 8 maintenance hours per week over time, takes up about 20 percent of
(downtime), along with a cosmetic qual- the floor space that the current mar-
ity problem in which the pressed wheel riage press machine takes, and appears
appears to be bent.” to have very little downtime. This is a
“The marriage machine is supposed to run manual press that will be very efficient
at 95 percent uptime. The majority of the and solve the root cause of the problem.
preventive maintenance items are to be This manual press costs $1,500, so the
done weekly. PM compliance on this mar- cost will be absorbed by less than a
riage machine has been 100 percent for month of maintenance costs.”
the past year, yet the uptime has contin-
ued at the 65 percent level. This machine
disrupts our product flow from the stand-
point of quality problems, downtime, size,
floor space, and the batch production this
machine requires. It requires two fulltime
operators, one loading and one unload-
ing that appear to be a maximum of 50
percent utilized.”
Figure 1.11 A3 Fifth step.
McConnaughhay to purchase the machine on April 14th. We will receive delivery

of the machine on Friday, April 23. We plan to insert the machine into the manu-
facturing cell on Saturday, April 24. We have discussed this with Production, and
Ms. Ruby will be inside the manufacturing cell along with our maintenance repre-
sentative, Ms. Audrey, to train the Production operator and ensure a solid startup.”
The schedule box is important because RNA has found that with a lack of an
implementation plan, the best plans sometimes never come to pass. The company
has learned this truth throughout its lean journey and wants to be sure that the
implementation plan is always part of the problem-solving process. RNA is very
pleased with its place in this format of problem solving, because now when a
project is approved, the company has a schedule to follow to be sure that the
implementation is going smoothly.
PP7374_C001.indd 16 5/3/08 10:00:04 AM

The final box on the A3 problem-solving format is the future actions box (see
Figure 1.12). What actions are you going to take in the future to see whether this
solution was a good one? Can it be further improved? Is there anything additional
that needs to be done? In RNA’s example, the future actions are as follows: “Ms.
Audrey will spend every morning’s startup for the first two weeks after imple-
mentation of the manual press. She will evaluate it on a daily basis. She will
also check the press at 1:30 every day for the first two weeks, along with two
unscheduled periodical checks. There is a 2:30 pm standup meeting at the press
scheduled every afternoon the first week of implementation. The second week,
there is a standing meeting at the press on Monday and Thursday at 2:30 pm.
On the second Friday after implementation, we will provide a report on the
progress, problems, successes, and countermeasures taken.”

“To increase uptime to the expected “The point of cause was that the motor “Our schedule is for Mr. McCon-
95 percent level, while better utilizing running the machines press had an naughhay to purchase the machine
manpower efficiency, better utiliz- electrical failure. The root cause of the on April 14th. We receive delivery of
ing floor space, and incorporating many failures of this marriage press is the machine on Friday, April 23. We
lean techniques at the marriage press the design. The machine was designed in plan to insert the machine into the
machine while also staying in line the early seventies and not designed for manufacturing cell on the Saturday,
with the five-year flow plan of the quick changeovers. It was designed to run April 24. We have discussed this
facility.” a large volume of a single part numbers with Production, and Ms. Ruby will
before being changed over. As we have be inside the manufacturing cell
continued our lean implementations, we along with our maintenance repre-
have found ways to quickly change over, sentative Ms. Audrey to train the
but other problems have arisen in the operator and ensure a solid start up.”
form of the downtime issues we are expe-
riencing. In short, the machine is very old,
is very large, and was designed for batch
production.”
Problem Situation Countermeasure: Future Actions:

and Background: “We have found a manual press that takes “Ms. Audrey will spend every
“The automated press that marries the only one operator, has no changeover morning’s startup for the first 2
wheels to the wheel base accounts for time, takes up about 20 percent of the weeks after implementation of the
an average of 8 maintenance hours floor space that the current marriage press manual press. She will evaluate
per week (downtime), along with a machine takes, and appears to have very it on a daily basis. She will also
cosmetic quality problem in which the little downtime. This is a manual press check the press at 1:30 every day
pressed wheel appears to be bent.” that will be very efficient and solve the for the first 2 weeks, along with two
“The marriage machine is supposed to root cause of the problem. This manual unscheduled periodical checks.
run at 95 percent uptime. The major- press costs $1,500, so the cost will be There is a standup meeting at the
ity of the preventive maintenance absorbed by less than a month of press scheduled every afternoon the
items are to be done weekly. PM maintenance costs.” first week of implementation at 2:30
compliance on this marriage machine in the afternoon. The second week,
has been 100 percent for the past year, there is a standing meeting at the
yet the uptime has continued at the 65 press on Monday and Thursday at
percent level. This machine disrupts 2:30 pm. On the second Friday after
our product flow from the standpoint implementation, we will provide a
of quality problems, downtime, size, report on the progress, problems,
floor space, and the batch production successes, and countermeasures
this machine requires. It requires taken.”
two fulltime operators, one loading
and one unloading that appear to be a
maximum of 50 percent utilized.”
Figure 1.12 Completed A3.
PP7374_C001.indd 17 5/3/08 10:00:05 AM

RNA has found this box to be very beneficial. It shows that a change will
not be made without a follow-up plan. This is also another lesson that RNA
has learned throughout its lean implementation. A project implemented with-
out sufficient follow-up will likely develop many problems. It is very important
when implementing any initiative that there is a plan in place for follow-up. If
a project is worth doing, it is worth making sure that it is working and that the
issues are being addressed in a quick and efficient manner. Too many times,
RNA managers have seen good projects implemented, only to have them fail
due to a lack of follow-up.
Benefits of the A3
RNA has been able to address many of its concerns by using the A3 problem-
solving format. The A3s have provided everyone involved with the same infor-
mation, talking points, and format to view. They have become standard practice
at the RNA facility. Meetings now focus more on solutions and implementation
plans than on background information. And RNA is now creating problem solv-
ers throughout the facility. RNA has made it a point to quickly spread this format
throughout the entire facility and throughout all of its departments.
The company is now able to see the end goals of a project so that the imple-
mentation method and solution are in line with that goal. RNA has its people now
thinking in the problem-solving mindset, which promises to be very beneficial,
now as well as into the future. They also have schedules, both for implementation
Problem Situation and Background: Countermeasure: Future Actions:
Figure 1.13 A3 Template.
PP7374_C001.indd 18 5/3/08 10:00:05 AM

and for follow-up, that can be tracked. With A3, RNA has implemented a tool for
problem solving that is now part of its production system.
Now You Can Begin

The A3 was a tool that RNA implemented right away because it was so doable
and got employees thinking about information flow. It was also a tool that
RNA could implement at all levels of its facility. Now you can take the blank
A3 in Figure 1.13 and address a problem in your facility. Then you can begin
to train others in your facility to use this simple methodology to address prob-
lems in the facility.
Key Points
NNThere are three types of production flow, and they overlap a great deal.
NNAn A3 should be one page, should be in a standard format, and should be
short and to the point.
NNBe sure the A3 focuses on the root cause of the problem.
NNAn A3 must clearly define its objectives.
NNAn A3 should contain schedules for implementation and follow up.
PP7374_C001.indd 19 5/3/08 10:00:05 AM

PP7374_C001.indd 20 5/3/08 10:00:05 AM
Chapter 2
The Level Production Schedule
After the basics of the A3, RNA decided that the best place to begin implementing
a comprehensive system of the right information flow would be at the customer.
The majority of its lean implementation began at the customer, because the cus-
tomer defines value. The first step RNA took to implement a system of informa-
tion flow was to develop a way to effectively handle the various orders that it
received from its customers and determine the best way to get those orders (in
the form of production schedules) to the people who needed them.
1. Information Overview
What information is available, who needs it, and who holds and is responsible
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of a level production
schedule.

xercise: How does your facility know what product to make and when? Is it by MRP?
E
Is it whatever parts you have to run?
21
PP7374_C002.indd 21 5/3/08 10:00:29 AM

The information needed comes from the end customer and takes the form of
an order, one likely generated and provided by the sales department. That order
is then taken by the Production Control department, where it is transferred in
some way to a schedule for the facility. Most facilities know that this needs to
happen, but can have difficulties putting the idea into effect. The key information
in this chapter is the customer order: how it is collected, changed into a schedule,
and then provided to those who need it.

Exercise: Who requires the schedule? (Hint: do not be too broad in your answer.)
Why do they need the schedule?
PP7374_C002.indd 22 5/3/08 10:00:29 AM

The Level Production Schedule n 23
Figure 2.1 RNA current state map.
A common misconception is that poor information flow is always the result of

a lack of the right information. This is probably true 80% of the time, but when
looking at the schedule as information flow, the opposite is often true. Take, for
example, the current state value stream map in Figure 2.1.
There is too much information given to the production floor. This is counter-
productive because the overabundance of information gives the production
supervisor a choice as to what he or she is going to run. On the map in Figure 2.1,
the schedule is given to all the production areas in the facility. To illustrate the
point, consider the schedule and situation in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Weekly “Firm” Schedule

Product A B C D E
Monday 100 100 100 100 100
Tuesday 100 100 100 100 100
Wednesday 100 100 100 100 100
Thursday 100 100 100 100 100
Friday 100 100 100 100 100
PP7374_C002.indd 23 5/3/08 10:00:30 AM

The Grind area supervisor takes the schedule and sees that he or she is sup-
posed to make only 100 A’s on Monday. The area happens to be running very well
that day, and the supervisor does not want to change over because it will cause
inefficiency in the process. Even though the plan is to shutdown and change over,
the supervisor chooses not to because the system is running well and he or she
can see that 500 A’s are needed for the week. The supervisor decides to just run a
week’s worth of Product A on Monday, and thus consumes valuable material and
labor that could have been used to produce the right product.
The problem comes when the downstream process (Paint) is following the
schedule. It runs the scheduled 100 A’s, and then changes over to run 100 B’s
(as the schedule states), only to find out that the previous process (Grind) is not
making B’s. Now there is a real problem in the system. The downstream process
has to change back to A’s to run. At this point, the schedule is more of a “guide-
line” than a schedule, which means that Production Control has lost control. In
cases like this, Production Control will be treated more as “production expediters”
as it tries to keep the plant in parts, even though it does not know what is going
to be run next. This situation is a significant reason that the large inventory levels
stack up in the facility.
The second reason this is too much information is that it forces a facility
schedule for a week at time—or it causes many revised schedules throughout the
week. Some companies in the past would send out a so-called “firm” schedule
for the week. However, on Monday afternoon, they would have to send out a
revised “firm” schedule, also known as a hot sheet. This happened periodically
throughout the week and caused many unplanned changeovers and part short-
ages throughout the facility.
So who is the customer of the production schedule? Is it the direct supplier to
that schedule or the pacemaker process? The pacemaker process is the last point
in the value stream where there can be a schedule and where the product can
flow from that point forward. For example, the pacemaker process in the preced-
ing value stream was Final Assembly. Production Control must send Final Assem-
bly a schedule because Final Assembly is the direct supplier of that schedule.
Looking upstream from Final Assembly to the Paint area, Paint is the direct sup-
plier to Final Assembly. Paint does not need a schedule from Production Control.
Instead, Paint needs a pull signal from Final Assembly, as Final Assembly is the
direct customer of paint. (This concept of moving work-in-process information
is covered in detail in Chapter 3). Paint does not need to know the schedule for
Final Assembly, only what Final Assembly pulls from Paint’s market. The future-
state value stream map in Figure 2.2 illustrates this concept, showing that the
customer of the schedule is only the direct supplier of that schedule.
Who Holds and Is Responsible for the Information?

Exercise: Who sets the schedule in your facility? Who schedules the production
floor? How often is there a revision in the schedule?
PP7374_C002.indd 24 5/3/08 10:00:30 AM

At this point, if you have been implementing lean manufacturing systems for
some time, the answer to the preceding question may seem obvious. The organi-
zation that is responsible for the information is Production Control. There are two
major reasons that Production Control has to control the schedule.
First, Production Control should be able to see the big picture. We have found
through the years that Production does its best to schedule, but that approach
never works, because Production cannot see the big picture. It is much too
tempting to do what is best for the individual manufacturing areas rather than for
the value stream as a whole.
As companies implement lean manufacturing systems, they begin to ask,
“Why are my production supervisors scheduling the production floor?” The
answer is often “because that is the way it has always been done.” However, in a
lean system, it should be recognized that the production supervisor’s time would
be much better spent supervising and improving the process rather than sched-
uling and chasing parts. This leads to the second major reason that Production
Control should be in charge of this information.
We often ask classes that we teach, “Have you ever been scheduled to make
a part that you did not have the material to make?” In almost every instance,
a giggle comes from the audience because it is such a common practice in
mass-manufacturing facilities to schedule without sufficient thought as to whether
the material needed to make the product is actually on the production floor.
PP7374_C002.indd 25 5/3/08 10:00:30 AM

This approach (obviously) disrupts the flow because it can cause unplanned
changeovers, lead to making less product than was needed, or end with mak-
ing a product that was not scheduled at that point in time. Therefore, the second
reason that it is important for Production Control to manage this information is
because, in a lean environment, it should also manage the material and parts.
Production Control should never schedule a product to run that it does not have
the proper material to complete. It is the responsibility of the Production Control
organization to level, balance, and schedule the plant as well as to be sure that
each department has the components to complete the order.
Getting Started with the Schedule

Throughout its implementation of the RNA Production System, RNA came to
understand the importance of having Production Control manage both the
schedule and materials. Company management also understood that there should
only be one schedule point per value stream, and that pull signals in the form of
a kanban card was its chosen method of getting information through the rest of
the process. (A kanban card is a signal for some type of action.) However, RNA
was having problems physically developing and releasing the schedule to the
PP7374_C002.indd 26 5/3/08 10:00:31 AM

production floor. The rest of this chapter takes us through the process RNA went
through to make the information flow from the customer through Production
Control to the production floor.
Getting the Order from the Customer

RNA received customer orders in various ways. Some arrived by fax, some came
by e-mail, and still others were received by phone. In a perfect world, all of the
orders would have come in the same way, but it is not a perfect world. RNA had
no leverage to ask customers to change the method by which they ordered—it
was happy to get the orders any way it could. Given that the way in which
orders were received was unchangeable, RNA decided to focus on the process
of determining how these orders are changed into schedules and released to the
production floor.
The value stream on which RNA focused its implementation of information-
flow systems has 10 finished goods part numbers. RNA chose a relatively simple
value stream to begin with, because managers knew that if they could make
information flow within this value stream, they could use the same principles on
their other value streams. The 10 finished goods part numbers were identified, as
was the past 12-month history (see Figure 2.3). The monthly history gave RNA a
better idea of what customer demand really was.
Are Forecasts Always Correct?

RNA, like many other companies implementing lean production, tried to develop
its manufacturing operations to be very flexible so it can respond to a changing
customers.
A9574 B8363 C8226 D9483 E5847 F9488 G2940 H1122 I3344 J9189
January 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 200 0 0
February 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 200 0 0

March 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 0 0
April 1200 800 400 200 200 200 0 0 200

600
May 1200 800 600 400 200 200 200 0 0 0
June 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 200 0
July 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 0 0

August 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 200 0 0
September 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 200 0 200
October 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 0 0
November 1200 800 600 400 200 200 0 0 200 0
December 1200 800 600 400 200 200 200 200 0 0
Figure 2.3 RNA 12-month history.
PP7374_C002.indd 27 5/3/08 10:00:32 AM

The only certainty about forecasts is that they are never right and they always
change, so RNA decided that a better way to understand customer demand was
to look at past history. With the past history, RNA could calculate a takt time for
the value stream. Takt time represents the customer demand rate, or the rate the
customer is buying product, and is calculated by taking the total operating time
per shift and dividing it by customer demand. RNA looked at this history and
decided that 180 was an average daily customer demand for the month of
January. After managers knew the demand, they could calculate the takt time.
27,000 available seconds per shift (8 hours - two 15-minute breaks)

÷ 180 (demand) = 150 second takt time
Takt time is one of the most important concepts in a lean manufacturing

facility because it represents the rate at which a company should produce. The
facility is producing the product exactly at the rate the customer is buying it.
This is a key concept because, by producing to takt time, a facility can be sure
it is not overproducing. The waste of overproduction is the most significant form
of waste because it provides the environment for all other forms of waste to
occur.
Takt Time Is Not Enough: Leveling the Production Schedule

Calculating takt time gives a company a valuable piece of information and
is important to making information flow, but there are other steps that must
be taken. Now that the facility knows how often to produce products, the
Production Control department has to determine at what mix and frequency to
release the schedule.
Leveling the production schedule is one of the best ways to eliminate waste in
a manufacturing system because doing so keeps production from overproducing
or producing in batches. Producing in a level manner also leads to lower inven-
tory levels and faster lead times. RNA managers knew that operating with a level
schedule would help them reach their goals, but first, managers had to answer
three questions about level schedules:
1. What is a level schedule?

2. What is the mechanism for storing the level schedule?
3. Who is responsible for getting the level schedule to the production floor?
What Is a Level Schedule?

A level schedule is when both the quantity and mix of parts to be produced over
a set period of time are equally sequenced in a manner that is most efficient for
PP7374_C002.indd 28 5/3/08 10:00:32 AM

the value stream to produce, while still producing only what has been consumed
out of the finished goods market or what has been ordered by the customer. A
level schedule is an important piece of the lean manufacturing puzzle because it
takes pressure off the upstream processes that are used to reacting to what the
downstream processes produce. In a facility where there is a level schedule in
each value stream, product is pulled from upstream processes in a level man-
ner; this is easier to react to than the old batch method that made it very hard for
upstream processes to plan and react.
An example of a level schedule is as follows. The customer orders 2,500 pieces
per week, on average. But, the customer does not take the order in an even
manner. The customer takes the order as it is needed, such as the following:
Monday: 800
Tuesday: 0
Wednesday: 200
Thursday: 900
Friday: 600
If the Production area produced the same way in which the customer orders,
the facility would be inefficient. To run to a level schedule and be more efficient,
the facility would have to hold a buffer stock of 500 pieces and produce 500
pieces a day, operating as outlined in Table 2.2:
The level schedule is also important to the implementation of lean manu-
facturing principles because it is a good way to signal waste in the system. If a
facility puts a level schedule in place, supervisors will quickly see waste or inef-
ficiencies that keep them from producing to that schedule. After a facility can see
the waste and inefficiencies, it can take steps to remove that waste.
One final point is that a level schedule is a key to effectively reducing the
production lead time in a facility. A level schedule forces facilities to produce
quickly and in small batches, thus decreasing lead time, which in turn translates
into less inventory in the system. Thus, a level schedule enables facilities to tie up
less cash in production costs.
RNA broke its finished products into three categories. The first was the high-
est runners, which were run very often and were called runners. This group was
made up of A9574, B8363, C8226, and D9483. The second group included parts
that ran often but with lower volumes; this group was called repeaters. This group
Table 2.2 How a Level Schedule may Work

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Beginning Inventory 500 200 700 1000 600
Daily Production 500 500 500 500 500
Customer Pull 800 0 200 900 600
Remaining Inventory 200 700 1000 600 500
PP7374_C002.indd 29 5/3/08 10:00:32 AM

included E5847 and F9488. The third group was called strangers, and included
parts that RNA was contractually obligated to run, but in very low volumes and
not often. This group was composed of parts G2940, H1122, I3344, and J9189.
RNA took these groups and had to make a decision about how often it
wanted to run each part. By breaking the parts into the three groups (runners,
repeaters, and strangers), RNA could make decisions concerning the groups.
For example, RNA decided that it wanted to run the runners twice per shift, the
repeaters once per shift, and the strangers once per week. RNA managers
thought that this would work best for them because they were running their
high-volume parts very often and their medium-volume parts every day. The
parts that were not run very often were run every week, which was a big
improvement over the past, when these parts were run very infrequently in
large lots. (It is important to note that RNA had minima changeover time in final
assembly. Its upstream processes were not so lucky, so the next chapter deals
with how to deal with changeover times in the schedule.)
At this point, RNA was charged with taking the hours in the day and putting
the level schedule in place, but first managers had to consider pitch. The pitch is
the finished goodspack quantity multiplied by the time it takes to produce each
product. RNA’s pitch in this manufacturing area was 25 minutes.
10 pieces in finished good pack × 150 seconds per piece = 1,500 seconds
= 25 minutes for a finished goods pack
Now that they knew the pitch, RNA managers understood how they should
provide the schedule to the production floor. They decided that because the
finished goods pack-out quantity was 10, they should schedule the production
floor in increments of 10. By understanding the pitch, they understood that the
floor could make only two finished pack-out quantities and four pieces of the
next pack-out in 1 hour. With this information (see Figure 2.4), RNA began to
develop a level and balanced schedule for this area.
RNA first had to look at the daily requirements. In the runners group, Prod-
uct A9574 was 60, B8363 was 40, C8226 was 30, and D9483 was 20. The repeat-
ers requirement was 10. RNA managers decided to focus on these two groups
first, because they represented the most significant volume. Now, they looked at
the times of the day and planned accordingly. (From this point forward, the prod-
uct numbers will be represented only by their first letter, as in Figure 2.4.)
Figure 2.4 shows how RNA decided to level the schedule for this area. This
plan accomplishes the managers’ goals of running runners (A,B,C,D) twice a
day and repeaters once per day. Notice in the time slot between 11:30 and 12:30
that there is a plan to run Product H, which is a stranger. RNA managers made a
placeholder for a part from this group. This schedule looks to be good through
the month of January, but if there were a need to run another stranger, RNA
would place that part into the slot that H currently holds.
PP7374_C002.indd 30 5/3/08 10:00:32 AM

Time Schedule for Hour

7:00–8:00 10A 10A 4A
8:00–9:00 6A 10B 8B
9:15–10:00 2B 10C 6D
10:00–11:00 4D 10E 10F
11:30–12:30 10H 10A 4A
12:30–1:30 6A 10A 8B
1:45–2:30 2B 10B 6C
2:30–3:30 4C 10C 10D
Figure 2.4 Sample level schedule for RNA.
Note: We concede that this is not an in-depth look into the philosophy of level
scheduling. The purpose of this book is not to show you how to develop a level
schedule, but how to make that schedule flow effectively to and through the pro-
duction floor. There are many other books about how to create a level schedule,
so we let those authors deal with that information. Our focus is on how to get the
schedule from Production Control to the production floor at the right time and in
the right manner to effectively make information flow in the facility.
What Is the Mechanism for Storing the Level Schedule?

