Process Innovation

VOM&P41 - Workshop - Durven denken buiten de sector - Wo 08/06/2011

2011-05-11T14:35:00.000+02:00

Zijn er gelijkenissen tussen oppervlaktebehandeling en tandtechniek? Begrippen zoals frezen, polijsten, lakken, uitharden, kleurvastheid, hardheid, ed. klinken in beide werelden zeer vertrouwd!

Vergelijkingen maken en oplossingen zoeken buiten de eigen sector bevordert de creativiteit en het oplossend vermogen om technologische en innovatieve doorbraken te realiseren. Vandaar dat VOM vzw, samen met Ives De Saeger (P41), tevens lesgever van de VOM-cursus "productiviteitsverbeteringen" deze workshop aanbiedt aan onze bedrijven. Tandtechnisch labo MDL-Euregio, een innoverende onderneming gespecialiseerd in productie en herstelling van alle mogelijke tandprothesen zet mee de schouders onder dit initiatief.

Programma Woensdag 8 juni 2011 - MDL-Euregio nv, Industrielaan 87, 3630 Maasmechelen

15u30: Ontvangst van de deelnemers
16u00: Welkom (Veerle Fincken, VOM vzw)
16u05: Bedrijfsvoorstelling en bezoek aan de labo's van MDL-Euregio: uitdagingen en kansen (Maurice Roumans, zaakvoerder MDL-Euregio)
17u30: Succesvol ondernemen (Ives De Saeger, P41)

Voorstelling van het boek "Grenzeling"
Korte inzichten uit Gestalt en contextuele psychologie
Op welke processen je richten? functie Value Map
Het beter begrijpen van processen: functie Model
Dadeling, kenneling, grenzeling, weteling: een uitweg

19u00: Open gesprek "Durven denken buiten uw sector" aansluitend met een hapje en een tapje
20u00: Einde

VOM-leden : € 120/persoon
Niet leden : € 180/persoon
Deelnemers ontvangen GRATIS het boek “Grenzeling” (auteurs Ives De Saeger & Filip Hamerlinck).
Er zijn maximaal 25 deelnemers toegelaten.

Inschrijven kan online via deze link of door het document WORKSHOP-durven denken buiten uw sector 110608 ingevuld te bezorgen aan VOM (contactgegevens in document)

Whatever the customer is prepared to pay for?

2011-03-09T18:21:00.001+01:00

Elke debutant in Lean krijgt hetzelfde zinnetje voorgeschoteld als eerste les: Lean start vanuit het standpunt van de klant. De klant vraagt en de klant zal krijgen wat hij heeft gevraagd. Nu weet ik niet hoe dit bij u zit, maar ik ben nog nooit lukraak een bedrijf binnengestapt om hen in geuren en kleuren te vertellen over het nieuwste product in mijn fantasie. Laat staan hen te vragen dit voor mij te maken. Wat ik wel al heb gedaan is bijvoorbeeld bij het zoeken naar een nieuwe broek een kledingzaak binnengewandeld. Zo'n 95% van die keren heb ik uiteindelijk iets gekocht dat - u leest het goed - deze winkel mij aanbood. Een enkele keer is het voorgevallen dat ik aan de verkoopster ging vragen om alsjeblieft die broek uit hun etalage in mijn maat te bestellen.

Het punt dat we hier willen maken is intussen duidelijk. Een klant die op zoek is naar een bepaald product zal zelf zoeken wie dit product aanbiedt. In sommige gevallen (dikwijls grote aankopen) zal de klant enkele features zelf kunnen kiezen, dit is bijvoorbeeld het geval bij het kopen van een wagen. Maar dan nog zijn deze varianten beperkt: elke wagen heeft immers standaard 4 wielen en een stuur. En per model is ook het carrosserie identiek. Waar de klant nog uit mag kiezen zijn kleine varianten, bijvoorbeeld de kleur van wagen en zetels of extra snufjes zoals zetelverwarming of een ingebouwde GPS.

Wanneer we op deze redenering nog een beetje verder doordenken, komen we tot de conclusie dat het niet de klant is die deze varianten afdwingt. Het zijn de concurrenten van de onderneming die de standaard bepalen. Wanneer automerk X aan zijn klanten de keuze laat om zelf de kleur te beslissen, dan kan automerk Y niet achterblijven.