RNA managers wanted to get rid of all the paper schedules in the plant because
they provided too much information to too many people. Instead, Production
groups needed to know only what they were running at the moment and what
they would run next. By giving only this much information to the produc-
tion floor, RNA had a reasonable expectation that Production would run only
Daily Demand by Month
A9574 B8363 C8226 D9483 E5847 F9488 G2940 H1122 I3344 J9189 Total
January 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 10 0 0 180
February 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 10 0 0 180
March 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 170
April 60 40 30 20 10 10 10 0 0 10 190
May 60 40 30 20 10 10 10 0 0 0 180
June 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 0 10 0 180
July 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 170
August 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 10 0 0 180
September 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 10 0 10 190
October 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 170
November 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 0 10 0 180
December 60 40 30 20 10 10 10 10 0 0 190
Figure 2.5 Average daily demand by month.
PP7374_C002.indd 31 5/3/08 10:00:33 AM

what it was scheduled to run. RNA management also knew that it had to order
in finished-good pack-out quantities—it did not make any sense to order in a
quantity that was not a finished-goods pack. RNA’s finished-goods pack-out was
10 pieces. Understanding all of this, RNA management had to determine how to
package and store the information in a production schedule.
RNA managers chose the use of a production kanban card to hold the infor-
mation. In this case, the kanban card is a signal to produce 10 pieces of a part
number (see Figure 2.6).
Although RNA managers had decided to use a kanban, continued to call it a
“schedule,” so as not to get it confused with the kanban cards on the production
floor. In addition, the kanban cards for strangers were a bright pink to signal that
these strangers were on their way. They needed to be a different color because
they were not run every day. RNA management wanted everyone to know that a
rare part was coming through the system so that they could plan for the product.
Now that RNA management had a way to hold the information, they had to
determine how to store the schedule, and they settled on the purchased parts
market. The reason for this choice was that the Production Control department at
RNA is responsible for both the schedule and the parts to make the schedule. All
the purchased parts in the RNA facility are located in the purchased part market.
Managers did not want to store the schedule on the production floor, because the
floor would again have too much information, as it did in the days of the paper
schedule. (Another important reason for keeping the schedule in the purchased
parts market will be discussed in the following section.)
Having decided where to store the information, RNA had to determine what
it would look like. This is a very important point that often is overlooked. Many
facilities know they need a level schedule, can develop a level schedule, but have
difficulty in effectively making the schedule (information) flow. Managers decided
that the best method was to have a board set up just like the level schedule. This
would be a white board with the times at which the production kanban cards
should be run on the left, and places for completed kanban card on the right
(see Figure 2.7).
This board shows what the manufacturing should be producing by the hour. It
is also a tool that can be effectively used in management. In the column on the
right, the kanban cards that are made are returned to the board. A quick look at
Schedule Card
Part Number to be Produced:
A9574
Quantity:
10
Figure 2.6 Kanban card taking place of schedule.
PP7374_C002.indd 32 5/3/08 10:00:33 AM

Make Today Completed Today
8:00–9:00 7:00–8:00
9:15–10:00 8:00–9:00
10:00–11:00 9:15–10:00
11:30–12:30 10:00–11:00
12:30–1:30 11:30–12:30
1:30–2:30 12:30–1:30
2:30–3:30 1:30–2:30
7:00–8:00 2:30–3:30
(tomorrow)
Figure 2.7 Sample schedule board in purchased parts market.
the board at any time of day lets management know how production is running.
For example, the board in Figure 2.8 indicates that there is a problem in production.
It is 10:30 a.m., but the production kanban for 10:30 a.m. is still on the board:
Production is behind.
Note: Notice that the board in Figure 2.8 begins with the second hour of the day.
This is because what is running the first hour would be provided to the manufac-
turing area the last hour of the day before. This way, when everyone comes in for
the day’s startup, no one is waiting for the schedule, and the startup can begin
on time.
Now that Production Control has the schedule and has it stored in the right
place, managers are faced with physically getting the schedule to the floor.
Who Is Responsible for Getting the Level

Schedule to the Production Floor?
RNA management realized that if it could not physically get the schedule (infor-
mation) to the production floor in an efficient and productive manner, all that
work to develop a level schedule would not yield its intended benefits. Just
having a level schedule was not enough; RNA had to make the schedule flow to
its intended recipients.
PP7374_C002.indd 33 5/3/08 10:00:33 AM

8:00–9:00 7:00–8:00
9:15–10:00 8:00–9:00
10:00–11:00 9:15–10:00
11:30–12:30
10:00–11:00
12:30–1:30
11:30–12:30
1:30–2:30
12:30–1:30
2:30–3:30
1:30–2:30
7:00–8:00
(tomorrow) 2:30–3:30
Figure 2.8 Schedule board being used in purchased parts market.
One of the major reasons RNA managers believed they could effectively
implement a level schedule is that they have a strong Production Control depart-
ment. This was not always the case; in fact, before the switch to lean production,
RNA considered doing away with the department altogether. RNA now realizes
that the Production Control department is the nerve center of production and a
necessity to lean production.
RNA was able to grow its Production Control department into a solid group
through implementation of a timed material delivery route. A timed material
delivery route is a route that leaves its purchased parts market every hour with
product for the production floor. It is set up to replenish the material that has
been consumed by the production floor.
RNA uses a tugger,* driven by a production control associate, to deliver prod-
uct to multiple production areas in the facility. This associate goes to the produc-
tion floor, delivers product, picks up empty containers, and picks up pull signals
(replenishment kanban cards). The associate then goes to the purchased parts
market, gets the material that corresponds with the pull signals, and returns to
the production area the next hour with product. The cycle then starts again:
The associate delivers the product, picks up empty containers, and picks up
* A tugger is a motorized vehicle that can pull multiple carts filled with material for the production floor.
PP7374_C002.indd 34 5/3/08 10:00:34 AM

pull signals. A detailed description of the method of the development of a timed

material delivery route is provided in Making Materials Flow (Harris et al., 2003).
RNA found its timed material delivery route to be an effective way to move
material and information. The information was in the form of the kanban card.
RNA began to consider the possibility of the route runner to take the schedule to
the production floor. This made sense, because the route runner was on a 1-hour
route (he left the purchased parts market every hour). RNA’s plan was to release
the schedule to the production floor every hour. It was settled: The route runner
in the RNA facility would take the hourly schedule from the scheduling board and
bring it to the production area every hour as part of his or her route. He or she
would also be charged with bringing the schedules back to the board after they
were made every hour.
Returning the completed schedule from the production floor is important
because it gives the driver permission to take another schedule to the production
floor. The route runner, in essence, is replenishing the schedule on the production
floor. So if the production floor completed two production kanban cards, the route
runner will return the next hour with two more production kanban cards. RNA’s
material delivery system is based on replenishment, meaning if production uses
a product, it will get more of that product. If it does not use the product, it will
not get more until it uses the product. RNA used the same methodology with the
production kanban card. Schedules were taken to the floor only after previous
schedules had been completed.
Making the information flow in this way provided a valuable check to the
Production Control department. That check was that all the parts that were needed
to make the schedule were at the manufacturing area. The Production Control
department at RNA was in charge of both the schedule and the parts to make
the schedule. Therefore, if the route runner realized that the parts were not there
to make the intended schedule, he or she could take action. That action may
include changing the schedule, expediting parts, or something else, but the bot-
tom line was that the route runner could make sure that Production was never
scheduled to make an order without the parts to make that order.
Storing the Schedule on the Production Floor

RNA also needed a mechanism on the production floor to store the schedule so
that Production could see what it was going to run next. Managers developed a
schedule board at the point of production. This board (see Figure 2.9) held infor-
mation on what had been made the previous hour, what was currently being
run, and what was going to be run the next hour.
At this point, RNA was successful at making information flow from the end
customer to the production floor. RNA received information from the customer,
calculated the demand, calculated takt time, calculated pitch, decided on how
often to run every part, developed a level schedule, developed a place to store
the level schedule, and then used a current, effective, lean system to get the
PP7374_C002.indd 35 5/3/08 10:00:34 AM

Schedule for Cell 11
Running Next Complete
Part Number to be Produced: Part Number to be Produced:
A9574 A9574
Quantity: Quantity:
10 10
Running Now
A9574
Quantity:
10
Figure 2.9 Schedule board at production area.
schedule to Production and return the completed schedules to the Production

Control department. This information is now flowing—Figure 2.10 illustrates the
process. The next step is to link this information with upstream processes in the
facility.
Key Points
NNToo much information may be as detrimental having too little information.
NNProduction Control schedules Production.
NNThe schedule revolves around takt time.
NNHaving a level schedule is not enough; you have to effectively move that
information to the production floor.
NNRelease the schedule to Production every hour, or on a cadence that is best
for the organization.
NNDevelop a timed system so that the schedule is taken to Production on a
regular basis.
PP7374_C002.indd 36 5/3/08 10:00:34 AM

Customer Customer Customer Customer
Fax Phone mail email
Production Control

8:00–9:00
7:00–8:00
9:15–10:00
8:00–9:00
10:00–11:00 (Production Schedule in
9:15–10:00
11:30–12:30
Purchased Parts Market)
10:00–11:00
12:30–1:30
11:30–12:30
1:30–2:30
12:30–1:30
2:30–3:30
1:30–2:30
7:00–8:00
(Tugger driver taking schedule

and material to the production floor
and completed production schedules
back to the board in the purchased
parts market.)

A9574 A9574
Quantity: Quantity:
10 10
Running Now
(Production Schedule in
A9574 Production Area)
Quantity:
10
Figure 2.10 Flow of level schedule.
PP7374_C002.indd 37 5/3/08 10:00:35 AM

PP7374_C002.indd 38 5/3/08 10:00:35 AM
Chapter 3
Making Information
Flow Upstream
After a facility creates a level schedule and gets it to the production floor, it has
to develop a method of getting the rest of the facility to plan—and react based
on that schedule. There should be only one schedule from Production Control
for each value stream, as discussed in Chapter 2 and illustrated in the future state
value stream map in Chapter 1. That schedule is placed at the pacemaker pro-
cess, which then begins pulling material from the upstream processes.
Too often, manufacturers are running the wrong products at the wrong time.
We have worked with facilities that have been able to make significant improve-
ment just by making what they need, when they need it—that is, the right product
at the right time. This is different from what many manufacturing firms have done in
the past, which is running what they think they need, when they think they need it.
This concept is not new to lean manufacturing. Virtually every value stream
map shows some form of either information flow or material flow. Good value
stream maps show both. However, we have found that taking the principles that
are shown on the value stream map, such as physically developing and effec-
tively moving information, are more difficult to put into operation than just draw-
ing on a map. This chapter explains a way to make the necessary information
flow to upstream process so that those processes know what product to produce
and when to produce it.
Information Overview
What information is available, who needs it, and who holds and is responsible for
it? This section answers those questions in the context of the development and
execution of internal work in process markets and production boards in upstream
process.
39
PP7374_C003.indd 39 5/3/08 10:00:56 AM


Exercise: How do upstream processes in your facility know what to make? How do
they know how many to make? How do they know when to change over?
Good information for a production area is twofold: what needs to be run

and when. The difficulty with most manufacturing schedules is that they are too
big. Experience has shown that manufacturing firms cannot see into the future
that well. What needs to be developed is a pull system that provides production
information to every process in the value stream that is pertinent only to them—
Process D does not need to know what Process A is running. Process D needs to
know only what product Process C is pulling from them. The information needs
to be developed, remembering that providing too much information can be as
detrimental as providing too little information (see Figure 3.1).

Exercise: In your facility, who or what needs to know what to run and when? Do
you believe that they receive that information in the right amounts, too much, or
too little?
PP7374_C003.indd 40 5/3/08 10:00:56 AM

Making Information Flow Upstream n 41
The answer to the first part of this question seems to be very simple, but that
is not necessarily the case. The answer cannot, for example, be “Production.”
That answer is too broad. Who really needs the information? The answer is “each
individual manufacturing area in the value stream.” That information needs to
be tailored for each individual area. For example, Process C needs to know what
Process D Process C Process B Process A
Figure 3.1 Diagram illustrating pull.
PP7374_C003.indd 41 5/3/08 10:00:56 AM

Supplier to Paint Customer of Grind
Final Assy.
Grind Paint
Stamping
C/T 11.4 sec C/T 150 sec
C/T 100 sec
C/T 35 sec
Downtime 0%
Downtime 1% Downtime 25%
Downtime 2%
C/O 10 sec C/O 0 sec
C/O 10 min
C/O 120 sec
Figure 3.2 Paint is Customer of Grind.
Process C needs to run and not anyone else. This information may be tailored by
runtime, changeover time, and lot size. The key is that the information system is
set up with the customer in mind. The customer is the next individual produc-
tion area in the value stream, not just Production as a whole. (See Figure 3.2.)

Exercise: In your facility, who holds the information that the production areas
need? Does everyone in the facility know?
PP7374_C003.indd 42 5/3/08 10:00:56 AM

This information may not be held by anyone yet. This information may have
to be calculated. The responsibility for developing this information lies with the
Production Control department, but it must have a great deal of input from the
Production department. This information must be set up with an understanding
of how Production produces products. For example: If it is easier for Product C
to change over to Product A than it is to change to Product B, the area should
be scheduled to change from Product C to Product A to Product B. An effective
way to accomplish this is to have a work-in-process market. This point will be
illustrated as we follow RNA through its implementation of the internal information-
flow system.
RNA Begins Its Implementation of Internal Information Flow

After RNA had its level schedule flowing to and from the pacemaker process, it
had to make information flow back through the upstream processes. To do this,
RNA had to begin with the physical link between the processes. Take, for exam-
ple, the value stream in Figure 3.3.
The pacemaker in this value stream is Final Assembly. A good future state
value stream map shows the informational link, but RNA had to determine how
Paint was going to physically get the information it needed to produce its prod-
ucts. Paint needed to know what to make and when to make it.
RNA managers thought about the route runner taking schedules to the floor
on his or her normal material delivery route and began to consider other ways
the route runner could help improve information flow. The management assigned
the task of picking up the work-in-process material from the Paint market and
taking it to the Final Assembly cell.
This was a practical move, because the route runner already knew what product
was needed next—via the schedule. All the route runner had to do was look at the
schedule cards to be delivered to final assembly, pick the corresponding material
up from Paint, and deliver them along with the schedule to final assembly.
In essence, the route runner was saying to final assembly, “Here is the sched-
ule and here are the parts to make the schedule.” Of course, there were other
parts in Final Assembly, but they were common across all the product lines.
PP7374_C003.indd 43 5/3/08 10:00:57 AM

These parts included washers, nuts, bolts, end caps, and so on. These parts were
still delivered on a replenishment basis, based on kanban cards, as before.
Final Assembly received 10 different-color kits that contain a frame, a body,
and two doors. The remaining items in the final assembly cell were purchased
components that included the engine, wheels, wheel shaft, washers, nut, bolt,
grommet, and endcap. Because the parts were set up this way, the purchased
components were replenished every hour as they were consumed, along the
route runner’s normal route.
The 10 different colored doors, frames, and bodies make the part number. For
example, Product A is a red truck, Product B is a blue truck, and Product C is a
white truck. When the route runner looks at the schedule and it says that final
assembly is supposed to make 20 As, it is simple for him to stop at Paint’s market
and get the parts to make the order, which would be 20 kits for Product A: 40
red doors (two doors per truck), 20 red frames, and 20 red bodies.
After the driver does this, he then goes to final assembly, places the sched-
ule on the schedule board, delivers the parts from Paint, and replenishes the
purchased components using the kanban cards that he picked up the previous
PP7374_C003.indd 44 5/3/08 10:00:58 AM

Purchased
Parts Market

8:00–9:00
7:00–8:00
9:15–10:00
8:00–9:00
10:00–11:00
9:15–10:00
11:30–12:30
10:00–11:00
12:30–1:30
11:30–12:30
1:30–2:30
12:30–1:30
2:30–3:30
1:30–2:30
7:00–8:00
(tomorrow) 2:30–3:30 Schedule for Cell 11
1 4 A9574 A9574
Quantity: Quantity:
10 10
Running Now
A9574
Quantity:
2 3 10
Paint Final Assy.
C/T 100 sec C/T 150 sec
C/O 10 min C/O 10 sec
Figure 3.4 Diagram showing how information flows from Purchased Parts Market through Paint to
Final Assembly.
hour. The driver then picks up the schedule cards that have been made, the kan-
ban cards to be replenished, and any empties that need to be removed. Then the
route runner runs the route again. Figure 3.4 shows this process.
Making sure the necessary material is effectively, efficiently, and consistently
pulled from the Paint market is the key to making information flow upstream in
a lean process.
Product Has Been Pulled from the WIP Market … Now What?
To utilize a WIP market as a base for information flow, Paint has to know what
to put in the market as well as what has been pulled out of the market. To do
PP7374_C003.indd 45 5/3/08 10:00:58 AM

this, it uses kanban cards. Each time 1 Red Kit

Paint finishes 10 red kits, it places a
10 Frames
kanban card on those kits that says 10 Bodies
“there are 10 red kits here.” The kits are 20 Doors
then placed into their WIP market. (See
Produced in
Figure 3.5.) Paint
At this point, many facilities have
Card # 1
problems. They know that they need a
market, and many of them know how
to run a WIP market, but the size of Figure 3.5 Kanban card for one kit.
the market is actually the key to good
information flow. If the WIP market is sized correctly, it can be used as the cen-
tral place to let Paint know what it needs to run and when it needs to run.
Sizing the WIP Market

Sizing the WIP market takes into account factors such as usage, first time qual-
ity, uptime, changeover time, EPEI (every part every interval; that is, how often a
facility can make every part and still meet customer demand), and safety stock.
This section outlines the methodology used to size the WIP market for Paint.
The first step is to determine the actual available production time. This is the
time available to actually produce product through the day. This time take into
account downtime, quality, changeovers, and other foreseeable issues that take
time away from adding the product.
(Total Available Production Time - First Time Quality – Changeover etc.)

- Downtime = Actual Available Production Time
The next step is to take the actual available production time and divide it by
the demand.
Actual Available Production Time ÷ Time Needed to Meet Average Demand

= Capability
The following list provides the information and calculations RNA managers
used to determine whether it is possible to run the parts as they would like.
Changeover time: Average of 10 minutes (600 seconds)

Downtime: 25% (75% uptime)
Processing time per kit: 100 seconds
Final Assembly demand: 150 seconds
With this information, RNA began to calculate. It determined that if the company
was going to run the runners every day, it would have to change over four times,
and if it was going to run the repeaters or a stranger, it would need to changeover
PP7374_C003.indd 46 5/3/08 10:00:59 AM

one more time. This would be a total of five changeovers.

Available Production time = 450 minutes (27,000 seconds or 7.5 hours; two
15-minute breaks are subtracted)
Five changeovers = (average of 10 minutes × 5) = 50 Minutes
Downtime= (25% of 400 minutes of production time) = 100 minutes of total
downtime
(Note: Downtime is subtracted after changeover time is subtracted)
50 minutes (changeover) + 100 Minutes (downtime) = 150 Minutes
= 2.5 hours
Actual available production time = 7.5 - 2.5 = 5 hours (18,000 seconds)
Now, RNA managers understand that if everything runs the way they want, they
will have five hours to produce product each day. They have to determine whether
that is enough time and capacity to meet the daily requirements of Final Assembly.
Final assembly daily demand = 180
Paint production daily capability = 180 kits (100 seconds per kit)
(five changeovers and 25% downtime)
Actual Available Production Time ÷ Time Needed to Meet Average Demand
= Capability
18,000 seconds (5 hrs) ÷ 18,000 seconds (5 hrs) = 1 day
This data tells RNA that it has the capacity in its current system to change over
five times in the paint department and still meet customer demand. The chart in
Figure 3.6 indicates an effective way for them to run.
A B C D E F G H I J
Daily Demand 60 40 30 20 10 10 0 10 0 0
Total
Products
Made
A B C D E F G H I J
Monday 60 40 30 20 20 10 180
Tuesday 60 40 30 20 20 10 180
Wednesday 60 40 30 20 20 10 180
Thursday 60 40 30 20 20 10 180
Friday 60 40 30 20 20 10 180
Figure 3.6 Diagram of Daily Demand and Daily Run.
PP7374_C003.indd 47 5/3/08 10:00:59 AM

The Paint area decided that it was possible to run the runners part numbers
every day and the repeaters once every couple of days, and have the ability to
run a stranger as needed.
RNA can now begin to size its WIP market because its knows it can meet
Final Assembly’s demand and still run the runners every day, the repeaters every
other day, and a stranger as needed.
The beginning size of the WIP market is based on how often a product runs.
For example, all the runners will have to hold a minimum of one day’s worth of
material. The repeaters will have a minimum of two days of inventory, because
they are going to be run every other day. Remember that the Paint department
can change over only five times a day. It has to make 180 pieces every day to
meet customer demand. Therefore, it will run every part every day, except for
Products E and F (those parts are run every other day in a batch size of two
days). If the department tried to run Products E and F every day, it would mean
another changeover. That changeover would mean taking away about 10 min-
utes of production time, which in turn would mean that Paint could not meet
demand, as follows:
Six changeovers = 60 minutes.

Downtime = 97.5 minutes
Total = 157.5 minutes
Actual available production time = 450 minutes – 157.5 minutes
Actual available production time = 292.5 minutes
Actual production needed = 300 minutes
(Not enough time to meet demand)(–7.5 minutes)
Now that RNA has an understanding of the minimum amount of inventory to

carry in the Paint WIP market, it has to determine how much safety Stock needs
in the market. RNA managers decided to hold only the strangers they were cur-
rently running in the market as a passthrough. They would make future strangers
as they were needed. They decided to hold the repeater part numbers an extra day
in the market. This was because they were running these parts only every other
day. They wanted to guard against any unforeseen changeover, downtime, or lost-
time problems that could occur. The runners group was to hold an extra half-day
inventory in the system for safety stock. There did not need to be as much safety
stock on these part numbers because they were run on a daily basis. Safety stock
is often directly related to how often a part is run—that is, the more often a part
is produced, the less safety stock is needed. The exception to this is the strangers,
which may not be held in the market at all until they need to be produced.
Having taken all of this information into account, the average planned size of
the WIP market for the paint area was as follows:
Product A: 1.5 days
Product B: 1.5 days
Product C: 1.5 days
PP7374_C003.indd 48 5/3/08 10:00:59 AM

Product D: 1.5 days

Product E: 3 days
Product F: 3 days
Product G: 0 days
Product H: 1.5 days
Product I: 0 days
Product J: 0 days
In What Order Should the Products Run?

Now that RNA knows what product to make and how many to make, it needs
to determine in what order to make them. At first glance, it looks like Product A
should run first, then B, then C, and so on. However, that is likely not the best
way to run this area. Running this way does not take into account the change-
over times. The changeover time from Product A to Product B is different from
what it is from Product A to Product C. Before all this information can flow, the
management at RNA must decide the best way to run.
Looking at the changeover matrix for the area in Figure 3.7, the answer
becomes clearer. In the following matrix you can see that it takes 15 minutes
to change from Product A to B. However, it takes only eight minutes to change
from Product A to C. With this information, the Paint area will be more efficient
to change from running Product A to running Product C. The next changeover
would likely be from Product C to Product B, because it takes 10 minutes, versus
15 minutes to go from C to D.
Utilizing the changeover matrix and the capacity to meet customer demand
by changing over five times per day, RNA developed the best method sequence
of changeover. This concept can also be called a changeover wheel because it
gives the best sequence of changeovers. Figure 3.8 shows the plan that RNA used
to change over effectively. As you can see, the plan is to run ACBDHE, and that
gives an average time of 10 minutes per changeover.
RNA chose this method of changeover to keep the WIP market at a low level.
A good way to run the Paint department in an efficient manner is to run to a
market and not to a separate schedule.
TO
Part A B C D E F G H I J
A – 15 8 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
B 15 – 15 5 15 15 15 15 15 15
C 15 10 – 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
D 15 12 12 – 15 15 12 12 12 12
FROM E 10 12 12 15 – 10 15 15 15 15
F 10 12 12 15 10 – 15 15 15 15
G 15 12 12 15 15 15 – 10 10 10
H 15 12 12 15 15 15 10 – 10 10
I 15 12 12 15 15 15 10 10 – 10
J 15 12 12 15 15 15 10 10 10 –
MINUTES
Figure 3.7 Matrix indicating most efficient changeover sequence.
PP7374_C003.indd 49 5/3/08 10:01:00 AM

Changeover
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
A C B D H E or F Total changeover time (minutes)
8 10 5 12 15 50
10 Average
Figure 3.8 Schedule for day’s changeovers.
How Do You Make This Information Flow?

Now that RNA knew what parts to run, how often to run them, and the most
efficient sequence to change over, it had to make this information flow. RNA has
learned through its implementation that just having the information is not enough—
RNA has to make sure the information gets to the right people at the right times.
RNA again decided to utilize the route runner to make this information flow,
but first had to develop an information flow tool that the route runner could use.
The method was to be the same as was used throughout the facility, the method of
kanban cards. The information flow tool was going to be a production pull board.
A production pull board provides the necessary information that the produc-
tion area needs to run the product. It lets the production area know what to
make and when to make it, as well as when to change over. However, the pro-
duction pull board can be developed only after all the preceding information in
this chapter is accumulated.
The production pull board lists across the top of the board the part num-
bers that are run in each area. However, the part numbers have to be listed in
the order that the production area is going to change over. So, for example, the
production pull board for the Paint area is set up with the part numbers on the
board in the order of ACBDstrangerEF. (See Figure 3.9.)
The board is designed to hold the various kanban cards that are made avail-
able when a product is pulled from the WIP market in Paint. This is where the
route runner connects with the Paint area. The route runner takes the schedule
from the market for final assembly and sees that the order requires work-in-
process parts from the Paint area. The route/runner goes by the work-in-process
market in the Paint area and removes the needed parts. At this point, the route
runner becomes vital to information flow. It is the route runner’s responsibil-
ity to take the pull signal (kanban card) off the product when he or she pulls
it from the WIP market and place it on the WIP production pull board. For this
to happen, there must be a kanban card on each kit that is produced by the
Paint department. (The kanban card at RNA has the part number’s, kit size, and
location.) The card stays with the kit in the WIP market and is not pulled off
the product until the product is pulled from the market by the route runner.
PP7374_C003.indd 50 5/3/08 10:01:00 AM

Figure 3.9 Production pull board for Paint.
This card should never leave the Paint area, and should be in one of only three
places: (1) on the product in the WIP market, (2) in the route runner’s hand, or
(3) on the production pull board.
After the card is pulled, the route runner takes it to the production pull board
and places it in the correct column. At this point, the route runner’s responsibility
is completed in the Paint area.
The production pull board must be very visual, with trigger points in each
column. For example, Product A’s trigger point is when there has been 1 day’s
worth (6 kanban cards) used by final assembly (pulled out of the market). This
is determined through the use of kanban cards. The number of kanban cards in
this information loop is calculated by doubling the EPEI and adding the safety
stock. The EPEI for Product A is one day (6 kanban cards), therefore there should
be 12 kanban cards (2 days) plus 3 kanban cards (1/2 day safety stock) for a total
of 15 kanban cards in the loop. By calculating the loop size this way, when a day
has been pulled out of the market, the producing department has a full day to
produce the product and put it back into the market.
Information Loop Calculation:
2 × EPEI (Every Part Every Interval) + Safety Stock
Part A’s Information Loop Calculation:
2 × 6 (1 day’s worth of kanban cards) + 3 (0.5 day’s worth of kanban cards)
= 12 kanban cards in Information Loop
Figure 3.9 illustrates this point. The Paint area is currently running Product
A. It is just about to finish its run, so the supervisor goes to the production pull
board to see what to run next. When Product C’s trigger point has been reached,
the supervisor knows to run Product C.
PP7374_C003.indd 51 5/3/08 10:01:01 AM

Figure 3.10
The cell makes its run of Product a. The supervisor goes to the board again.
This time, he or she looks at Product B. The trigger point has not been hit. There
could be multiple reasons for this—perhaps Final Assembly had a change in sched-
ule or some unplanned downtime. Anything that kept Final Assembly from pulling
parts from Paint’s market would cause Product B not to be at the trigger point.
The RNA supervisor goes to the next column, Product D (see Figure 3.10).
Product D has reached the trigger point, so Product D will be run.
When a product hits the trigger point, the person who gets the cards (nor-
mally the supervisor) gets all the cards up to the trigger point and runs them.
She or he takes them to a simple running-now board in the area (see
Figure 3.11). After all the cards on the
running-now board are complete, the Now Running
supervisor goes to the production pull
board to get the next run.
It is important to note a couple of
points. The first is that the only cards
that are run are those that are pulled
by the supervisor. It is possible that the
board could accumulate more kanban 1 Red Kit
cards of the part that is currently run- 1 Red Kit
ning. It is important not go back to 1 Red Kit

the board and get those cards to run, 1 Red Kit
because this could cause a disruption in
the system—running the same part too Figure 3.11 Board in paint area
long and creating a snowball effect in running—now.
PP7374_C003.indd 52 5/3/08 10:01:02 AM

the process. For example, a process is supposed to run only 30 A’s, 30 B’s, and 30
C’s. But, the process runs 40 A’s. Now they are 10 behind on B’s. Now they have
to run 40 B’s. Now they are behind 20 on C’s. Now they run 50 C’s, but they are
now behind on A’s. The safety stock and run plan for an area needs to be fol-
lowed because, otherwise, you get large lot sizes, overtime, overproduction—in
general, the “old way” of manufacturing.
The second point when discussing the production pull board is that there is no
need to panic if a part is not triggered—it all equals out in the end. If you pass
one part without running it, you also pass the time it takes to change over and run
the part. Yes, the changeover sequence may not be optimal, but in the majority of
cases, it will all equal out when you return to the part that was not triggered. It is
important that the production pull board is followed in order, with no backtracking
allowed. To understand backtracking, consider the following example: Product B
was not triggered, and the supervisor ran Product D. Now the supervisor goes back
to the board and sees that Product B and Product H are now triggered. Product H
is the next to run because it follows the planned sequence. A process cannot back-
track and run Product B, or the whole production board will be jeopardized. There
is no need to panic. If the market and board are set up properly, then there will be
no problem, and Product B can be run when it has its turn on the production pull
board.
Lean Connections
There is certainly a lot of information in this chapter. Much of that information is on
the micro level, describing how to set up a WIP market and find the most effective
way to run the area. All this information is important and vital to good informa-
tion flow. However, at this point we would like to go back to the macro level (big
picture) and discuss the process of making information flow at the facility level to
show how the WIP market fits into the whole information-flow system.
The first step is with the route runner in the purchased parts market. The
route runner picks up the next hour’s schedule for Final Assembly. There are other
tasks that the route runner does while in the market, mainly replenishing parts that
have been consumed on the production floor and making them ready to deliver.
The second step is for the route runner to stop at the Paint process and
retrieve the necessary parts to make the order just picked up in the purchased
parts market. The route runner removes the product from the WIP market. He
then removes each kanban card from each kit. He takes the kanban cards and
places them in position on the production pull board.
The third step is that the tugger goes to Final Assembly and delivers the pro-
duction schedule and all the parts that are necessary for the order. He or she also
picks up the information on what has been made the previous hour.
The final step for the tugger is to transport the information of what product
was made to the schedule board in the market. This lets Production Control know
that a product has been made. The route runner then begins the route again.
PP7374_C003.indd 53 5/3/08 10:01:02 AM

PP7374_C003.indd 54
Purchased
Parts Market

8:00–9:00
7:00–8:00
9:15–10:00
8:00–9:00
10:00–11:00
9:15–10:00
11:30–12:30
10:00–11:00
12:30–1:30
11:30–12:30
1:30–2:30
12:30–1:30
2:30–3:30
1:30–2:30
7:00–8:00
(tomorrow) 2:30–3:30 Schedule for Cell 11
1 4 A9574 A9574
Production Pull Board for Paint Quantity: Quantity:
Running Order 10 10
A C B D Stranger E F
Running Now
A9574
Quantity:
2 3 10
Paint Final Assy.
C/T 100 sec C/T 150 sec
C/O C/O 10 sec
Figure 3.12 Four significant information flow points.
5/3/08 10:01:03 AM
The whole picture looks like Figure 3.12, where you can see how the informa-
tion flows.
Key Points
NNThe size of WIP market must be correct.
NNKanban cards need to represent (and be attached to) each container or kit.
NNA production pull board acts as a changeover wheel and schedule board,
telling upstream production processes what product to make and when to
make them.
NNA route runner is the person who creates information flow by pulling
product out of the WIP market and placing the kanban cards on the
production pull board.
PP7374_C003.indd 55 5/3/08 10:01:03 AM

PP7374_C003.indd 56 5/3/08 10:01:03 AM
Chapter 4
Purchasing and
Information Flow
In the majority of the facilities with which we work, purchased components

make up a large percentage of the cost of goods sold (COGS). Therefore, making
information flow from the production floor to Purchasing is important. It is also
important that Purchasing be able to communicate to the production floor.
Purchasing must be notified by the production floor that it needs to buy
(replenish) more product. The production floor needs to be notified whenever
there is a change to a purchased component. This chapter outlines proven
processes that can make information flow to and from Purchasing.
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of Purchasing and its
relationship with the production floor.

Exercise: What information system does your facility use to notify Purchasing that
it needs to purchase more products? What information does Purchasing provide to
notify Production that there is a change in a purchased component?
57
PP7374_C004.indd 57 5/3/08 10:01:20 AM

One of the key tenets of lean manufacturing is that it is based on replenish-

ment. In short, that means if you use up a purchased component, you will get
another one. If you do not use up a purchased component, a replacement will not
be purchased until a part was used. For this system to work properly, Production
has to have a good system in place to notify Purchasing that it has consumed a
purchased component and that it needs another.
The second kind of information is when a part or a supplier changes. Any
time a supplier or part changes, the flow of manufacturing is disrupted. That
disruption may be small or large, but it is a disruption nonetheless. This is a
significant issue because money is made by the manufacturing process, and any
time the manufacturing process is disrupted, that costs the company money. We
are not saying there should never be part changes, but when there are, that infor-
mation needs to flow to Production, letting it know that the change is coming.
That way, it can prepare for the change.
To quickly summarize: the information flow is as follows: Production to Pur-
chasing on what needs to be purchased, and Purchasing to Production when
there is a change to a purchased component.

Exercise: Who needs to know when a part is consumed? Who needs to know when
a part is changed?
PP7374_C004.indd 58 5/3/08 10:01:21 AM

Purchasing and Information Flow n 59
Many times, we have seen no information flow between Purchasing and

Production in either direction. The information we are talking about here is the
information on purchased components. Purchasing needs to know what product
it needs to buy and when it needs to buy it. Production needs to know when
there is a change to a part.

Exercise: Who is responsible for making sure that information about purchased
components flows in your facility? Who has the information on when a purchased
component is consumed in your facility? Who has the information on when a part
is changed in your facility?
PP7374_C004.indd 59 5/3/08 10:01:21 AM

Depending upon how you have developed your lean systems, the person
or people who hold information on whether a purchased component has been
consumed may vary. In facilities that have effectively developed a timed mate-
rial delivery route composed of a PFEP (plan for every part), purchased parts
market, pull signals, and a tugger route, the route runner holds this information.
The reason the route runner holds the information is because he or she is in the
purchased parts market taking parts to the production floor.
The holders of information on a part change can be many individuals. Of
course, if it is a supplier change, Purchasing holds the information, but what
about an engineering change? How about a change made to improve quality? Or
a change made to meet a customer’s needs? Understanding that there are different
organizations that change a part is important when setting up a system that helps
this information flow.
Because there are two different groups that hold two different kinds of infor-
mation, it is reasonable to assume that there are two different parties responsible
for the information. For the information from Production to Purchasing, the asso-
ciate who is pulling parts from the purchased parts market is responsible for that
information. A system needs to be set up so that this can happen with minimal
effort. The second responsible party has to be someone who makes sure all infor-
mation on all the purchased components is correct in the system and that when
there is a change, this change is communicated throughout the organization.
Information Flow and the Purchasing Department at RNA

RNA decided to first make sure the information from Production to Purchas-
ing flowed properly. To do this, managers took a long look at their current sys-
tem—including the way material flowed—and saw an opportunity to make this
information flow happen. The way the material flowed at RNA was that all the
PP7374_C004.indd 60 5/3/08 10:01:21 AM

purchased parts for the facility were kept in the purchased parts market. Each
part had a designated space, meaning the part number that was in a space one
day would be there the next day, the next week, and so on.
This is an important point to make because one of the main reasons RNA
developed a purchased parts market was to control the inventory. RNA has
learned that it cannot control inventory in a computer system. Instead, RNA can
only truly control its inventory when it physically controls the inventory. RNA
managers used to think they could control their inventory in a computer system,
but they realized that when they really needed to know how many parts they
had, they had to go to the production floor to count them—so they opted for a
manual system of inventory control. Take, for example, the plant layout in
Figure 4.1, which was drawn before RNA implemented its timed delivery route.
Purchased components were taken directly from Receiving to the production
floor. RNA managers learned that its system may tell them that the parts they are
looking for are in the facility, but it does not tell them exactly where they are in
the facility. This lack of control often lead to RNA’s expediting parts that were
already in the facility. RNA managers came to the conclusion that they could
not control inventory this way and that they needed to implement a purchased
parts market so that they could control inventory. As soon as they completed the
implementation of a purchased parts market, they saw a significant change on
the production floor (see Figure 4.2).
** Denotes one skid of inventory.
Entrance
Receiving and
and office
Shipping area
Dock
Operations
Office Area
Empty area Empty

due to floor area due to
space floor space
gained in gained in
creating creating
continuous continuous
flow flow
activities activities
Figure 4.1 Unorganized material pre-lean.
PP7374_C004.indd 61 5/3/08 10:01:21 AM

** Denotes one skid of inventory.
Entrance
and
Receiving office
and area
Shipping
Dock
Operations
Office Area
Figure 4.2 Plant layout with Purchased Parts Market.
When an organization like RNA implements a purchased parts market, it

normally results in more usable floor space, a cleaner and more organized work
environment, and significantly better control over purchased components.
Figure 4.3 illustrates how a purchased parts market lends itself to being able to
control the inventory.
Each spot in the market, whether it is a box on a flow rack or a box on a pallet,
is well identified. There is no guesswork as to which part is in which place. There
are also minimum and maximum levels for each part number. After RNA put this
system into place, the company had control over its inventory, because it knew
exactly which part was where and how many of those parts should be there.
Using a Purchased Parts Market to Make Information Flow

After RNA had its purchased parts market in place, how could the purchased
parts market help make information flow? It is much easier to make informa-
tion flow when you have a system already in place, because that system can be
added onto to make other areas in the facility more efficient.
Take, for example, the link that RNA developed between the purchased parts
market and Purchasing. The one key point that RNA managers wanted to keep
in mind was that they needed the route runner—the person who took the parts
from the purchased parts market to the production floor—to remain on his or
her timed schedule.
PP7374_C004.indd 62 5/3/08 10:01:22 AM

Supermarket
C
B
A
1 2 3 4
Part number:
Address:
Min:
Max:
Figure 4.3 Inside workings of Purchased Parts Market.
The route runner in the RNA facility had become an integral part of the effi-
ciency of the system. In Chapter 2 of this book, the route runner was assigned to
take the schedule and purchased components out to the production area every
hour. In Chapter 3, the route runner was charged with moving work in pro-
cess parts and placing production kanbans on the production board so that the
upstream process knew what they needed to make. Figure 4.4 shows the process
of tying all of this together.
The first step that the route runner takes is to record on the schedule board
what had been made the previous hour. The second step is to pick up the sched-
ule that is to be taken to Production the next hour. The third step that the route
runner performs is to collect all the purchased components there are to pull cards
for. He or she loads the cart with these parts. The fourth step is the actual route,
during which the driver stops at the various areas of the facility and drops off
purchased components, picks up pull signals, and picks up empty containers.
The route runner also takes any WIP parts from the WIP market that need to be
moved, places the kanban card on the production board, and moves the parts to
the next downstream process. The last stop that the route runner makes is at the
pacemaker process, where purchased components and WIP components are deliv-
ered, the schedule is placed, and the schedule that has been made is picked up.
As you can see, the route runner is critical to making information flow
through the production floor. RNA managers wanted to make sure this process
PP7374_C004.indd 63 5/3/08 10:01:22 AM


8:00–9:00
7:00–8:00
9:15–10:00
8:00–9:00
10:00–11:00
9:15–10:00
11:30–12:30
10:00–11:00
12:30–1:30
11:30–12:30
1:30–2:30
12:30–1:30
2:30–3:30
1:30–2:30
7:00–8:00

A9574 A9574
Quantity: Quantity:
10 10
Running Now
A9574
Quantity:
10
Final Assy.
C/T 150 sec
Downtime 0%
C/O 0 sec
Paint
C/T 100 sec
Downtime 0%
C/O 10 min
Figure 4.4 Overall information flow including Purchase Parts Market.
was not interrupted, but they also thought the route runner was the best person
to let Purchasing know what had been consumed.
Information Flow from Production to Purchasing

RNA developed pull signals for all the parts in its purchased parts market. This
way, when a box in the purchased parts market was opened, the route runner
could take the pull signal (kanban card) from the box and place it in the holder.
PP7374_C004.indd 64 5/3/08 10:01:23 AM

Supermarket
C
B
A
1 2 3 4
Kanban
Holders
Figure 4.5 Purchased Parts Market with kanban holders.
This process was very simple for the route runner. There were various card hold-
ers throughout the market. All the route runner was asked to do was to pull the
card and place it in the card holder when he or she opened a box in the purchased
parts market. This was the extent of the route runner’s information flow to purchas-
ing. (See Figure 4.5.)
RNA wanted to make it simple and efficient for the route runner because this
position was so important to the facility. Every shift, someone from the Purchas-
ing department would walk through the purchased parts market and collect the
pull signals, and would then go back to his or her office and order the parts that
needed to be ordered.
This may seem very simple, but that was the point. All the route runner
needed to do was to let Purchasing know what they needed to order, and the
managers accomplished this task through this simple system.
A common question is: “What is the reorder point?”—that is, the point at
which a part should be reordered from the supplier. The answer from a Pro-
duction point of view is that there is no reorder point. This system is based on
replenishment, so when a box is consumed out of the market, it is reordered.
However, many organizations that are implementing lean production find them-
selves in less-than-perfect relationships with their suppliers and have to order
certain quantities on certain days or at certain times.
All that is required, in terms of communication from Production to Purchasing
is that the production floor needs to notify Purchasing that a purchased compo-
nent has been used. This is done easily and efficiently by pulling the kanban card
off the box and placing it in the card holder. It is then Purchasing’s responsibility
to order the part, as its agreements indicate.
PP7374_C004.indd 65 5/3/08 10:01:23 AM