Vanuit deze redenering zou het Lean uitgangspunt lichtelijk aangepast kunnen worden:

"Bied minstens hetzelfde aan als je concurrenten. Gebruik dan de wensen van je klant als inspiratiebron om jezelf te onderscheiden van je concurrenten. "

After all, we just want to make money

2011-03-09T18:19:00.001+01:00

Of we nu spreken over een typische automotive onderneming, een onderneming die insecten verpakt, de kruidenier achter de hoek of een sportclub. Het doel van elk van deze ondernemingen is hetzelfde: winst maken.

Concreet wordt winst gegenereerd doordat een onderneming bepaalde grondstoffen aankoopt, deze bewerkt op een ondernemingspecifieke manier, en dan weer doorverkoopt aan mensen die bereid zijn de toegevoegde waarde en marge te betalen voor het product. Wanneer we dit hele proces van inkopen, produceren en verkopen in geld uitdrukken, spreken we over de cash-to-cash cyclus.

De prijs die de klant betaalt voor het product dekt zowel de grondstoffen als de toegewezen kosten (machine, personeel, elektriciteit en andere) van dat product. Het behoeft dan ook geen ingewikkelde wiskunde om te beseffen dat indien een onderneming erin zou slagen op eenzelfde dag grondstoffen aan te kopen, deze te bewerken en te verkopen, alle kosten binnen diezelfde dag zijn terugverdiend. Uiteraard is deze bewering slechts een utopie, men heeft immers tijd nodig om de goederen te transporteren naar en van de onderneming weg en om productie uit te voeren. Ook krijgt de klant vaak een termijn van uitstel tot betaling. Deze vertragingen in de cash flow zorgen ervoor dat een onderneming zelf verantwoordelijk is voor het overbruggen van de periode tussen het moment dat de leverancier betaald moet worden en het moment dat de klant betaalt. Met andere woorden, de investeringen omtrent voorraad, capaciteitskosten etc. die door de onderneming gedragen worden, worden volledig bepaald door de cash-to-cash cyclus.

In een gemiddelde onderneming bedraagt de totale cash-to-cash cyclus zo’n 30 dagen, soms zelfs langer. Niet verwonderlijk dus dat tools zoals Lean die deze cyclus trachten te verkorten erg populair zijn. Lean concentreert zich op elk van de drie domeinen van de cash-to-cash cyclus.

1. De start van de cash-to-cash cyclus wordt zo lang mogelijk uitgesteld. Aan de leverancier wordt gevraagd om zo laat mogelijk te leveren, liefst pas op het moment dat de grondstoffen daadwerkelijk nodig zijn in de productie. Dit heeft 2 voordelen. In de eerste plaats dient er geen investering in opslag van beginvoorraad te gebeuren. Met andere woorden, de investering in beginvoorraad is minimaal, idealiter zelfs nul. Ook het tweede voordeel heeft rechtstreeks invloed op de cash flow van de onderneming. Immers, de betalingstermijn van de onderneming begint pas te lopen vanaf het moment dat de goederen geleverd zijn. Doordat de leverancier pas op het nippertje levert (Just-In-Time), kan de onderneming dus ook de maximale betalingstermijn bekomen.

2. Ook de doorlooptijd tracht Lean zo klein te krijgen door allerhande vormen van verspilling (transport, rework, defecten, wachttijden, tussenvoorraden etc) weg te halen.

3. Om de cash-to-cash cyclus zo snel mogelijk af te sluiten, zal de onderneming zich spoeden om het product aan de klant af te leveren. Want ook hier geldt de regel dat de klant doorgaans pas betaalt als de producten afgeleverd zijn. Met andere woorden, in het laatste deel van de cash-to-cash cyclus ligt de focus op een snelle levertijd. Hier tracht de onderneming de totale transporttijd te minimaliseren o.a. door zich dicht bij zijn klanten te vestigen en verschillende transportmiddelen aan te wenden naargelang afstand en aantal klanten die tegelijk bediend kunnen worden.

Een idealistisch resultaat van Lean leidt er dus toe dat de lengte van de totale cash-to-cash cyclus geminimaliseerd wordt. Een kritische vraag die we ons kunnen stellen is of deze manier van werken ertoe leidt dat de winst van een onderneming wordt gemaximaliseerd. Het antwoord op deze vraag is neen. Lean levert nuttig werk in het verkorten van de cash-to-cash cyclus en dit leidt zeker en vast tot mooie efficiëntie- en productiviteitsverbeteringen. Het optimaliseren van deze cyclus is echter meer dan dat: door enkel te focussen op de tijdspanne van een product, worden heel wat andere opportuniteiten over het hoofd gezien.