Information Flow from Purchasing to Production: PFEP

Now that RNA had implemented a system to notify Purchasing when a part was
consumed, managers had to take a look at the information flowing in the oppo-
site direction. The information flow from Purchasing (or from other areas that
may need to change a part such as Engineering, Quality, Sales, and so on) to
Production needs to be developed.
RNA decided to utilize a system that it already had in place to make this
information flow. That system was the PFEP (Harris et al., 2003). The PFEP (plan
for every part) is a database that RNA developed to implement its timed delivery
system, as well as to hold detailed information on all the parts in the facility. The
PFEP holds information such as the part number, supplier, size, weight, location
in market, min level, max level, and so on.
To keep the PFEP up to date and correct, RNA identified a PFEP manager.
This was the only person in the facility who could change the PFEP. Everyone in
the facility could look at the document, sort the document, and print the docu-
ment, but only the PFEP manager could make changes to the document.
With this structure already in place, RNA managers decided they could use
the PFEP to effectively get information from Purchasing to Production. The first
step was to make it mandatory that any part used or brought onto the production
floor had to be correctly identified on the PFEP.
From this mandatory practice, RNA’s second step came about: Develop a sys-
tem to update the PFEP. First, managers developed a standard form to change the
PFEP. It was entitled the PFEP change request form. Figure 4.6 shows the form
that RNA developed.
After they developed the PFEP change request form, RNA had to develop a
method to fill it out and get it approved. During implementation of a timed deliv-
ery route, RNA developed a triangle of involvement as it pertains to parts in the
facility (see Figure 4.7).
The triangle is composed of a person from the Production Control depart-
ment, Production, and Industrial Engineering. Any decision concerning a part in
the RNA facility had to have input from each member of the triangle. RNA did
not want any decisions made about material movement, part changes, supplier
changes, and so on without input from these three important groups.
With this in mind, RNA managers developed the following process. Whenever
someone wanted to change a part, he or she had to fill out the PFEP change
request form and print it out. This is an important point: the change request form
had to be printed. The person then wanting to make the change has to walk to
each member of the triangle with the PFEP change request form in hand. Interof-
fice mail and e-mail were not acceptable.
The point of this process was to make information flow. When the person
wanting to change a part on the information flow had to walk the document
to someone, he or she also had to communicate. The two likely had to discuss
the proposed change, why the change was occurring, and the time frame of
PP7374_C004.indd 66 5/3/08 10:01:23 AM

RNA PFEP Change Request Form

Change Request by:
Date:
Reason:
(Complete Changed Fields Below)

Part #
Description
Daily Usage
Usage Location
Storage Location
Order Frequency
Shipment Size
Supplier
Supplier City
Supplier State
Container Type
Box Weight
1 Part Weight
Total Package
Weight
Length
Width
Height
Usage per
Assembly
Hourly Usage
Standard Pack
Quantity
Packs Used per
Hour
Carrier
Transit Time
# of Pulls in Loop
Supplier
Performance
Material Control Operations Approval:
Material Control Approval:
Industrial Engineering Approval:
Operations Industrial PFEP Manager Approval:
Engineering
Figure 4.6 PFEP Change Request Form.
the change. By making the person walk to each person on the triangle and get
approval, information had to flow.
After each member of the triangle signed off, the document could then be
taken to the PFEP manager, who would then enter the new information into the
PFEP. In this way, the information on a part change was made to flow from the
person making the change (in this case, Purchasing) to the production floor.
PP7374_C004.indd 67 5/3/08 10:01:24 AM

Production Control
Production Industrial
Engineering
Figure 4.7 Triangle of involvement.
Putting It All Together

RNA was able to utilize its existing lean production systems to make information
flow in its facility. The timed delivery route has turned out to be a key to contin-
ually improving the facility, taking the schedule to Production, moving purchased
parts to the production floor, moving WIP parts on the production floor, and
notifying Purchasing that it needs to order more products. A critical part of the
development and continual improvement of the timed delivery route, the PFEP,
was used to make information flow from those departments that change parts to
Production.
RNA found that, by taking the necessary time and effort and properly imple-
menting a robust system, it is better able to improve its system. RNA managers
knew that there could be no improvements without standards to improve.
Many organizations have some success with various kaizen events, but they
lack the long-term sustainability of a total lean system. The key to success when
implementing lean production systems lies in using a systems-based approach
versus applying a lot of different tools. Implementing efficient and robust systems
provides the environment for sustainability and continuous improvement. RNA
proved this point well by utilizing its existing system to make information flow
on the production floor.
Key Points
NNRealize that there is a two-way direction for information flow.
NNDevelop additions to existing systems to accomplish information-flow goals.
NNMake sure that all information flows as part of a system.
NNWork with Purchasing to develop systems from which both Production and
Purchasing can benefit.
PP7374_C004.indd 68 5/3/08 10:01:24 AM

Chapter 5
Making Quality
Information Flow
Successful lean implementers are often asked a popular question whose answer
may surprise you. The question is, “Now that you have had a great deal of suc-
cess implementing lean manufacturing principles, if you had to do it all again,
what would you do differently?”
The top two answers to this question are almost always the same. First is work-
place organization. People who have had success implementing lean production
systems say that they would really focus on workplace organization from day one.
This is interesting, because much of the literature states that workplace organiza-
tion is a great place to begin a lean initiative. The reason many people do not give
this area a lot of attention at the beginning of the implementation, however, is that
workplace organization does not show up on the books as a line item. There is no
line item that says, “Workplace organization … $5,000 saved.” Most people know
that organizing the workplace is the right thing to do; they just choose to focus
their efforts on other implementation efforts that show up on the books.
The second process that successful lean implementers would do differently
is that they would focus on quality from day one. At the beginning of an imple-
mentation, many people do not concentrate on quality. It is part of the old cul-
ture where statements like, “Just rework the product” or “just keep producing and
sort out the bad ones” were commonplace. In a lean environment, quality is a
big issue because any time there is a quality issue, it disrupts the manufacturing
flow. Any time the manufacturing flow is disrupted, it costs the company money
in the form of downtime, unplanned changeover, missed shipments, and so on.
Good quality is vital to a healthy operation. Understanding that quality is very
important to any facility, especially those firms implementing lean production,
we have to begin to investigate quality.
The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss quality problems or their cause.
The purpose of this chapter is to develop a methodology for making quality
information flow in a manufacturing facility. Everyone’s quality problems are
69
PP7374_C005.indd 69 5/3/08 10:01:41 AM

different, but the way to make quality information flow can be quite similar in
lean manufacturing facilities. This chapter outlines that methodology.
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of quality—specifically,
how a system is developed to get real-time quality information to those who can
help quickly correct a quality problem.

Exercise: What information do you have on the quality of any given area in your
facility right now? How are they running at this very minute? Is there a quality
problem right now?
There are two different types of quality information flow. The first is the classi-
cal kind of information flow in which you have reports that show the quality level.
This type of information flow can take the form of a percentage in PPM (pieces
per million), FTQ (first time quality), or as other quality information. The one thing
PP7374_C005.indd 70 5/3/08 10:01:41 AM

Making Quality Information Flow n 71
that all these forms of quality information flow have in common is that they are all
historical data. This information tells you only what has happened in the past.
The second type of information flow concerning quality is different. This type
of information on quality is very seldom used outside of firms that are imple-
menting lean production systems. The second type of quality information is
immediate and in real time. This concept is defined throughout this chapter, but
the methods originate from the andon system made popular by Toyota.
Many firms have come to rely on historical data as a way to improve quality.
This chapter does not aim to contradict that process, but to add to it. Historical
quality data is very important to the facility. As you will see throughout the
remainder of this book, historical quality data plays a fairly significant part in the
information flow of a facility.
The information we discuss in this chapter is information on the real-time
quality, or the quality of a process right now. Is the operator having a quality
problem? Is the process receiving bad parts from a previous supplier? Is the
process receiving bad product from a supplier? Is the operator having problems
with the assembly process that could cause poor quality? The answer to these
questions is what we are looking for in this chapter.

Exercise: In your facility, who would benefit the most from having real-time infor-
mation on quality? Is it management? Is it production?
PP7374_C005.indd 71 5/3/08 10:01:41 AM

The answer to this question is management and support staff. Management

needs the information to make strategic decision on what needs to be done to
improve quality. Support staff, such as Quality, Production Control, and even
Maintenance (covered in Chapter 6) needs this information so that they can make
quick decisions and so that Production can run as efficiently as possible. In other
words, this information is needed by those who can help remedy the quality
problem as it is happening.

Exercise: Who has information on quality problems in your facility? Should that
person be the one who has such information in your facility?
The person with real-time quality information in a facility is the person closest
to the quality problem. That person is most often the production associate. The
production associate normally sees the quality problem first and knows why there
is a problem. Sometimes, the production associate can see that there is going to
be a quality problem before there actually is one.
At this point, the question that is often asked during our discussions with
those implementing lean production is, “If they can see the quality problem first
PP7374_C005.indd 72 5/3/08 10:01:41 AM

or know that a quality problem is coming, why do they not tell us?” This ques-
tion gets to the root cause of the problem. The answer is another question: “Have
you given production associates a method to notify you immediately when they
have a problem?” The answer to that question in often “no.” How do you develop
a system of information flow so that production associates can let management
know immediately when there is a problem?
The Andon System

One of the most misunderstood concepts of the Toyota production system is the
andon system. If you have studied Toyota, you may have heard that it reports
very low defect rates by its employees. For example, it is not uncommon for an
employee on a Toyota assembly line to go a year without causing a defect. This
is a significant number, because if you were to calculate the average number of
parts an operator puts on a car in a Toyota production plant in a year, the num-
ber could be well into the hundreds of thousands.
How is that even possible? Well, the answer is that Toyota places such an
importance on quality that it has developed a comprehensive system to get real
time data on a quality problem. This system, as you may have already guessed is
called the andon system.
The andon system can take various forms, but the most popular is a rope
that runs behind each operator on the production line (see Figure 5.1). It is the
responsibility of the operator to pull the rope if he or she experiences any dif-
ficulty during the process. This includes a quality problem he or she caused, a
quality problem he or she noticed, quality problems that are coming from dif-
ferent areas, quality problems from suppliers, as well as if one is simply falling
behind and needing help. (If a person cannot catch up, he or she will eventu-
ally have to cut a corner, thus causing a quality problem). All these are directly
related to quality. Quality is such an important factor that Toyota has a system
in place so that when a problem arises the operator pulls the rope and stops
production.
Although the production line will stop when the andon is pulled, it does not
stop in the middle of a process, it stops at the L10 fixed-stop position. The L10
Andon
Rope
Figure 5.1 Diagram of Andon Roping System.
PP7374_C005.indd 73 5/3/08 10:01:42 AM

L10 fixed-Stop
Position
Figure 5.2 Diagram indicating LIO fixed stop position.
fixed-stop position is the position where the new car starts. The reason that the
line stops only at the LIO fixed-stop position is that if it stopped in the middle
of the process, it would cause a quality problem itself, because associates would
have to determine where they just stopped and start up again. Therefore, when
the rope is pulled, the line does not stop right away; it stops when the product
gets to the end of the station. So, when the rope is pulled, everyone continues to
work until the line stops. When the line stops, everyone, with the exception of
the person who pulled the rope, should be completely finished with their pro-
cesses. When the line resumes, everyone begins work at the beginning of their
processes at the same time. Figure 5.2 illustrates what the system looks like when
the rope is pulled and when the line stops.
Toyota gives its production employees the opportunity to pull the andon and
stop the line. However, this is only the beginning of the system. When the rope
is pulled, a light comes on and a sound comes from the area where the rope was
pulled. It is very important to understand that there is a visual and an audible
indicator when a rope is pulled. The sound is to alert that a rope has been
pulled, and the light indicates which rope has been pulled. Take a look at a pos-
sible andon board in Figure 5.3.
Each letter is a process. When the sound goes off, a person can look at this
board and know which process is having the problem. This is real-time informa-
tion. At the moment there is a problem, there is also a notification. The next step
Cell 11 Daily Rate
Pull Signal
Pickup A B C
Quality
Stop
Maintenance
D E
Call
Figure 5.3 Andon Board.
PP7374_C005.indd 74 5/3/08 10:01:42 AM

is to determine which person needs to see that the rope has been pulled. That
person is a team leader or production supervisor, depending on the structure
in your facility. It is this person’s responsibility to go immediately to the process
after seeing that the rope has been pulled. The supervisor or team leader then
addresses the problem immediately.
The line does not restart until the rope is pulled again. However, the rope can
be pulled the second time only by the person who responded to the first pull. This
means that there has to be a response to an andon pull before the line can resume.
How Does RNA Make This Concept Work for Its Production System?
RNA managers knew that they needed some way to gather real-time quality infor-
mation. They decided to develop a system modeled after the andon system at Toy-
ota. The first step in their implementation was to give the production associates a
way to let them know when there was a problem. They determined that the rope
method used at Toyota would not work well in their cellular layout. The rope
method is designed more for a traditional assembly line than a manufacturing area
without an assembly line. RNA managers knew that they wanted each machine in
the manufacturing cell to have the capability of notifying management of a qual-
ity problem, so they put a simple light switch on every machine—see Figure 5.4.
(RNA began this implementation utilizing a pilot cell. The company had learned
from implementation lessons in the past and knew that when it was implementing
a new system, it needed to start small to work out the bugs.)
The light switch was bright orange
so that it was easy to see. Each one Andon
was also placed within easy reach of Switch
the operators. The day before these

switches were installed, RNA presented
a one-hour training module on the use
of the andon system to the employees Figure 5.4 Andon switch on machine.
in the pilot cell.
During this training, production asso-
ciates were trained to switch on the andon whenever they had any problems. The
problems could be a bad part, a problem that the associate had during the process,
bad incoming product, and so on. The production associates were encouraged to
switch on the andon when they had a problem, because RNA would rather stop
production and get it right than let a problem go through the system. The associates
were further instructed that when they turned on the andon switch, they needed to
stand and wait for the team leader or supervisor. When they got there, the associate
was to tell the them in detail what the problem was, and then they could together
determine the next step.
Accompanying the andon switches was an andon board. This board was
designed to immediately show which machine had switched on the andon. RNA
made sure there was an audible sound connected with the andon switch, including
PP7374_C005.indd 75 5/3/08 10:01:43 AM

Cell 11 Daily Rate
Pull Signal
Pickup A B C
Quality
Stop
Maintenance
D E
Call
Figure 5.5 Andon board with machine D andon lighted.
a different chime for each manufacturing area. This way, the supervisor could know
by the sound of the chime which andon board to look at. After the supervisor
looked at the andon board, she or he knew exactly which machine to go to (see
Figure 5.5).
Implementing Andon
RNA management realized it had a
problem at this point in the imple- Machine
mentation. The company had not D
clearly identified each machine in the
manufacturing area. This must be done Andon
Switch
immediately, because the supervisor
had to be able to know which machine
was which when he or she got to the
manufacturing area. (See Figure 5.6).
Now that they had all the hard- Figure 5.6 Visual control of machine.
ware set up, RNA had put a system in
place to make this work. The system it chose to put in place was fairly simple.
When the andon switch was flipped, the team leader of the area had to be at
the machine immediately. It was then necessary to make a determination as to
whether the team leader could remedy the problem or if he or she had to get
support from another area such as Maintenance (discussed in Chapter 6). This
was very simple, and that was what RNA was looking for. Management wanted
production team leaders to be responsible for making the decisions after the
andon was on.
Quality Control Alarm Limits

Now that the basis for the andon system was in place, RNA wanted to take it to
the next level. RNA was currently dealing with the problem of defective parts
from upstream processes. It needed to develop a way to keep upstream processes
from continuing to produce bad parts.
PP7374_C005.indd 76 5/3/08 10:01:43 AM

RNA came up with the idea of quality control alarm limits. This was a system,
like the andon system, that could shut down the production area. When the alarm
limit was hit, production had to shut down until the problem was remedied.
For example, the paint area at RNA had a problem from time to time with
runs in the paint. There is a quick fix for this problem, but it sometimes took a
lot of time to figure out that there was a problem. This proved to be very costly
for RNA because a great deal of labor and material had already been invested in
the part after it came out of the paint department.
RNA set a quality control limit on this part at five. This meant that within a
given amount of time (for RNA it was four hours), if the paint department sent five
bad parts to Final Assembly, Final Assembly would shut down until the problem
was fixed at Paint. As you can imagine, this situation not only caused a great deal
of panic in the facility because Final Assembly was not running, but also put
pressure on the paint department to get the problem corrected. (See Figure 5.7.)
Alarm limits are set based upon risk. For example, a part that has a lot of
material and labor already invested in it is much more expensive to the organi-
zation than a part that has very little material and labor. Therefore, the greatest
risk lies with the part that has a lot of labor and material. The alarm limit for this
type of part is normally much smaller, meaning that the system will accept fewer
defective parts before shutting down production, versus a part that is low risk. A
low-risk part may have a quality alarm limit with many pieces, or may not have
an alarm limit at all.
This thought process is different from in the past, when the final assembly
supervisor would have continued to run whatever parts he could get his hands on.
This can cost the company a lot of money in scrap, because (for example) the paint
department just continued to produce product even though a significant percentage
of those parts was bad. Paint just continued to produce because Final Assembly was
using the good parts, and Paint did not want to stop production to fix the quality
problem. But with this new system, Paint has no choice but to fix the problem.
The information that is flowing in this portion of the system is back upstream
to Paint and to management, letting them know they have a serious quality prob-
lem that needs immediate attention.
Alarm
Limit is 5.
Figure 5.7 Diagram of alarm limits.
PP7374_C005.indd 77 5/3/08 10:01:43 AM

Purchased Parts
As RNA went through this implementation process, it began to ask whether it
needed quality alarm limits for purchased parts. RNA was attempting to develop
partnerships with its suppliers. It was starting to make information flow between
Purchasing and Production Control, but were just not there yet.
RNA has no doubt that when it is able to develop partnerships with all its key
suppliers, there will be minimal need to have alarm limits within its system. For
now, however, it is necessary to deal with quality problems from their suppliers.
To do this, the company is not going to have alarm limits, but will have a
zero tolerance policy. If it ever receives a defect from a supplier, RNA will insist
that the suppliers come into the facility and inspect 100% of the product for two
weeks. This may sound extreme, but why should RNA have to inspect parts that
they have purchased from a supplier? The answer is that they should not. RNA
must have good parts from suppliers and until partnerships are developed, steps
must be taken to be sure that the parts from its suppliers are good.
Any quality problem from either internal or external processes disrupts the flow
of manufacturing, and any time the flow in manufacturing is disrupted, it costs the
company money.
The Andon System and Information Flow

The andon system provides vital information on quality. It gives the production
associates and supervisors a way to communicate quickly, and if a good support
system is developed around the andon system, it can be an effective tool to solve
small quality problems before they become big quality problems.
When we think of information flow, we often think of the schedule or pull sig-
nals and although those are certainly important, information on real-time quality
issues is also important information that a facility implementing lean production
needs to be able to handle. To take it one step further, firms implementing lean
production systems need to be very good at making quality information flow.
Key Points
NNDevelop a way for the production associates to immediately notify manage-
ment when there is a problem.
NNProperly train the production associates on the proper use of the andon
system.
NNProperly train the team leaders and supervisors on the correct way to
respond to andons.
NNProvide a very visual and audible way to see andons (andon board)
NNDevelop alarm limits for high-risk parts.
NNMake sure that you get good quality parts from your supplier.
PP7374_C005.indd 78 5/3/08 10:01:43 AM

Chapter 6
Making Uptime
Information Flow
After RNA developed a level schedule based on takt time, along with tools to
immediately recognize and fix quality problems, management realized that
something else was missing: information on uptime. RNA had certainly improved
its information flow throughout the facility, but the maintenance organization had
been left out of the loop to this point.
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of the maintenance
department. The sooner Maintenance knows that it needs to fix a problem, the
sooner the technicians can get there to take care of it.

Exercise: What do you think is the information concerning uptime in your facility?
Do you currently provide that information to whom it needs to be provided on a
timely basis?
79
PP7374_C006.indd 79 5/3/08 10:01:57 AM

The information on uptime is important to a manufacturing facility. Machine

uptime is defined as the time that a machine is running, or capable of running.
Machine downtime is when the machine is not available for manufacturing to
run when it is required to run. In other words, it is the time that the machine
should be running, but it is not because of a problem with the machine. Many
companies include in downtime calculations such circumstances as material
shortage, people not at their stations, and plain old lost time, as well as machine
time. Organizations are better off listing these as separate issues when dealing
with downtime, in order to focus the information. Specifically, the information
that Maintenance needs is machine downtime.
However, there are different forms of downtime information. There is histori-
cal downtime information. This would be end-of-the-month reports or end-of-
the-day reports. Then there is actionable downtime information, which is when
the machine goes (and remains) down. This is information that can be acted
upon and used by Maintenance to quickly realize and solve a downtime issue.

Exercise: In your facility, who benefits most by having information about down-
time? Does that person or group of people get the information on downtime in a
way that can help better the facility’s uptime?
PP7374_C006.indd 80 5/3/08 10:01:58 AM

Making Uptime Information Flow n 81
Two groups need information about uptime. The first is management. Manage-
ment needs to be able to see uptime information at the value stream level to
evaluate the health of the entire value stream. However, having that information
does not directly help improve the uptime of the facility.
There are many different resources on how facilities increase their uptime,
but the missing link seems often to be the immediate attention needed because
of a maintenance problem. The second group, the maintenance department does
not need historical information on uptime as much as it needs to know the
exact time that the machine went down so it can get the machine back up and
running. A facility implementing a lean production system needs to develop a
system so that Maintenance knows there is a problem and can get the problem
fixed quickly. When a facility is running to takt time, every second of downtime
counts and every minute of downtime costs money.

Exercise: Who holds the information on actionable downtime?
PP7374_C006.indd 81 5/3/08 10:01:58 AM

Maintenance owns uptime. However, although that department owns uptime

as a whole, Maintenance does not hold the necessary information on downtime.
Information on actionable downtime is not held anywhere, which makes it
different from other forms of information flow. The actionable information as
it pertains to maintenance does not exist until a machine breaks down. At that
point, there is information.
Production associates hold the information because they are the first to see that
the machine has broken down. The production associate, however, adds value to
the product in the eyes of the customer, so you do not want them having to chase
down a maintenance associate to fix the problem. What needs to be developed is
a system of information flow to notify Maintenance that a machine is down.
The First Step to Maintenance Information Flow

RNA had made a big leap in the way that it reacted to downtime, compared
with before the company began its implementation of a lean production system.
Before lean implementation, when a machine broke down the production asso-
ciate would go look for a maintenance technician or tell the supervisor (who
would go and look for a maintenance technician). Then, whoever found the
technician, would try to explain the machine and the problem. The technician
would then go look at the problem and decide what to do. If he or she decided
some tools were needed, he or she would go get a toolbox and come back to
fix the machine. This was not a very efficient system—the urgency to get the
machine fixed was not present. Now, by running to takt time, the RNA facility
sees the need to get machines fixed right away.
RNA managers’ first step in having information flow to the maintenance area was
to determine what they wanted to happen when a machine broke down, as well as
what they did not want to happen. When a machine broke down, they wanted to
get a maintenance technician there as soon as possible and ready to fix the prob-
lem. What they did not want to happen when the machine broke down was for the
production associate to go find a maintenance technician, because that was not a
very efficient way to get the right maintenance technician there. It also caused the
PP7374_C006.indd 82 5/3/08 10:01:58 AM

value-added production associate to have to leave the work area for non-value-
adding activities. Understanding these principles, RNA had to develop a way for
each value-added associate to quickly and directly notify the maintenance organi-
zation without having to leave the area to go look for a maintenance technician.
Andon Systems and Maintenance

RNA has already enjoyed the success of kanban systems and the quality andon
system. The company began to wonder whether the same principles of infor-
mation flow could apply to the maintenance organization. Thinking about the
andon board in quality, the managers decided that they could use the system to
help with the response time of the maintenance organization. They had already
wired each machine with a switch to the andon board. They now had to deter-
mine how to link that system to Maintenance.
Just knowing that the switch was flipped did not notify the maintenance
department that it had to go to the area. Maintenance had to find out whether
the andon switch was flipped for a machine issue. To do this, RNA developed a
system of radio communication. RNA provided all team leaders, supervisors, and
maintenance technicians with radios and instituted the following escalation sys-
tem to be sure that the necessary information made it from the production floor
to maintenance.
1. Andon switch flipped.

2. Team leader or supervisor arrives immediately to asses the situation.
3. Team leader or supervisor calls maintenance on the radio to notify a need to
get the machine running.
4. Maintenance arrives in less than two minutes to address the situation.
5. If no one is at the machine in five minutes, the production supervisor calls
the maintenance supervisor to get assistance.
6. If no one is at the machine in 10 minutes, the production supervisor calls the
maintenance manager to get assistance.
7. If no one is at the machine in 15 minutes, the production supervisor calls
the plant manager supervisor to get assistance.
Maintenance should show up at the area ready to fix the problem. This
includes bringing tools that are commonly used to repair the machine. Before
the implementation of this notification system, it would not have been reasonable
to ask. Now, knowing which machine is down, maintenance technicians can be
prepared when they arrive in the area.
Information Flow at the Machine

The maintenance organization at RNA had done a good job of developing ways
to improve uptime and quickly fix problems through their implementation. One
PP7374_C006.indd 83 5/3/08 10:01:58 AM

of the ideas that was implemented at RNA was the concept of standard trouble
shooting matrix, a laminated piece of paper on every machine in the RNA facil-
ity. It contains the five most common reasons a machine breaks down and the
countermeasures that are needed to get the machine back up and running. The
trouble-shooting matrix was a list of items to check. So, if a maintenance opera-
tor came to a machine that was down, he or she had a place to start. This list
was developed by past information and performance of the machine. This
also helped to deal with the problems of specialized maintenance technicians,
because now someone who had never worked with a machine at least had a
starting point.
This was not new information at RNA. This information was held in vari-
ous computers and with the individual maintenance technicians throughout the
facility. RNA just needed to take this information and make it flow by putting
it on a visual and using easy-to-understand documentation, as demonstrated in
Figure 6.1.
The next step that the RNA maintenance organization took to make informa-
tion flow at the machine was to add color to the gauges on the machines. In
the philosophy of continuous improvement, RNA saw some immediate improve-
ments that could be done to improve uptime in the area. The first was to begin
to implement visual controls in the area. The most significant quick improvement
was color coordinating all the gauges in the area. Two colors, red and green,
were used. Of course, if the gauge was in the green, everything was okay, and if
the gauge was in the red, action needed to be taken. (See Figure 6.2.)
This was not enough, however. RNA managers asked their production asso-
ciates to check all their gauges at the beginning of the shift startup and to be
sure they were in the acceptable area. They also insisted that, once per day, a
maintenance operator walk through the areas and check the gauges to be sure
that everything was acceptable. If not, action needed to be taken immediately to
make sure that there was not a future problem.
By utilizing the radio communication system, RNA has put an information
flow system in place so that the maintenance technicians can be routed to where
they need to be quickly. It has also taken some steps to make the information
flow at the machine. It has done this through the trouble-shooting matrix and
color-coded gauges.
Trouble-Shooting Matrix
Crimp Machine
Check Fix
1. Check valve on bottom left of machine. Remove obstruction from valve.
2. Check electrical connection. Plug in machine.
3. Make sure water flow is unobstructed. Remove obstruction.
4. Light curtain line up. Correctly line up light curtains.
5. Check lubricant in back of machine. Lubricate per instruction on machine.
Figure 6.1 Trouble-shooting matrix.
PP7374_C006.indd 84 5/3/08 10:01:58 AM

0 25 50 75 100
Figure 6.2 Color coded gauge.
Key Points
NNRecognize the difference between historical uptime data and actionable
uptime information.
NNWhen a machine breaks down, get the information from production associ-
ate to maintenance quickly and efficiently.
NNDevelop a method of communication so that the maintenance organization can
respond in less than two minutes.
NNMake information flow at the machine level so that a maintenance techni-
cian can check for the most common problems first.
PP7374_C006.indd 85 5/3/08 10:01:58 AM

PP7374_C006.indd 86 5/3/08 10:01:58 AM
Chapter 7
Information at the Process Level
After determining the most effective way to move information to and on the
production floor, RNA continued to look for ways to improve and connect its
information flow. Managers turned their focus to the individual processes on the
production floor. The management at RNA had to determine what information
each production associate needed and how to get that information to them.
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of standardized work,
a key to an effective, efficient production environment that consistently provides
excellent quality.

Exercise: What information do you think should be at the process level? Do you
currently have the right information at the process level?
87
PP7374_C007.indd 87 5/3/08 10:02:15 AM

RNA determined that the information at the process level was standardized
work. For employees to correctly perform work, they need to be provided with
correct standards to do the work. Standardized work is important to the orga-
nization because it is one of the pillars of a lean production system. By doing
the process the same way every time, the method used can reasonably be used
to improve quality. Quality problems often occur from some type of variability
in the process, such as using a method of assembly different from the one that
is normally used. By being able to count on the production associate to do the
work the same way every time, quality will almost certainly be improved.
A second point to be made in the discussion of standardized work is that
efficiency can be sustained by doing the process the same way every time. If
the standard work is set up to be completed every 55 seconds, it is reasonable
to expect that if the standardized work is done correctly that it should be done
at very close to the 55 seconds. This gives stability to the process, which is a
necessity to continuous improvement. RNA has come to believe in this statement:
“There can be no improvements unless there are standards to improve on.”
Finally, the standardized work links to the production schedule because it
provides management with the time that it takes to do the process. With this
information in hand, production supervisors can properly staff the area. Chapter
8 covers this concept in more detail, but it is important to note here that develop-
ing standards at the process level provides the solid foundation for an efficient
production system.

Exercise: What information do your production associates have at each worksta-
tion? What information should they have at each work station? Does management
need any information at the workstation?
PP7374_C007.indd 88 5/3/08 10:02:15 AM

Information at the Process Level n 89
RNA’s first assumption was that only the hourly operators required standard-
ized work. This assumption seemed to be a safe one, but after further investiga-
tion, the managers determined that others needed the information as well. RNA
came to the conclusion that after only a short period of time, production associ-
ates would be very good at standardized work because they were professionals
and they did the work every day. However, managers and engineers charged
with auditing the process (covered in detail in Chapter 9) for improvement
ideas would also need to see the standardized work. This meant that standard-
ized work was not only for the production associates, but was also important to
managers and engineers because standardized work is the basis for continuous
improvement.

Exercise: Do you have standardized work? Who is responsible for your standard-
ized work?
PP7374_C007.indd 89 5/3/08 10:02:15 AM

The first concern when answering the previous question is whether standard-
ized work exists. In many organizations beginning their lean journeys, and even
those that have been on the journey for a while, this information does not exist.
It must be developed.
Standardized work is different from conventional work instructions. Standard-
ized work is much more detailed. Both operator and machine times are indicated
at each step in the process, with the steps being listed in the order that they are
to be performed. RNA has found through its implementation process that it is not
the job of the production associate to write his or her own standardized work.
Instead, industrial engineers (IEs, also called manufacturing engineers or produc-
tion engineers) have done a good job of writing the standardized work, as long
as they have a great deal of input from the production associates.
With this thought in mind, RNA determined that the industrial engineers in
the facility would be responsible for the development and dissemination of the
standardized work. Other facilities may not have industrial engineers per se,
but they likely have manufacturing engineers or other types of engineers who
are well equipped to handle the job of developing and writing the standardized
work.
Developing Standardized Work

Exercise: Is there one best method for putting your product together? If yes, where
is the information on that method kept? Is it easily accessible for the operator and
management? If no, describe how you can achieve exceptional quality with vari-
ability in the process.
PP7374_C007.indd 90 5/3/08 10:02:15 AM

Now that RNA has answered the three questions to get started, they can focus
on the details of developing standardized work—determining the one best method
for putting a product together, and then working on improving that method.
For example, suppose a production associate on first shift is doing the job
one way and the production associate on second shift is doing the job a different
way. Now there is variation in the process. For RNA, as with almost every other
manufacturing facility, variation in the process is a bad thing. It opens the door
for quality problems to occur.
However, just because a facility gets to the point that it has standardized work,
it doesn’t mean it should stop improving the processes. For example, if the pro-
duction associate on first shift is correctly performing standardized work and the
person on second shift has found a “better method,” that better method should
become the new standard. With these ideas in mind, RNA came to the conclusion
that it needed standardized work at every work station, along with a robust system
of auditing and communication to be sure that the standardized work was being
followed and that improvement opportunities were quickly identified and com-
municated to industrial engineers (IEs). It would then be an IE’s task to update the
standardized work.
All this sounded good, but RNA quickly came to the realization that it did not
have the standardized work at the process level and needed to develop it. RNA
charged the IEs to develop the standardized work. Although developing stan-
dardized work is different from the time studies and work instructions they had
created in the past, the management at RNA believed that the IEs could success-
fully transfer their skills into the area of developing standardized work.
After being charged with this important task, the IEs had to determine the
best way to develop standardized work. The production associates on the floor
PP7374_C007.indd 91 5/3/08 10:02:15 AM

Industrial Engineering
Production Lean
Coordinator
Figure 7.1 Triangle of involvement for standardized work development.
were prepared to see IEs on the production floor with clipboards and stop
watches because of the training that they received on continuous flow. The
training was part of RNA’s effort to develop a lean workforce. Yet, even though
production associates were prepared for IEs to spend time out to the floor, the
IEs coordinated this effort so that no one was surprised when the IEs came to
each area. Remember: standardized work needs to be developed for each prod-
uct family and IEs need to spend time observing and speaking with production
associates and supervisors.
As with many of their implementation initiatives, RNA created a triangle of
involvement for developing standardized work (see Figure 7.1). This triangle
consisted of IEs (because they were the ones who were responsible for develop-
ing the standard work), Production (which needed to be informed when the IEs
were coming to the floor to develop standardized work), and the lean coordinator
(who gets constant feedback and questions as he or she walks the production
floor, making it good idea for him or her to be informed about—even if not
directly involved in—every facet of the lean implementation).
Developing standardized work is a detailed and time-consuming task. RNA
learned this with its first attempt at developing standardized work. The wheel
assembly process targeted for standardized work (chosen because it was a
simple process with which to start) had seven separate parts that were assembled
so that the wheels would operate properly. It was a good idea to begin a new
implementation initiative on a small scale so that everyone could learn, but in
this case, even the small scale was pretty in depth. The IEs at RNA discovered
that developing standardized work was more detailed and difficult than they had
originally thought.
The first step they took was to get all the information that they could on each
of the five part numbers. This was an easy task because the information was
already gathered in the Plan for Every Part8. After they had the information on
8 The Plan For Every Part is a detailed database containing information on every part in the manufacturing facil-
ity. See Harris, R., et al. (2003).
PP7374_C007.indd 92 5/3/08 10:02:15 AM

Task # Work Element

1 Get wheel and washer and hold washer onto wheel.
2 Get another washer and hold it on the other side of the wheel.
3 Get wheel shaft and place it through the washers and wheel.
4 Get end cap and place on shaft outside of wheel.
5 Get metal holder and place down shaft on other side of the wheel.
6 Get tire and place on wheel.
Figure 7.2 List of work elements.
the parts and had coordinated with Production so that associates knew the IE
was coming into the area, the IE made his or her way to the area.
The IE was positioned so that he or she could watch the hand motions of the
production associate doing wheel assembly. The IE watched as the operator took
the wheel and a washer, placed the washer on one side of the wheel, turned it
over, and placed a washer on the other side of the wheel. The next step was to
take the wheel shaft and place it through the wheel and washers. After that, an
end cap was placed on the shaft to keep the wheel from falling off. The next
step was to place a metal piece down the wheel shaft to hold the washer in place
and keep the wheel from moving too much from side to side. Finally, the tire
was placed on the wheel, and the process was complete. (See Figure 7.2.)
The IE gathered this information and wrote it down. But he or she had learned
from past implementation efforts that input from the production associate was
very valuable. The IE showed the information to the production associate and
asked whether the information was correct. The production associate said that all
the information was correct, but it was not complete. A key step was missing, one
that the production associate knew about, but the IE had not noticed.
This key step was the way that the end cap was put on. It had to be put on
at a 45-degree angle, and then rotated to 90 degrees to ensure that the cap was
firmly in place. The production associates learned this through trial and error.
A few months earlier, the cell was having quality problems, with the end cap
popping off. The problem was traced back to the production associate, who was
putting the end cap straight on. It looked fine, but did not operate properly. The
input from the production associate helped the IE developing the standardized
work understand the importance of communication with the production associ-
ate as well as the key steps in the process.
The IE now needed to time each step in the process. The same methodol-
ogy was used as that which was used to get the work motions at the process.
The IE timed each step in the process and, with input from the production
associate, felt good about the standard steps and times to complete the process.
Realizing that there can be no improvements without standards to improve on,
the IE set the standard for this process, hoping it could quickly be improved.
The IE now had to determine the best way to get the standard work on the
production floor.
PP7374_C007.indd 93 5/3/08 10:02:16 AM

The Best Method for Getting Standardized

Work to the Production Floor
RNA managers came to the conclusion that the best way to get the standardized
work information to the floor was to develop standardized work charts. The IEs
were then charged with developing a standardized work chart throughout the
facility. It was important for the RNA facility to have a form that everyone could
understand—in other words, if you understood one standardized work chart
and you walked into any area within the facility, you could understand any of
the standardized worksheets in that area. It doesn’t make much sense to have
different standardized work charts scattered throughout the facility, because if
it was important enough to standardized the individual production processes, it
should be important to standardize the processes of monitoring and improving
the processes throughout the facility. By doing this, anyone who wanted to audit
an area would be able to go to the area, audit a process, and determine whether
standardized work was being followed and whether there were any continuous
improvement opportunities. Figure 7.3 shows an example of the standardized
work chart template RNA managers developed.
The IEs took this template and filled in the wheel assembly steps discussed
in the preceding section, highlighting the key points and completing the illustra-
tion to give a visual representation of how to correctly assemble the end cap (see
Figure 7.4).
Placement of Standardized Work

Now that the RNA IEs had completed their first standardized work chart, they
had to determine the placement of the chart. The conversations concerning this
placement were lengthy because RNA had not used standardized work charts
before. Some thought that they should be held in the IE offices, but that idea
was quickly abandoned because everyone realized that the information on the
standardized work charts was for the production associate and management, not
for the IEs.
The next idea for the placement of the standardized work chart was in a binder
at the production area. A production area at the RNA facility has anywhere from
four to eight production processes, so when the chart was needed, the operators
and management would have to go and get the chart from the binder. This was
wasteful time that could be better used to add value to the product or take steps to
improve the process.
Finally the management at RNA started to ask the question, “Who is the
customer?” In this case, the customer is the production associate and produc-
tion management. With this thought in mind, it was decided that the process
standardized worksheets would be posted in a place at the process where they
could easily be seen by the production associate and production management. In
PP7374_C007.indd 94 5/3/08 10:02:16 AM

Figure 7.3 Standardized work template.
PP7374_C007.indd 95 5/3/08 10:02:18 AM

PP7374_C007.indd 96
Area Cell 11 Process Name: Station of Station C
Work Static BA Area Cell 3
(Process) Wheel Assembly Chart Developer Jimmy Dale
Date 1/8/2008 Safety
Element Time
Task # Work Elements Manual Mach Time
Work
Get wheel and washer and hold
1 10
washer onto wheel
Get another washer and hold it on Key Step 4
2 5
the other side of the wheel
Get wheel shaft and place it through
3 5
the washers and wheel
Get end cap and place on shaft
4 20
outside of wheel
Beget metal holder and place down
5 5
shaft on other side of the wheel
6 Get tire and place on wheel 15
Start at the bottom of the

wheel shaft with the end cap.
Then rotate the end cap
upwards until you hear it
snap into place.
Key Quality Process
Takt Quality Home Std In-Proc Stock

Time Check Position Symbol Number
60
Totals in seconds: Q H
Figure 7.4 RNA completed standardized work sheet.
5/3/08 10:02:18 AM
Figure 7.5 Placement of standardized work.
this way, the charts could be used to help manage the facility through audits and
continuous improvement (see Figure 7.5).
Combining Standard Processes to Develop a Standard Area

Now that the production area has valuable information at the process level,
including the standard process and standard times to complete them, RNA
wanted to take steps to combine those processes so that it could get the most out
of this information. It had to determine how to do this.
Many of the manufacturing areas in the production sections at RNA had been
moved into production cells. For example, the wheel assembly process was in
a manufacturing cell with four other production processes. RNA began to think
about how it could put all of this information in one place so that it could
effectively make staffing decisions based on customer demand information it was
receiving from the production control department.
The company decided to develop standardized work charts at the area or team
level. These charts would show the expected output and walk patterns in the
manufacturing cell. For example, Figures 7.6 through 7.10 shows that if this cell is
run with one operator, the output can be expected to produce one back middle
frame every five minutes. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if the cell were
run with five people, the output would be expected to be one every minute.
Armed with this information (which originated at the process level of stan-
dardized work), management could make staffing decisions based on customer
demand and have a reasonable expectation of output and productivity (see
Figure 7.11). RNA managers realized that they probably would never want to run
with five associates in the cell, but they did have that option if customer demand
dictated that they needed to, or if they needed to make an emergency shipment.
RNA called this the “ability to sprint.”
PP7374_C007.indd 97 5/3/08 10:02:19 AM

RNA Work Area Standardized Work

Cell 11
Station Station
A B
Station
D
Station Station
G F
1 Operator process time = 300 seconds

300 Seconds per piece or 12 pieces per hour
Figure 7.6 Area standardized work for one person.

Cell 11
Station Station
A B
Station
D
Station Station
G F
2 Operators process time = 150 seconds

Figure 7.7 Area standardized work for two people.
Figure 7.8 Area standardized work for three people.
PP7374_C007.indd 98 5/3/08 10:02:20 AM

Figure 7.9 Area standardized work for four people.
How Often Should Standardized Work Be Revised?

There is really no need to change the standardized work unless there is a way
to make it better. Ideas for the improvement of standardized work can come from
anywhere, but usually begin with production associates, IEs, or managers who
audit the process on a regular basis. When the standardized work is set, it then
becomes primarily the responsibility of the production associates to continually
improve the standard work. The production associates run the processes
everyday, so they have the best opportunity to see ways to improve them.
Engineers and managers who audit on a regular basis (see Chapter 9) also have
an opportunity improve the process when they are auditing because they are

Cell 11
Station Station
A B
Station
D
Station Station
G F
5 Operators process time = 60 seconds

Figure 7.10 Area standardized work for five people.
PP7374_C007.indd 99 5/3/08 10:02:21 AM

Production Area Staffing Chart

• 1 operator = 300 seconds (12 pcs/hour)
• 2 operators = 150 seconds (24 pcs/hour)
Figure 7.11 Area staffing chart.
there looking for ways to improve; however at RNA, as in most facilities, the
ideas for improvement originate with production associates most of the time.
Standardized Work as a Foundation to Make Information Flow

Now that RNA has standardized work at the process and area levels, managers
have access to information that will certainly help them run the facility. They
have documented standards on how to produce the product. They have the
times required to perform the standard work at each process. By utilizing pro-
cess standardized work charts, they were able to develop area standardized work
charts so that the output of the area could be planned and manpower move-
ments could be made to react to customer demand. This is the information link
from Production Control to the process level. Production Control informs Pro-
duction of the requirements, and now Production can make quick and efficient
manpower decisions as to the most productive and timely way to meet those
requirements.
Key Points
NNStandardized work at the process level is the basis for process improvement.
NNStandardized work charts should be standard throughout the facility.
NNPlacement of the standardized work charts is important.
NNCombining standardized work at the process level gives Production the
information it needs to make productive and timely manpower decisions.
NNManpower decisions are based on the demand from Production Control,
thus effectively linking Production Control with Production.
PP7374_C007.indd 100 5/3/08 10:02:21 AM

Chapter 8
Information at the Team Level
The majority of employees at RNA wanted to excel at their jobs and meet expec-
tations. However, in the past, it would have been possible for production associ-
ates to work for years without knowing whether they were meeting expectations.
RNA managers knew that for production associates to efficiently and consistently
meet expectations, they needed more than just standardized work—they needed
to know the expectations. RNA decided to design a way to be sure that the
expectations were correctly and easily presented to the production associates.
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of providing produc-
tion expectations to the production floor in an efficient manner.

Exercise: What information do you think is important for production associates to
know? How is information currently provided to the production associates? What
about management—what information does it need?
101
PP7374_C008.indd 101 5/3/08 10:02:37 AM

There are two flows of information at the team level. The first piece of infor-
mation that is critical to developing a stable and efficient production system is the
expectations. Providing expectations is first, because if there are none, expecta-
tions will never be reached.
The second type of information flow deals with information going from the
production area to management. Many times, when people talk about infor-
mation flow, they see it as a one-way street, meaning that someone gives the
expectations to the production associates, and then the flow of information is
complete. If that is true, we are saying that we are not interested in any informa-
tion that the production associates have concerning the process. Facilities imple-
menting lean manufacturing normally come to the realization that the production
associates hold a great deal of information that can be helpful to the improve-
ment (as well as everyday running) of the process. The second flow of informa-
tion, therefore, is information on how the area is running. What problems did the
production associates encounter the last hour? What problems are the produc-
tion associates currently having? Were expectations met last hour? Why were the
expectations not met? How is the quality in the area? Is the area producing what
it should be producing?

Exercise: What percentage of your workforce comes to work every day and wants
to do a good job (meet expectations)? Are clearly defined expectations provided to
the production associates? Do you know whether you are meeting expectations?
PP7374_C008.indd 102 5/3/08 10:02:37 AM

Information at the Team Level n 103
It is unreasonable to require production associates to meet expectations if

they do not have clearly defined expectations. Therefore, production associates
require expectations. RNA felt strongly that 98% of its workforce wanted to meet
expectations, so managers set out to provide those expectations to the produc-
tion associates.
Everyone in a manufacturing facility should have clearly defined expectations
as to what they are supposed to achieve. Without clear expectations, energy is
wasted on tasks that are outside the true expectations. RNA managers knew they
could not tackle the whole facility, both management and production associates,
by giving everyone clear expectations immediately. Instead, they had to start
somewhere, and because value is added on the production floor by the produc-
tion associates, they determined that would be a good place to begin.
Expectations are a vital piece of information flow that has really been lacking
at RNA, as well as many other manufacturing facilities in the past. RNA decided
to make this a priority because it has found that simply by posting expectations
in various areas, production was impacted in a positive way. This goes to show
that when people understand the expectations, they tend to strive to meet them.
Production management also requires information on the team performance
so that it can make decisions. The management team at RNA needs information
on quality, uptime, safety, and whether an area is making what it needs to make
when it needs to make it.

Exercise: Who is responsible for setting the expectations in your facility? Who
should set the expectations for the facility? Are there different levels of expectations?
PP7374_C008.indd 103 5/3/08 10:02:37 AM

The responsibility for setting expectations resides with the production control
department within a lean manufacturing organization. Taking into account that
the production control department must work closely with Production and the
IEs to understand the capabilities of the production floor, the expectations on the
production floor are based on the customer demand rate or takt time.
Expectations are set by the production control department in the form of a
production schedule. Therefore, the production supervisors make staffing deci-
sions based on the area standardized work charts to make the schedule.
A Good Method for Getting the

Expectations to the Floor: The PSB
Exercise: What do you think is the best way to get information to the production
floor in your facility? How do you monitor information?
PP7374_C008.indd 104 5/3/08 10:02:37 AM

The most popular way RNA has found to get the expectations out to the
production floor is through the utilization of a production status board (PSB).
RNA has found that to be the most efficient tool on the production floor to increase
and improve information flow. The PSB is a central place where expectations can
be provided to the production associates.
Side One of the PSB

The first side of PSB, called the production side, is set up to provide the current
information flow to the team and management. Figure 8.1 shows the various
parts of this side of the PSB. This side of the PSB achieves three significant flow
points within information flow.
Expectations Per Hour

The first bit of information the PSB provides to the production associate is in the
form of expectations by the hour. This eliminates any guesswork by production
associates as to production goals within their work day. Furthermore, it provides
detailed expectations by the hour of what is expected out of the production area.
This allows the operators to know whether they have met expectations for the
hour. At RNA, this was a new concept, as operators in the past had not known
what the expectations were and oftentimes left work at the end of the day not
knowing whether the area had a good day or not. Taking the customer demand
PP7374_C008.indd 105 5/3/08 10:02:37 AM

Team: Team Leader: Group Leader:

Production Area
Time Plan Actual Comments Supervisor Manager
7:00–8:00
8:00–9:00
Actual Comments
9:15–10:00 output by production
10:00–11:00 associates
Planned
output
11:30–12:00
12:00–1:15
1:30–2:30
2:30–3:30
Total
Figure 8.1 Production status board template.
and the team standardized work charts described in Chapter 7, the expectations
were placed on the PSB (see Figure 8.2).
Supervisor Data
A second area on the PSB provides a way to flow information in the opposite
direction—from production associate to supervisor. At first, the managers did not
understand the significance of flowing information from the production associate
to the supervisor, but after further investigation, they realized that the first people
to notice a problem on the production floor would be the production associates.
RNA had to develop a way for those production associates to easily and quickly
convey those problems to their supervisors so that they could be fixed. The PSB
Team: 11A Team Leader: Andrew Group Leader: Christopher

Group Area
Time Plan Actual Comments Leader Manager
7:00–8:00 60
8:00–9:00 60
9:15–10:00 45
10:00–11:00 60
11:30–12:00 30
12:00–1:15 75
1:30–2:30 60
2:30–3:30 60
Total 390
Figure 8.2 PSB plan included.
PP7374_C008.indd 106 5/3/08 10:02:38 AM

Team: 11A Team Leader: Andrew Group Leader: Christopher

Group Area
7:00–8:00 60 60
8:00–9:00 60 45 Crimp Machine Down
9:15–10:00 45 45
10:00–11:00 60 60
11:30–12:00 30 30
2:30–3:30 60 60
Total 450 370
Figure 8.3 PSB with comments.
was a good tool to make information flow from management to production asso-
ciates as well as to provide a method to make information flow from the produc-
tion associate to the supervisor. The comments section was added to the PSB
(see Figure 8.3) so that the production associates could provide information on
current or possible future problems.
By utilizing this tool, it is evident that the crimp machine is causing substan-
tial problems within the team. The problem, though now identified, still does not
have an owner who has the responsibility of addressing the problem. There must
be someone who periodically checks the PSB to see whether the production
associates have anything that they need taken care of. The board can become
obsolete if no one addresses the information given by the production associates.
The production associates will likely not continue to utilize the board if they do
not think their input is seen as valuable to the organization.
Management Time Frame

This leads to the third point on the PSB: If used to its fullest extent, it decreases
the management time frame of production supervisors. By management time
frame, we mean the amount of time it takes to determine whether there is a
problem so that action can be taken to fix the problem. The normal management
time frame among production supervisors varies from one shift to one week. This
means that at the end of the shift or week, the production supervisor counts the
total product, and then counts the product with no quality problems and deter-
mines whether it has been a good shift or week. By utilizing PSBs, that time frame
changes to about an hour—the PSB is a place where progress toward the daily
goal is updated every hour and problems are posted by production associates
every hour. This means that the supervisor can change over, fix the machine, or
make other decisions that help the team meet expectations for the day. This is a
significant improvement over a management time frame of one shift or one week.
PP7374_C008.indd 107 5/3/08 10:02:38 AM

Team: 11A Team Leader: Andrew Group Leader: Matthews

Group Area
7:00–8:00 60 60 RM
8:00–9:00 60 45 Crimp Machine Down RM AD
9:15–10:00 45 45 RM
10:00–11:00 60 60 RM
11:30–12:00 30 30 RM AD
12:00–1:15 75 40 Crimp Machine Down RM
1:30–2:30 60 30 Crimp Machine Down RM AD
2:30–3:30 60 60 RM
Total 450 370 RM
Figure 8.4 Complete PSB.
However, in the past RNA production supervisors were busy and did not
always make it to the manufacturing cell every hour. RNA managers thought it was
so important that the supervisor visit the area every hour to check the progress
(which amounted to checking the PSB) that they made it mandatory for the super-
visor to initial the PSB every hour to indicate that he or she had visited it. They
also made it mandatory to have the supervisor’s manager check the PSB twice a
shift to ensure production was running, and that the supervisor was utilizing the
production status board. (See Figure 8.4.)
Side Two of the PSB

The production status board originates with the purpose of making informa-
tion flow with the production side, but is further used to hold more information.
Questions such as, “How is the safety in this area?” “How good is the quality in
this area?” “Does this area meet its schedule?” “How is the uptime in the area?”
These are all questions that managers ask. This is important information that in
the past has been mishandled. It has either been buried in some report at RNA
or just combined in the overall plant performance. Through their lean initiatives
RNA has come to realize that if you do not or cannot see a problem, you cannot
fix the problem. The managers at RNA want to see areas for improvement at the
team level that make the most sense to their facility.
At the RNA facility, the team or area level is a good place to gather informa-
tion about safety, quality, scheduling, and uptime. With this information, they
can see whether there are issues that need to be addressed at these levels. So
the management at RNA developed the second side of the PSB, called the history
side. This section has four charts that address the four big issues at the team or
area level: safety, quality, making schedule, and uptime.
PP7374_C008.indd 108 5/3/08 10:02:39 AM

Safety Chart
Safety was the first chart because RNA had made big strides in safety at its facility.
RNA’s lost work day rate had gone from 3.4 to 0.44 since beginning the lean
journey. One injury is too many, so managers thought it necessary to put this
document first on the PSB. And it was not enough that they wanted to track
safety, they had to determine how to track safety.
Instead of tracking lost work days, which would have hidden the injuries that
did not lead to lost work time, any safety issue (injury or near-miss), no matter
how minor was charted on the board. Taking this matter one step further, an A3
form had to be completed on the injury. These forms were kept in a binder under
the history side of the PSB for one year.
Quality Chart
Quality was the second chart of the history side of the PSB. Management’s first
thought was to do PPM or parts per million. That sounded good, but did not
really give them the information they wanted. The management was looking for
something that was easier to evaluate with a quick look at the PSB. They chose
to use FTQ or first time quality.
Though this seems relatively straightforward, that is not necessarily the case.
RNA went on to define FTQ as a product that goes through the area from begin-
ning to end without a defect. This did not include reworked parts. So, if a part
went to another area to be reworked or was reworked in the area, that part
counted against the FTQ number.
Making Schedule (Compliance to Kanban) Chart

The term making schedule caused some semantic problems in the RNA facility
because there could only be one schedule per value stream, but there could be
up to eight different teams or areas in a value stream. Therefore, RNA changed
the terminology to compliance to kanban. They did this because all the schedul-
ing information, whether it be a schedule from Production Control or a kanban
from a downstream process, would be moved in the form of a kanban card.
As far as Production was concerned, this was one of the most important
measures. In the past, RNA had measured production on how many products it
had produced, not on whether it had produced the right products. In a lean sys-
tem, it is not how many products you produce, it is whether you are producing
the right quantity in the right mix of part numbers. This chart will provide that
information.
The production side of the PSB tells only the quantity that is expected and
produced; it does not deal with the mix. The reason for this that RNA wanted the
production associates to focus on production not a schedule. RNA felt it was the
production control department’s responsibility to get the kanban to production
PP7374_C008.indd 109 5/3/08 10:02:39 AM

and that it was Production’s responsibility to be flexible enough to make what

the kanban indicated.
Compliance to kanban is simply whether an area made what it was supposed to
make, when it was supposed to make it. For example, in its simplest form: Area 11
received 10 kanbans at the end of shift yesterday that needed to be produced for
today. Did it make all 10? If it did, the area was 100% compliant to kanban. If it made
only eight, then they were 80% compliant to kanban and so on. This lets everyone
know whether an area is making what it needs to make when it needs to make it.
Uptime Tracking
RNA defined uptime as simply, “the machines were available to run.” This means
that the machine is capable of running, but does not include lost time, material
shortages, returning late from break. All of that information will be collected on
the production side of PSB. This chart’s purpose is to identify the current history
of the uptime in the area. Figure 8.5 shows the history side of the PSB.
There was some disagreement as to how long the history sheets should be
covered and updated. Should the charts be updated daily, weekly, or monthly?
RNA decided that as they were just implementing the PSBs, they wanted to
make sure that they were being used so that they could see the benefits and
work out any problems that they found. Therefore, they decided to update each
chart daily and leave them up for one month. At the end of each month, the
information on the charts was copied into pages in the binder below the history
side of the PSB.
January
Safety
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Quality
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Compliance
to Kanban
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Uptime
1 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 8.5 History side of PSB.
PP7374_C008.indd 110 5/3/08 10:02:39 AM

This binder also holds all the A3 forms completed to address the various prob-
lems that show up on the history side of the PSB. Each problem or abnormality
that shows on any chart on the history side of the PSB should have a completed
A3 form associated with it in the binder.
The Continuous Improvement Side of the PSB

The third and final side of the PSB is the continuous improvement (CI) side of
the PSB. This side of the board holds the various audits (see Chapter 9) and
improvement ideas that were performed or ongoing in the area. Note: Audits
are not performed to catch someone doing something wrong. They serve two
purposes in the production area. The first is to see whether what has been
implemented is being followed and working. The second is to identify areas of
improvement.
The CI side of the PSB is set up to post these audits and the action plans that
either originate from these audits or that come from other places such as the pro-
duction associate. The top of the board holds three audits. The first is a standard-
ized work audit, the second is a 6S audit, and the third is the material delivery
system audit. Each of these audits is covered in detail in Chapter 9.
Below the audits, which are posted for everyone to see, there is a space for
the detailed implementation plan of further lean systems or projects focused on
continuous improvements (see Figure 8.6). RNA knew that it wanted areas to be
striving for perfection, and this section gave managers a way to make sure each
area was taking steps to continually improve.
What Are the Physical Dimensions of the PSB?

When thinking about the physical dimensions of the PSB, it is important to
remember who the customers are. The first customers are the production
associates, who need to be able to see the expectations and be able to provide
information back to management quickly and easily. The second customer is
management, which also has to be able to see and understand the information
quickly and easily.
Understanding the customer needs, RNA ruled out the use of standard 8½ × 11
pieces of paper because they were too small to see, change, and quickly under-
stand. RNA wanted the PSB to be big enough for everyone to see in the area, but
not so big that it would not fit in the area.
The next item they had to decide on was what the board was made of—would
it be paper or white board? RNA decided to use the flip charts to get started, but
they knew that was not what they wanted to do in the future. Paper would be
expensive and wasteful over time. Ultimately, RNA decided to use dry-erase white
boards. These boards were the same dimensions as the flip charts, but could be
PP7374_C008.indd 111 5/3/08 10:02:39 AM

PP7374_C008.indd 112
Continuous Improvement 6S Audit
Material Audit
*If no is checked on any item, the area
Standardized Work Audit automatically receives a 1 for that “S”
**For each No, a corrective action needs
Standardized Work Audit Form Date: to be developed and completed
Area: ***Scores are 1-5 for each “S”, area score is Corrective
Auditors: Supermarket Area Yes No
Process the total of the 6 “S” scores*** Action
Sort
Date Does everything in the area, belong in the area? Yes No Score for “S” Is route lay-out posted?
Is the red tag area well identified? Are route times posted?
Work Station
Is there evidence that the red tag area is being Evidence they are being followed?
Is the standardized work chart posted?
utilized? Organized and clean?
Is the standardized work up to date?
Straighten Parts in correct place?
Is standardized work being followed?
Does every item in the area have a place? Evidence of FIFO?
Are pull signals being handled properly? Is every place for an item identified? Drop box for pull cards being used?
(Associate pulls signal at right time) Are visual controls utilized to identify
Delivery status board being utilized?
Are parts presentation devices organized? each place (tape, paint, etc.)?
Are parts presentation devices used correctly? Is the tape on the floor in good shape?
Route
Are production status boards utilized? Shine
Is the area clean? Is copy of route lay-out on tugger?
Are targets listed? Is there an issues log on tugger?
Are the machines in the area clean?
Are targets up to date? Is route lay-out document up to date and numbered to know latest data in use?
Is the floor swept?
Evidence that process is being audited regularly? Are all route stops properly identified?
Standardize
Is the area following the facility standards? Are all material drop points properly identified?
(Place a X where there is a problem) Comments and Corrective Actions Are pull signals, returnables and dunnage in proper place available for pick-up?
Sustain
Auditing Team Are past audits posted in the area? Are route aisles being kept clean to allow quick, safe transport of material?
Is there evidence that the audits are being Does operator (tugger) have standardized work instructions?
used to improve? Are they being followed?
Safety Is all material in proper presentation device? (no material on floor, etc.)
Does the area appear to be free of obvious safety Is min/max level clearly identified on presentation device and being followed?
hazards? Are safety meetings being conducted Are tugger operator’s break and lunch times coordinated with depts. they service?
**Auditors, please sign and date on back on a regular basis? Is there evidence that open Are latest route time/manpower utilization analysis available for review?
safety issues are being addressed? Area Score
Ongoing Improvement Projects

Figure 8.6 Continuous improvement side of PSB.
5/3/08 10:02:40 AM
Figure 8.7 Production status board.
reused and changed easily. The final production status board was configured like
Figure 8.7, with each of the three sides discussed in the preceding sections.
Key Points
NNIdentify expectations for all employees.
NNDevelop a system so the supervisor checks the PSB every hour.
NNThe PSB is the central tool for information flow at the team (area) level.
NNUse all three sides of the PSB to manage and improve the area.
NNHave a separate PSB for each area or team in the value stream.
PP7374_C008.indd 113 5/3/08 10:02:40 AM

PP7374_C008.indd 114 5/3/08 10:02:40 AM
Chapter 9
Auditing
Auditing may be one of the least understood concepts in a lean implementation.

There seems to be two main misconceptions. The first is that audits are time-
consuming and difficult to complete. The second is that they are a “gotcha” tool,
meaning that they are in place to catch someone doing something wrong.
Neither of these is correct.
Audits have two purposes. The first is to make sure that processes and sys-
tems that have been implemented are working. The second purpose is to provide
an information flow vessel for continuous improvement ideas, always looking for
the next level of improvement. This chapter discusses the auditing process.
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of providing manage-
ment with information on how the implementation is going.
Exercise: What information do you have in your facility that tells you how things
are running? What information do you have in your facility that lets everyone
know that work standards are being followed?
115
PP7374_C009.indd 115 5/3/08 10:02:56 AM

A facility has to have information on whether work standards are being fol-
lowed. If a facility does not know whether the standards are being followed, what
good are the standards?

Exercise: Does anyone in your facility know that work standards are being
followed? Who needs to know that work standards are being followed?
The answer to this question is “management.” Management needs to know

whether work standards in the facility are being followed. If they know that
PP7374_C009.indd 116 5/3/08 10:02:56 AM

Auditing n 117
work standards are being followed, they can rest assured that their omission is
not causing variability in the production process that can lead to quality prob-
lems. Equally, if they know that work standards are not being followed, they
can take action to either change the standards or provide support in helping the
associates understand that work standards need to be followed.
This information also lets management know whether what they have
implemented is working. If something is not working the way it was intended,
management needs to make a change. This information will also lead to
improvement opportunities throughout the process.
Management, armed with this information, will be better equipped to effec-
tively manage the facility. It can make informed decisions based on real informa-
tion rather than what it thinks is happening with work standards.

Exercise: Who has information in your facility on whether work standards are being
followed? Where is this information kept? Can anyone see it anytime they want?
Information about whether work standards are being followed does not cur-
rently exist in a facility that is not consistently conducting audits. The only way
to get that information is to go to the floor and get the information through
audits. The audits can then be posted for everyone to see on the PSB.
PP7374_C009.indd 117 5/3/08 10:02:56 AM

Developing an Audit
RNA knew that it needed to develop audits that would be successful. However,
before developing an audit, RNA had to decide what they were going to audit.
Many organizations going down the lean path benefit from using three differ-
ent audits when beginning their auditing process: a workplace organization (6S)
audit; a standardized work audit; and a material route and market audit.
Before you can audit, you have to have something to audit. For example, if an
organization does not have standardized work, it cannot be audited. If a facility
does not have a method of workplace organization, it cannot be audited. Finally,
if there is no material route, there cannot be a material route audit. The point is
that when something is implemented, it must then be audited to ensure that the
implementation is continuing to work. A bad process should not be audited.
RNA currently has all these various attributes of lean production implemented
to some degree, so it can begin to develop its audits. The first audit that is nor-
mally developed is the workplace organization audit because it is not very intru-
sive. Auditing workplace organization in essence is just saying, “Is the work area
clean and organized following the 6S method?” This has proven to be a good
audit to begin to get the associates and supervisors involved in the auditing pro-
cess. It helps get people used to the thought of seeing managers auditing process.
RNA utilizes a strategic plan to train its workforce (Harris and Harris, 2007).
Managers have added a class on auditing so that hourly associates understand
the two purposes of the audit, know who is auditing, and understand where they
can find the audits. This is an important point, because it is not a good idea to
have management on the floor auditing without letting the workforce know what
is going on. This often leads to anxiety, frustration, and even anger.
6S Audit
When RNA began to develop the audit, it had to determine what it wanted to be
audited. Managers were sure that, at the very least, they wanted to audit each of
the S’s in the 6S process. They also considered how long the audit would be. They
wanted to make the audit quick and efficient. RNA made it a point when develop-
ing audits that the audit itself should take 10 minutes or less. They continued to
develop the workplace organization audit with this in mind. Finally, they wanted
the audit to have a score, so that an area could quickly know how it had done.
Figure 9.1 shows the audit form RNA developed for workplace organization.
Standardized Work Audit

The next audit RNA wanted to develop was the standardized work audit. This audit
was a little more intrusive because managers were watching an operator perform a
job. They began with a rule at the top of the audit that stated that the auditor had
to introduce him- or herself and explain why the auditor was there. It was not a big
PP7374_C009.indd 118 5/3/08 10:02:57 AM

Auditing n 119
Date: *If no is checked on any item, the area automatically recieves a 1 for that “S”
Area: **For each No, a corrective action needs to be developed and completed
Auditors: ***Scores are 1-5 for each “S”, Area Score is the total of the 6 “S” scores***
Sort Yes No Score for “S”

Does everything in the area, belong in the area?
Is the red tag area well identified?
Is there evidence that the red tag area is being utilized?
Straighten
Does every item in the area have a place?
Is every place for an item identified?
Are visual controls utilized to identify each place (tape, paint, etc.)?
Is the tape on the floor in good shape?
Shine
Is the area clean?
Are the machines in the area clean?
Is the floor swept?
Standardize
Is the area following the facility standards?
Sustain
Are past audits posted in the area?
Is there evidence that the audits are being used to improve?
Safety
Does the area appear to be free of obvious safety hazards?
Are safety meetings being conducted on a regular basis?
Is there evidence that open safety issues are being addressed?
Area Score
Figure 9.1 Workplace organization audit form.
item, but it was important that the associates on the production floor did not feel
as though they were being ambushed. A simple sentence was all that was needed,
like, “Hello, my name is Franklin Hunt and I am here to audit this process.”
RNA managers wanted to be sure that standardized work was being followed,
and they also wanted to know whether there were any improvement ideas. They
also considered how long they wanted the audit to take. The goal was 10 min-
utes. Finally, there was no score needed on this audit, because either the stan-
dardized work was being followed or it was not. If it was not, corrective actions
(in the form of an A3) detailing why the standard was not being followed and
the plan to rectify the situation had to be developed. It could be that the stan-
dard method was improved. That is fine, but the new method would need to
become the new standard. Figure 9.2 shows the standardized work audit form
developed by RNA.
Timed Delivery Route and Market Audit

The final audit RNA wanted to start with was the material delivery route and
market audit. The audit for the material delivery route itself was different from the
other audits because it could not happen in only 10 minutes. The route itself runs
PP7374_C009.indd 119 5/3/08 10:02:57 AM

Auditors be sure to introduce yourselves and inform production associates that you are auditing their process.
RNA Standardized Work Audit Form
Process
Date
Work Station
Is the standardized work chart posted?
Is the standardized work up-to-date?
Is standardized work being followed?
Are pull signals being handled properly?
(Associate pulls signal at right time)
Are parts presentation devices organized?
Are parts presentation devices used correctly?
Are production status boards utilized?
Are targets listed?
Are targets up to date?
Evidence that process is being audited regulary?
Comments and Corrective Actions
(Place a X where there is a problem)
Auditing Team
Industrial Engineer
Supervisor Production
Associate
**Auditors, please sign and date on back
Figure 9.2 Standardized work audit form.
every hour and takes about 57 minutes. Therefore, the audit has to take at least
that long. However, the rest of the audit was the same as the other two. Figure 9.3
is the audit form that RNA developed for the timed material delivery route.
Having the Audit Form Is Not Enough

RNA knew that just having an audit form was not enough to make informa-
tion flow. It needed a comprehensive system for auditing processes. It decided
to develop a system for each audit. For each audit, RNA had to determine three
items: who was going to do the auditing; when the audit was going to be com-
pleted; and how often the audit was going to be completed. The following three
methods were developed for each of RNA’s audits.
Conducting the 6S Audit

For the 6S audit, RNA decided that it should be a team of the supervisor, a pro-
duction associate, and an industrial engineer (IE), completing the audit once per
week, at the same time every week. The reason for the composition of this group
of auditors was fairly simple: (1) the production supervisor was included because
he or she is responsible for the organization of the area and is held accountable
if the area is not up to facility standards in the area of workplace organization;
(2) the production associate was included as an auditor because RNA believed
PP7374_C009.indd 120 5/3/08 10:02:57 AM

Auditing n 121
Supermarket Area Yes No Corrective Action

Is route layout posted?
Are route times posted?
Evidence they are being followed?
Organized and clean?
Parts in correct place?
Evidence of FIFO?
Drop box for pull cards being used?
Delivery status board being utilized
Route
Is copy of route layout on tugger?
Is there an issues log on tugger?
Is route layout document up to date and numbered to know latest data in use?
Are all route stops properly identified?
Are all material drop points properly identified?
Are pull signals, returnables, and dunnage in proper place available for pick-up?
Are route aisles being kept clean to allow quick, safe transport of material?
Does operator (tugger) have standardized work instructions?
Are they being followed?
Is all material in proper presentation device (no material on floor, etc.)?
Is min/max level clearly identified on presentation device and being followed?
Are tugger operator’s break and lunch times coordinated with depts they service?
Are latest route time/manpower utilization analysis available for review?
Figure 9.3 Material delivery audit form.
that it was important to get the hourly associates involved and used to the audit-
ing process. Another reason for having the hourly associate in this auditing
process was because he or she has valuable input and ideas on how to make the
area better. (3) The IE was included because, in the RNA facility, IEs created and
were responsible for standards for workplace organization. They were also in
a good position to pass best practices from one area to another. It was also the
responsibility of the IE to be a gauge for the facility, bringing consistency to the
audits. For example, two identical areas should receive the same score. However,
with an hourly associate and the production supervisor doing the audits, there
could be some bias in the results. It was the responsibility of the IE to provide
consistency.
RNA managers felt good about their auditing team for workplace organization
and decided they would meet every Thursday morning at 9:00 am to audit cell
11. They would spend 10 minutes auditing the area. They would then all sign and
date the audit form. Next, they would take the audit form to the PSB to post it in
place of the previous week’s audit. At this point they would check to see whether
there were any corrective actions from the previous week that had not been taken
PP7374_C009.indd 121 5/3/08 10:02:58 AM

care of. If there were, the industrial engineers turned out to be exceptional sup-
port resources to help get these corrective actions complete.
A System to Audit Standardized Work

The next auditing process that RNA put together was on how to effectively audit the
standardized work in a manufacturing area. This process, though designed to get
the same result, was set up quite a bit differently. RNA recognized the importance
of standardized work, so it made it a point to develop cascading audits of the stan-
dardized work to consistently look for improvement opportunities in the process.
The first person to audit is the team leader. He or she does a visual audit of
every process every shift. The second person to audit is the production supervi-
sor, who audits one process station per day along with the team leader. This audit
is completed and posted on the PSB. Once per week, the area manager (the
production supervisor’s boss) comes to the area and audits one process station,
along with the production supervisor
Cascading Audits
and team leader. This audit takes the
Team Leader
place of the daily audit of the supervisor Supervisor
and is placed on the PSB. Finally, once Area Manager
per month, the plant manager, area Plant Manager
manager, production supervisor, and

team leader go to the floor and audit Figure 9.4 Cascading audit.
one process station. (See Figure 9.4.)
The purpose of this type of cascading audit is specifically to foster informa-
tion flow. It is called cascading because of the different levels and times that the
processes are audited. Each level of management should have a feel for standard-
ized work on the production floor. Managers are out on the floor watching the
process and comparing it with the standardized work, which provides a great
opportunity for information flow. If there is a problem that needs to be resolved,
one would hope that they could get the problem resolved with the various levels
of management in the facility (all the way to the top).
This is not as easy as it sounds to accomplish, however. It takes a commitment
by management to put time aside to audit the processes. This means that lean
leaders have to standardize their day. Granted, their day cannot be standardized
like a process, but it can be standardized to some extent. The RNA plant man-
ager, like many organizations implementing lean systems, followed a standard
day. To do this, the facility had to make it a rule in the facility that there would
be no meetings from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. So, the standard day looked like
the following:
6:00–7:00: Check and return e-mail messages.
7:00–8:00: Go to the production floor for sacred time.
8:00–9:00: Hold glass wall talk (see Chapter 10).
9:00–10:00: Conduct audits.
10:00am–end of day: Attend meetings and do activities as scheduled.
PP7374_C009.indd 122 5/3/08 10:02:58 AM

Auditing n 123
As you can see, the only realistic portion of the day that can be standardized
is often the beginning few hours. Though this does not look like standardized
work based on production standards, it actually is very good standardized work
for upper level managers in a production environment. It allows some quiet time
in the early morning to get caught up from the previous day’s messages, and it
provides specific time for auditing.
Finally, it provides for “sacred time.” Sacred time is a concept that too few
managers use. It is when a manager is out on the floor just watching processes
run and looking for ways to make them run better. There is nothing miraculous
here, but how much time do plant managers and other upper level managers
spend out on the production floor watching how things operate? Plant managers
are normally very surprised at how beneficial they find their sacred time.
Auditing the Material Delivery Route

The final audit was the material delivery route and market audit. RNA thought
about the best way to audit the route and determined that the best way would
be to have the supervisor complete the material delivery route audit on the entire
route, including the pull signals at each production area and the purchased parts
market once per week. They also decided to have the top Production Control
person on site, along with the plant manager, to audit this route once per month.
The reason for having these two positions audit the route this often was the
importance of the route. The route was vital to everything the plant produces.
The material route is the lifeblood of a lean facility. It carries the vital material
and information that a lean facility needs to continually be productive. It needs
to leave the purchased parts market on time and cannot have any disruptions
during the route. The route sets the pace for the facility, taking orders to the
floor, removing product and kanban cards from WIP markets, delivering mate-
rial on a just-in-time basis. Remember: the route must be healthy and a focus of
management in a lean facility.
Having said this, it is important that the materials route is audited by top man-
agement at least once per month to make sure the route is still running efficiently
and without any problems.
Posting the Audits

Audits are not secrets. They are tools for information. Therefore, they should be
posted for everyone to see. There is really no conceivable reason not to post an
audit. This is why there is a designated place on the PSB for the audits.
Posting the audits let everyone know that management cares about the area
and is taking steps to improve the area. We have seen many lean systems fail
because of hope manufacturing. Hope manufacturing is when a group of peo-
ple get together and implement a good robust lean system in an area. (Most of
the time this happens in some type of kaizen event.) After the implementation,
PP7374_C009.indd 123 5/3/08 10:02:58 AM

everyone goes back to their normal jobs. If they do not go out to the floor and
look to see whether the lean system is still running properly, they can “hope”
that it is. It seems that the reason so many people do not go to the production
floor to check and see whether processes are running properly is that they are
too busy in their current jobs or they are afraid they will have to deal with the
area if the system is not running properly.
This type of implementation causes a lot of harm in a facility using lean
systems. The associates and supervisors get very frustrated. Think about it. A
group of people who have never been to your area come in and tell you how to
run it better, and then they leave, offering no support or explanation. There is
no ownership of this process by anyone. Production does not need to hope that
everything is running properly; it needs to know for sure and that the facility is
operating properly. Auditing is a way to make sure this happens.
We have found that a good way to keep good implementation moving for-
ward is through the use of the previously described auditing methodology. We
are not saying that these three audits are all you need; we are just trying to
provide a good starting point. We actually hope that you will have many more
audits as your implementation progresses. After you learn how to effectively con-
duct, complete, and utilize audits to make information flow, your company, like
RNA, will likely be able to use them to make information flow much better in
your facility.
Key Points
NNDevelop audit forms specifically for what is being audited.
NNDevelop audits with the people who are going to be audited in mind.
NNKeep time as a legitimate concern when conducting and developing audits.
NNDevelop a system to completing the audits.
NNCascading audits are good for information flow.
NNPost the audits so that everyone can see them.
PP7374_C009.indd 124 5/3/08 10:02:58 AM

Chapter 10
The Glass Wall
As companies throughout the world have implemented lean systems success-

fully and unsuccessfully, the reason for both outcomes has become clear. A lean
implementation is successful for the same reason that a lean implementation fails.
That reason: leadership.
This book has specifically focused on developing good information flow and
getting it to the right people at the right times. This chapter answers this ques-
tion, “How can managerial leadership effectively and consistently get and use
information on current production and lean implementation initiatives?”
for it? This section answers those questions in the context of the glass wall,
which is a tool for managing a facility.
Exercise: What information is needed in order to know how a facility is doing?
How is the information divided? How do you know whether it is correct?
125
PP7374_C010.indd 125 5/3/08 10:03:14 AM

We have started each chapter this way because it is a necessity to know what
the information is before you can make the information flow. In this case, it is
important to identify what information lets people know how the facility is doing
as a whole. A good method that we have seen is to evaluate each value stream.
A facility is divided into the various value streams it has. The lean implementa-
tion is also focused on those value streams. Lean initiatives are normally started
at the value stream level. In lean facilities, there is often a designated value
stream manager for each value stream. This person is charged with making
decisions based on what is best for the value stream.
For these reasons, it seems that the best way to evaluate the current health of
the facility as well as the state of lean implementation in the facility is by value
stream. Therefore, the necessary information is the information on safety, quality,
cost, delivery, uptime, lead time, inventory reduction, floor space, and lean imple-
mentation by value stream.

Exercise: Who needs information on safety, quality, cost, delivery, uptime, lead
time, inventory reduction, floor space, and lean implementation? Do they have
time to go look for the information?
PP7374_C010.indd 126 5/3/08 10:03:14 AM

The Glass Wall n 127
Of course the immediate answer to this question is obvious: management.

However, do they have time to hunt this information down? The answer is no.
So in this case, it is not enough to know who needs the information; we need to
understand how they need the information.
Management needs this information in a way it can use it to manage a facility.
It needs to be in one place, up-to-date, with someone there to explain any prob-
lems and concerns that arise. That person also needs to be able to explain the
current implementation plans for lean initiatives.

Exercise: Who has the information on the health of your value streams? Where is it
stored? How accurate is the information?
The seeds for this information have already been planted in the form of the
PSBs. However, the PSB tells only what is happening in that one area, not the
entire value stream. But by taking the information off the various PSBs in the
PP7374_C010.indd 127 5/3/08 10:03:14 AM

value stream, the health of the entire value stream can be calculated in terms of
safety, quality, uptime, and compliance to pull, as well as productivity.
The lean implementation is another matter because it often takes place on the
value stream level going across multiple processes. So there needs to be a person
responsible for monitoring all the information in the value stream. That person is
the value stream manager.
Understanding the Glass Wall

The glass wall may be one of the most beneficial tools that we have found to
assist facilities in implementing lean production. It does this by effectively mak-
ing information flow at the value stream level. The glass wall is at a central
point in the facility that holds information, both on the current status of lean
implementation and the current status of the facility in general. The follow-
ing paragraphs outline how RNA used the glass wall as an effective tool in its
implementation of lean production.
RNA has produced a great deal of information throughout its implementation
of lean production. The company has current-state value stream maps, future-state
maps, and implementation plans, as well as having information on production.
Managers now know how each area is doing as it pertains to safety, compliance
to pull, quality, uptime, and productivity. However, this information has remained
at the micro level, or at a level where the information is difficult to find and
evaluate. RNA decided to develop a glass wall process (emphasis on “process”). A
glass wall process is different from just having a glass wall. A glass wall is a place
where anyone in the facility can see all the metrics and implementation plans of a
value stream. It was termed glass wall because it was put up for everyone to see.
A glass wall process, on the other hand, means that you have a glass wall plus a
process to utilize it to assist in the implementation and running of a facility.
Step 1: Choose a Place

The first step in developing a glass wall process is to choose a place for the glass
wall. This place needs to be visible to all in the facility and have enough room
to allow 10 to 25 people to stand comfortably in the area. RNA managers chose
a central place in the center of the facility to place the glass wall. It has enough
room for people to be in the area as well as being centrally located so that
people in the facility can easily see it. Figure 10.1 is an illustration of where RNA
put its glass wall.
Step 2: Establish a Look

The next step in developing the glass wall is to decide what the wall will
look like. The glass wall is set up to facilitate the flow of information on lean
PP7374_C010.indd 128 5/3/08 10:03:14 AM

Figure 10.1 Diagram showing glass wall placement.
implementation and normal production. The glass wall is also separated by value
stream. For example, the RNA facility has four value streams, so its glass wall
needs to have four separate sections, one for each of its value streams. Each sec-
tion needs to look the same. (See Figure 10.2.)
Step 3: What Information Is Needed

The third step in developing the glass wall is determining what information each
value stream will need to have in its section of the glass wall. RNA managers
developed these standards by following what they wanted to use the glass wall
to accomplish. RNA believed that it was very important to continually push the
implementation of lean production, so the first item to be posted on the glass
wall was the current-state value stream map. This was so that everyone could see
that it had completed the map and understood its current state. RNA also knew
that it wanted to see the future-state map for each value stream. In all reality,
the purpose for drawing a current-state map is to draw a future-state map. The
future-state map is the plan for change. It is imperative that if the glass wall is to
truly be a tool to track lean implementation, the future state is prevalent in the
process. After coming to this conclusion, RNA developed the first section of a
value stream’s portion of the glass wall (see Figure 10.3).
PP7374_C010.indd 129 5/3/08 10:03:15 AM

Figure 10.2 Glass wall template.
Figure 10.3 Glass wall showing value stream maps.
PP7374_C010.indd 130 5/3/08 10:03:16 AM

Current to Future State

A value stream is not lean just because it has current-state and future-state maps.
As a matter of fact, this is exactly where many facilities fail. They fail to ever
get from the current state to the future state. The glass wall needs to be a place
where the plan to get from the current state to the future state is outlined. Take,
for example, the common practice of putting Kaizen bursts on a current state
map. A Kaizen burst is placed on a value stream map to indicate an action that
needs to be taken to get to the future state. A look at the current state map of a
value stream at RNA (see Figure 10.4) shows three different Kaizen bursts.
Each one of these Kaizen bursts is necessary to reach the future state. If they
were not, they should not be on the value stream map as an important task.
Understanding that these burst are very important leads to the next addition on
the glass wall. That addition is a clear description of each Kaizen burst. In this
section of the glass wall, each of the Kaizen bursts is listed, and a description is
given as to the Kaizen burst. (See Figure 10.5.)
However, just understanding what the Kaizen bursts are does not enable
management to better assist and track the implementation. There should be many
questions for each of the Kaizen bursts. Questions such as, “Who is responsible
for each kaizen bursts?” “Is the implementation on schedule?” “What is the pro-
jected completion date?” “Are there any problems?”
Each of these questions deserves an answer. However, the answer should
already be there before the questions are asked. RNA managers felt strongly
Figure 10.4 Diagram showing Kaizen Bursts for improvement.
PP7374_C010.indd 131 5/3/08 10:03:17 AM

Figure 10.5 Glass wall showing Kaizen Burst explanation.
Figure 10.6 Glass wall with top portion complete.
PP7374_C010.indd 132 5/3/08 10:03:19 AM

about this, so they developed the next part of the glass wall to address theses
answers. The third part of the glass wall is a detailed plan, along with the sta-
tus of the implementation of each Kaizen burst. This includes the owner of the
implementation, the implementation schedule, progress to that schedule, and the
completion date. Also, any problems that occur during the implementation that
need to be addressed should be included in this area. RNA had now completed
the top part of this section. This section was set up to cover the implementation
of lean production in the value stream (see Figure 10.6).
Measuring Production Status of the Value Stream

The bottom part of the section is set up to measure the current production status
of the value stream. Implementing lean production would be much easier if the
entire business could shut down for a year to implement it, but that is not possi-
ble. The business has to continually run, and implementation of lean production
has to happen at the same time. For this reason, the glass wall also has to be a
place to monitor current production. This provides management one-stop shop-
ping for information on both the lean implementation and current production.
Safety
The first part of the production side of the board was safety. Even if a facility
is not implementing lean production, safety is important to everyone. RNA had
made great strides in the area of safety through its lean implementation, now
measuring safety by issue (injury or near miss). While in the past the big number
was lost work days, now it is any injury, no matter how small. For every injury in
the plant, an investigation (in the form of an A3) had to be completed so that the
injury would not happen again. This portion of the glass wall was the place to
keep all the injuries and A3s within the value stream.
Quality
The second metric was quality. Quality is a necessity in any system. It does not
matter whether it is manufacturing or a business process, quality is key. RNA
decided that it was going to make quality the second section in this area. It mea-
sures quality in terms of scrap, first-time quality, and parts per million.
NNScrap is considered any part that is not acceptable to the customer and is
calculated in dollars.
NNFirst-time quality is calculated as a percentage of products that go through
the entire production process without a quality problem the first time. Parts
that are reworked are counted against first-time quality.
NNParts per million indicates how many defective parts are produced out of
every million.
PP7374_C010.indd 133 5/3/08 10:03:19 AM

Plant Controllable Cost

Cost was the next measurable that RNA wanted to capture on a real-time basis.
RNA managers wanted to know the cost of the product they were shipping. They
also wanted to see trends throughout the implementation process. RNA calculated
cost by taking the number of pieces shipped and dividing it by the total number of
man hours, both direct and indirect. This gave it the cost to produce the product in
the given value stream with the exception of material. Material and overhead stayed
relatively the same at the RNA facility, so it was not included in this calculation.
Delivery
The next important measurable that RNA wanted to capture on the glass wall was
delivery. One of the most important things a facility can do to secure a good future
is to keep the customer happy. To keep a customer happy, on-time delivery is a must.
RNA made big strides on its on-time delivery and wanted the trend to continue.
RNA calculated delivery a little bit differently from most facilities; it deter-
mined a value stream’s compliance to pull. In essence, if a value stream was
producing what it needed when it needed it, delivery would be no problem. As
long as Production Control was doing a good job of scheduling the value stream,
all the value stream could do was produce what it was asked to produce when it
was asked to produce it. RNA wanted to capture this at the glass wall.
Uptime
Uptime was the next measurable. RNA had done a lot to increase information
flow and improve uptime in the facility, and managers wanted to know whether
uptime was indeed getting better. RNA realized that each percentage of uptime
represented a large dollar figure. RNA calculated that if it could improve uptime
1%, that would translate to more than half a million dollars in savings. Uptime
at the RNA facility was calculated by the percentage of time the machines in the
value stream were available to run.
Inventory
The next measurable was a big deal at RNA, as it is in most manufacturing facili-
ties: inventory. RNA measured inventory by inventory turns by value stream. This
number included both purchased parts and WIP parts. Inventory, more specifi-
cally material, made up over 70% of RNA’s cost of goods sold. RNA knew that it
needed to get control of this significant cost and continually attempt to reduce
inventory levels throughout its value streams, so managers saw it as very impor-
tant to track it on the glass wall.
PP7374_C010.indd 134 5/3/08 10:03:19 AM

Floor Space
The final measurable that RNA included on the glass wall was floor space. RNA
had a plan to grow its business by 20% over the next five years. To do this,
managers knew that they were going to need floor space. One of their big ini-
tiatives as a result of lean implementation was to reduce the floor space value
streams used to produce product. RNA had already done a good job reducing
the required floor space, but managers wanted to continue to track it.
Pulling It All Together

An important point to all these metrics that RNA used is to understand how they
are set up. Each of the forms had the current level, the target level, and the actual
progress toward the target. This is important because it is very difficult to reach
goals if they are not in place. By having a target in each area, the glass wall can
be used to track multiple targets and initiatives at one time. RNA management
can now stand at the glass wall and have a good idea of how the lean imple-
mentation is going and how the facility is currently doing. Figure 10.7 shows how
a completed portion of the glass wall looks.
Figure 10.7 Complete glass wall section.
PP7374_C010.indd 135 5/3/08 10:03:20 AM

Figure 10.8 Complete glass wall at RNA.
The Glass Wall Is Not Enough

The presence of a glass wall does not mean it is going to make anything better.
There has to be a detailed and structured plan of how to utilize the glass wall to
effectively manage the facility. RNA developed what they called the glass wall talk.
The glass wall talk was led by the head manufacturing person on site. At the
RNA facility, that person was the plant manager. The plant manager and his man-
agement staff met at the glass wall at 8:00 a.m. every day. The plant manager’s
staff at RNA was composed of the head of Production Control, head IE, the top
quality person on site, the safety manager, and head of Production.
Along with the plant manager’s staff, all the supervisors in the facility met at
the glass wall. This meeting took the place of RNA’s normal production meeting.
At this meeting, the supervisors went over the previous day’s production num-
bers, what was resolved, and concerns about the upcoming day. The second part
of this meeting was an update on the lean implementation of the facility. They
looked at various dates of completion and status. This allowed management to
stay up-to-date on the implementation in the facility. The meeting also provided
an arena to discuss the implementation and provide support in the areas that
were needed. The morning glass wall meeting is an excellent way for any com-
pany to make information flow on the current status of the facility and the imple-
mentation of lean manufacturing principles.
PP7374_C010.indd 136 5/3/08 10:03:21 AM

The RNA meeting lasted approximately 20 minutes. After the meeting was
over, the plant manager and his staff went to one production area (although no
one in the facility knew which one they were going to). They went to the area
and stood at the production status board to make sure it was being utilized.
They also made sure that everything on the board was up-to-date, specifically
the safety, quality, uptime, and compliance to pull. Next, they went to the pro-
duction or schedule board (what it is called depends on the area) and made sure
that board was being used properly.
Finally, the plant manager and his staff audited workplace organization in the
area along with the production supervisor in the area. They then took their score
for the area and compared it to the posted audit. If they were the same, there
was no problem. If there was a discrepancy or something that needed to be
addressed, the communication could be immediate.
This portion of the day is a vital part of the lean implementation for facilities
going through the lean process. The reason is that it gets upper management out
on the production floor and allows the workforce to see management. By getting
to the production floor on a regular basis, management sends the right message
to the workforce.
We have found that the shop floor is a direct reflection on the leadership of a
facility. In the facilities in which we help people formulate their procedures, we
have found that where management takes the extra effort to spend at least a por-
tion of its day on the production floor, the business tends to be more successful
in its lean implementation, as well as having a better informed workforce.
All together, the morning glass wall meeting is vital to a facility implement-
ing lean production. It is the one event that ties all the information flow together
in a facility. In 20 minutes at the morning glass wall meeting, management can
know how the plant ran the previous day as well as how they are doing in terms
of safety, quality, uptime, and delivery. The managers can also make decisions as
they relate to allocating resources throughout the plant. They can also know how
the lean implementation is progressing. The glass wall lets other supervisors and
support staff know how other areas of the facility are running. Furthermore, the
facility management can get out to the production floor and make sure areas
are running as they were intended. This portion of the morning takes about
45 minutes. So, in less than one hour a day, information can effectively and
efficiently flow through a lean manufacturing facility.
Discipline Is the Key

Of course, this all sounds good. It is not even that complicated after you under-
stand how to set up a facility to make information flow. The problem that many
facilities face is discipline. It takes real discipline to make information flow and
the glass wall process work. Many organizations can get the glass wall process
up and running, but making it work for them in the long term can be difficult.
PP7374_C010.indd 137 5/3/08 10:03:21 AM

It all starts at the top. If the head manufacturing person on site is dedicated to
making this process work, it works. If he or she does not use the glass wall as
a way to manage the facility, it fails. This is not something that can be delegated
to someone else. It takes the top person on site to facilitate, lead, and utilize the
glass wall on a consistent basis for the glass wall to yield the intended results.
Remember: the number one reason that a lean implementation succeeds, and
the number one reason that a lean implementation fails, is leadership—and that
is you.
Key Points
NNMake your glass wall measure what you want to measure.
NNSet your glass wall up by value stream.
NNA glass wall without a consistent system to use it is will not yield intended
results.
NNA glass wall with a consistent efficient system (such as a morning glass wall
meeting) is an invaluable tool to making information flow on a production
floor.
NNIt takes discipline to make the glass wall work for the long term, but the
benefits will likely far outweigh the negatives.
PP7374_C010.indd 138 5/3/08 10:03:21 AM

References
Harris, R., et. al. (2003). Making Materials Flow. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise
Institute.
Harris, C. and Harris, R. (2007). Developing a Lean Workforce: A Guide for Human
Resources, Plant Managers, and Lean Coordinators. New York: Productivity Press.
Methodology and symbols to develop the value stream maps in this book were taken
from the book Learning to See: Value-Stream Mapping to Create Value and Eliminate
Muda by M. Rother and J. Shook. Brookline, MA: The Lean Enterprise Institute, 1998.
139
PP7374_C011.indd 139 5/3/08 10:03:37 AM

PP7374_C011.indd 140 5/3/08 10:03:37 AM
Index
a who needs information, 2–3
Backtracking, 53
Ability to sprint, RNA, 97
Andon system, 73–78
implementation, 76 c
information flow and, 78 Cascading audit, 122
purchased parts, 78 COGS, see Cost of goods sold
quality control alarm limits, 76–77 Cost of goods sold (COGS), 57
RNA production system, 75–76 Current state map, 7
visual control of machine, 76 Customer demand rate, 28
Auditing, 115–124 Customer order, level production schedule and, 27
beyond audit form, 120–124
conducting of 6S audit, 120–122
d
material delivery route, 123
posting of audits, 123–124 Downtime information, forms of, 80
system to audit standardized work, 122–123
cascading audit, 122 e
development of audit, 118–120
6S audit, 118 EPEI, see Every part every interval
standardized work audit, 118–119 Every part every interval (EPEI), 46
timed delivery route and market audit, 119–120
hope manufacturing, 123 f
information overview, 115–117
information, 115–116 First time quality (FTQ), 70, 109
responsibility for information, 117 FTQ, see First time quality
who needs information, 116–117 Future state map, 8
kaizen event, 123
kanban cards, 123 g
key points, 124 Glass wall, 125–138
material delivery audit form, 121 beyond glass wall, 136–137
misconceptions, 115 current to future state, 131–133
purposes, 115 discipline, 137–138
sacred time, 123 glass wall talk, 136
standardized work audit form, 119, 120 information overview, 125–128
workplace organization, 118 information, 125–126
work standards, 116 responsibility for information, 127–128
who needs information, 126–127
b inventory by inventory turns, 134
Kaizen bursts, 131
Background information, 1–4 key points, 138
definition of information, 1–2 placement, 129
responsibility for information flow, 3–4 production status of value stream, 133–135
141
PP7374_C012.indd 141 5/3/08 10:04:04 AM

delivery, 134 countermeasure box, 14

floor space, 135 future actions box, 17
inventory, 134 goal, 12
plant controllable cost, 134 illustrated, 12–18
putting it all together, 135 key points, 19
quality, 133 problem-solving format, 11
safety, 133 schedule box, 15–16
uptime, 134 training program, 11
talk, 136 Inventory control, RNA, 61
template, 130
understanding of, 128–130 k
choosing a place, 128
establishing a look, 128–129 Kaizen bursts, 131
information needed, 129–130 Kaizen events, Purchasing and information
value stream maps, 130 flow, 68
Group leader, 8 Kanban
card(s)
definition of, 26, 32
h level production schedule and, 32, 35
History side, PSB, 108 removal of from WIP markets, 123
Hope manufacturing, 123 compliance to, 109, 110
Hot sheet, 24
l
i Lean activities, plant layout before, 10
IEs, see Industrial engineers Lean manufacturing, replenishment in, 58
Industrial engineers (IEs), 90 Lean production
Information, upstream flow of, 39–55 sample company, see RNA Manufacturing
actual available production time, 46 systems, key to success when implementing, 68
backtracking, 53 Level production schedule, 3, 21–37
changeover wheel, 49 current state map, 23
diagram illustrating pull, 41 customer demand rate, 28
every part every interval, 46 disruption of production flow, 24–25
how to make information flow, 50–53 downstream process, 24
individual production area, 42 firm schedule, 24
information flow points, 54 flow of level schedule, 37
information overview, 39–45 getting started with schedule, 26–28
implementation of internal information forecast accuracy, 27–28
flow, 43–45 order from customer, 27
information, 40 hot sheet, 24
responsibility for information, 42–43 information, 21–22
who needs information, 40–42 information overview, 21
kanban cards, 44, 50 kanban card, 26, 32, 35
key points, 55 key points, 36
lean connections, 53–55 level schedule, 28
old way of manufacturing, 53 pacemaker process, 24
product pulled from WIP market, 45–49 pitch, 30
order to make products, 49 production control department, 22
sizing of WIP market, 46–49 production expediters, 24
running-now board, 52 repeaters, 29
value stream map, 39 responsibility for information, 24–26
Information flow, A3, 11–19 runners, 29
background box, 12, 13 sample level schedule, 31
benefits, 18–19 schedule board at production area, 36
cause analysis box, 13 schedule board in purchased parts market, 33
PP7374_C012.indd 142 5/3/08 10:04:04 AM

Index n 143
storing of schedule on production floor, 35–36 standardized work as foundation to make

strangers, 30 information flow, 100
takt time, 28–35 Production, see also Level production schedule
getting level schedule to production floor, area, good information for, 40
33–35 batch, A3 problem solving for, 13
level schedule, 28–31 pull board, 50, 51
mechanism for storing level schedule, 31–33 side, PSB, 105
timed material delivery route, 34 status, value stream, 133
tugger, 34 time, actual available, 46
who needs information, 22–24 Production Control and Logistics department
(PC&L), 10
Production status board (PSB), 104–111
m complete, 108
Manufacturing compliance to kanban, 109
facility, uptime information, 80 continuous improvement side of, 111, 112
flows, 4–6 first time quality, 109
continuous flow, 6 history side, 108, 109, 110
information flow, 4–5 making schedule, 109
material flow, 5 management time frame, 107
people flow, 5–6 physical dimensions, 111–113
hope, 123 production side, 105
old way of, 53 production status board, 106, 113
Material delivery route, auditing of, 123 side one, 105–108
expectations per hour, 105–106
management time frame, 107–108
o supervisor data, 106–107
Old way of manufacturing, 53 side two, 108–11
Organizational chart, 9 making schedule (compliance to kanban)
chart, 109–110
quality chart, 109
p safety chart, 109
PC&L, see Production Control and Logistics uptime tracking, 110–111
department PSB, see Production status board
People flow, 9 Purchased parts market, 32
PFEP, see Plan for every part information flow from, 45
Pieces per million (PPM), 70 inside workings of, 63
Plan for every part (PFEP), 60, 67 with kanban holders, 65
PPM, see Pieces per million material delivery route and, 123
Problem solving, A3 format of, 12 overall information flow including, 64
Process level, information at, 87–100 plant layout with, 62
ability to sprint, 97 route runner in, 53
area standardized work, 98, 99 sample schedule board in, 33
best method for getting standardized work to timed material delivery route, 34
production floor, 94–99 Purchasing and information flow, 57–68
combining standard processes, 97–99 change request form, 66, 67
placement of standardized work, 94–97 groups holding information, 60
revision of standardized work, 99 information overview, 57–60
developing standardized work, 90–93 information, 57–58
information overview, 87–90 responsibility for information, 59–60
information, 87–88 who needs information, 58–59
responsibility for information, 89–90 inventory control, 61
who needs information, 88–89 kaizen events, 68
key points, 100 key points, 68
manufacturing engineers, 90 purchased parts market, 63
production engineers, 90 putting it all together, 68
PP7374_C012.indd 143 5/3/08 10:04:05 AM

RNA information flow and purchasing lean implementation, 6, 18

department, 60–67 lean workforce, 8
information flow from production to level schedule, 79
purchasing, 64–65 organizational chart, 9
information flow from purchasing to people flow, 9
production, 66–67 PFEP manager, 66
purchased parts market, 62–64 plant layout before lean activities, 10
route runner, 63 Production System (RPS), 10
supplier change, 58 purchased parts market, 62
triangle of involvement, 66, 68 quality control limit, 77
sample level schedule, 31
q standardized work, 88
standardized work audit form, 119, 120
Quality information flow, 69–78 team leader, 8
andon system, 73–78 timed material delivery route, 7, 35
implementation, 76 tugger, 34
information flow and, 78 value stream manager, 8
purchased parts, 78 zero tolerance policy, 78
quality control alarm limits, 76–77 Route runner
RNA production system, 75–76 need for, 62
visual control of machine, 76 purchased parts market, 53
information overview, 70–73 WIP market, 53, 55, 63
information, 70–71 RPS, see RNA Manufacturing Production
responsibility for information, 72–73 System
who needs information, 71–72 Running-now board, 52
key points, 78
LIO fixed-stop position, 73
s
person closest to quality problem, 72
quality control limit, 77 Sacred time, definition of, 123
quality problems, 69 Sample company, see RNA Manufacturing
workplace organization, 69 Standardized work
zero tolerance policy, 78 area, 98, 99
audit form, RNA, 119, 120
r auditing of, 122
best method for getting work to production
Replenishment, 58 floor, 94–99
RNA Manufacturing, 6–10 combining standard processes, 97–99
ability to sprint, 97 placement of standardized work, 94–97
A3 format of problem solving, 12 revision of standardized work, 99
andon system, 75 foundation to make information flow, 100
auditing, 118 placement of, 97
complete glass wall at, 136 RNA, 88
continuous flow, 6 system to audit, 122–123
current state map, 7, 23 upper level managers and, 123
delivery calculation, 134 Standard trouble shooting matrix, 84
diagram of daily demand and daily run, 47
facility size, 6
t
future state map, 8, 44
glass wall talk, 136 Takt time, 28–35
group leader, 8 getting level schedule to production
implementation of internal information flow, 43 floor, 33–35
information flow initiative, 7 level schedule, 28–31
information flow system, 84 mechanism for storing level schedule, 31–33
inventory control, 61 Team leader, 8
kanban card, 50 Team level, information at, 101–113
PP7374_C012.indd 144 5/3/08 10:04:05 AM

Index n 145
compliance to kanban, 109, 110 information, 79–80

first time quality, 109 responsibility for information, 81–82
information overview, 101–104 who needs information, 80–81
information, 101–102 key points, 85
responsibility for information, 103–104 RNA level schedule, 79
who needs information, 102–103 RNA radio communication system, 84
key points, 13 standard trouble shooting matrix, 84
making schedule, 109 uptime resources, 81
production status board, 113
PSB, 104–111
continuous improvement side of, 111 v
physical dimensions, 111–113 Value stream
side one, 105–108 evaluation, 126
side two, 108–111 individual production area in, 42
quality chart, 109 information flow within, 27
uptime tracking, 110 inventory by inventory turns, 134
Timed material delivery route, 7 manager, 8, 126, 128
definition of, 34 map(s), 6, 10, 23
purchased parts market, 34 glass wall showing, 130
Toyota A3, 11 information flow, 39
Toyota andon system, 73–78 pacemaker, 24, 43
implementation, 76 production status, 133
information flow and, 78 schedule, 6, 39
purchased parts, 78
quality control alarm limits, 76–77
RNA production system, 75–76 w
visual control of machine, 76 WIP market
Triangle of involvement, 66, 68, 92 beginning size of, 48
product pulled from, 45–49
order to make products, 49
u sizing of WIP market, 46–49
Uptime information flow, 79–85 removal of kanban cards from, 123
color-coded gauge, 84, 85 route runner, 53, 55, 63
first step to maintenance information flow, Workplace organization audit form, 119
82–83
forms of downtime information, 80
information flow at machine, 83–84 z
information overview, 79–82 Zero tolerance policy, 78
PP7374_C012.indd 145 5/3/08 10:04:05 AM

PP7374_C012.indd 146 5/3/08 10:04:05 AM

Chris Harris, Rick Harris - Lean Connections - Making Information Flow Efficiently and Effectively-Productivity Press (2008) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chris Harris, Rick Harris - Lean Connections - Making Information Flow Efficiently and Effectively-Productivity Press (2008) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEAN

PP7374_C000.indd 1 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

PP7374_C000.indd 3 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-56327-374-2 (Softcover)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Harris, Chris, 1976-

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

PP7374_C000.indd 4 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

2 The Level Production Schedule........................................................ 21

3 Making Information Flow Upstream................................................ 39

PP7374_C000.indd 5 5/3/08 2:27:03 PM

How Do You Make This Information Flow?.................................................... 50

PP7374_C000.indd 6 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

Side Two of the PSB.................................................................................... 108

PP7374_C000.indd 7 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

PP7374_C000.indd 9 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

PP7374_C000.indd 10 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

Welcome to Lean Connections: Making Information Flow Efficiently and Effec-

Why You Need This Book

PP7374_C000.indd 11 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

What You’ll Find in This Book

How This Book Is Organized

NN Chapter 1—Getting Started: This chapter provides details about RNA

PP7374_C000.indd 12 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

facilities further understand that Production Control (scheduling, planning,

PP7374_C000.indd 13 5/3/08 2:27:04 PM

NN Chapter 7—Making Information Flow at the Process Level: After

PP7374_C000.indd 14 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

How Each Chapter Is Organized

1. What Is the Information?

PP7374_C000.indd 15 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

2. Who Needs the Information?

PP7374_C000.indd 16 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

3. Who Holds and Is Responsible for the Information?

PP7374_C000.indd 17 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

PP7374_C000.indd 18 5/3/08 2:27:05 PM

1. What Is the Information?

PP7374_C001.indd 1 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

2. Who Needs the Information?

PP7374_C001.indd 2 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

If you followed the preceding description of different forms of information,

3. Who Holds and Is Responsible for the Information?

PP7374_C001.indd 3 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

The Three Flows of Production

PP7374_C001.indd 4 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

NNDoes everyone on the production floor know their hourly target?

NNHow does someone know where to move material?

NNDo production associates know where to be?

PP7374_C001.indd 5 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

NNHow many pieces can be expected with the addition of a production

The focus of this book is on information flow. However, it is important to

Meet RNA Manufacturing

NNInventory turns have gone from 11 to 55.

PP7374_C001.indd 6 5/3/08 9:59:56 AM

Figure 1.1 RNA current state map.

The third step in RNA’s implementation was to develop a timed material

PP7374_C001.indd 7 5/3/08 9:59:58 AM

Figure 1.2 RNA future state map.

PP7374_C001.indd 8 5/3/08 9:59:59 AM

Figure 1.3 People flow.

Figure 1.1 RNA current state map.

Figure 1.2 RNA future state map.

Figure 1.3 People flow.

Figure 1.4 Sample organizational chart.

Figure 1.5 RNA plant layout before lean activities.

Figure 1.6 RNA plant layout after lean implementation.

Figure 1.7 A3 first step.

Figure 1.8 A3 second step.

Figure 1.9 A3 third step.

Figure 1.10 A3 fourth step.

Figure 1.11 A3 Fifth step.

Figure 1.12 Completed A3.

Figure 2.1 RNA current state map.

Table 2.1 Weekly “Firm” Schedule

Figure 2.2 RNA future state map.

Figure 2.3 RNA 12-month history.