Als P41 willen wij op deze gemiste opportuniteiten wijzen. Lean als basis? Ja. Lean als enige instrument in een onderneming? Nee.

New Trend of Evolution: Hardware to Software

2011-02-10T20:37:00.003+01:00

Dear all,

Today I would like to claim another Trend of Evolution: hardware to software.

Ever since the digital era set in, the amount of virtual content has increases. But now we can also see clear trends that systems tend to evolve towards more virtual content. This means that in the early life cycle of a product, the physical capabilities of the system (hardware) will be most important and when the product starts to reach adequate hardware, the virtual functions will get increasing value.

For example:

-In the dark ages of technology, like three years ago, consumers entered mobile-phone shops and asked about megapixels, battery life and screen resolution before setting their heart on a model. Today, all prospective mobile-phone buyers care about are software-defined features: applications, user interface, web browsing and email.

-People are willing to pay high prices for the extra features digital TV can offer them. Virtual video stores, 3D generated visual effects, programs on demand, interactive television.

-Cars are getting equipped with performance optimizing CPU's, parking assistance, crash averting systems, driving aids, weather adaptive systems, ... This is effectively changing the configuration of the hardware with the increase of an incrementing amount of software.

The impact of this law is that everyday objects will eventually be equipped with complex electronics, enhancing our virtual but also physical experience. More functionalities without drastically increasing the number of components is a step to ideality. I guess there is no way back: the sciences of electronics and IT are dominating creativity now and offer the broadest opportunities for innovation nowadays.

Kind regards,

Kim

P41 @ ETRIA conference: TRIZ FUTURE 2010

2010-11-17T22:46:00.005+01:00

Hi all,

At the very start of this month, ETRIA (European TRIZ Association), CIRP (the international Academy for Production Engineering) and the University of Bergamo organised the 10th ETRIA World TRIZ Future Conference.

A broad spectrum of subjects in various fields were presented and debates toke place with experts, practitioners and newcomers to TRIZ. The Conference aims at linking industrial companies, research centres, educational organizations and individuals to share the experience on systematic innovation and promote TRIZ diffusion worldwide. It provides an international forum for exchanging new ideas on TRIZ and knowledge-based innovation, presenting recent achievements by the TRIZ community and enabling further advances and collaboration also with the industrial community.

Ives De Saeger (P41) presented the paper on 'Abstracting TRIZ': what are the dimensions of knowledge (codification, abstraction, diffusion) and how can we situate the broad range of tools of TRIZ within this 'box'? By doing so, we can also clearly find domains that are untouched by the current insights of TRIZ. On the other hand can Ariz (algorithm to solve problems) shows definite similarities with the Social Learning Curve (by Max Boisot). This approach was greeted warmly by the audience and is a hot topic still spoken about.

Other eye-catchers were the speakers Simon Litvin (Gen3), who presented the reversed Function Oriented Search (rFOS), that enables us to find application opportunities for function in other sectors. And last, but not least, Vladimir Gerasimov (TRIZ founder!) who developed another revolutionary tool called: the anti-function. The best way to describe this, is by referring to Geraloma Cardano, who lived in Pavia (70 km of Bergamo University) in 1520 and introduced the concept of complex numbers. The definition of the imaginary number i, which is purely fictional, still allows us to find mathematical breakthroughs. Well, that is exactly what Vladimir has contributed to the TRIZ community on the 3rd of November, 490 years later: a way to deal with 'crazy' problems that require imaginary functions, but real solutions.

Next year, the Conference will be held in Dublin. We'll keep you posted.

Greetings,

Kim

P41 at Mensit ‘Gala of Books’

2010-11-04T09:31:00.002+01:00

Hi All,

On 7th October, Ives was invited to give lecture on “borderling”. I went along for moral support and because the other subjects where closely related to my work environment (Change management, networking). Mensit is primarily focussing on the healthcare sector in Holland.

The lecture was a big success. Everyone was excited about the approach of innovation problems with language. After the lecture we received a lot of positive comments on the book and many listeners couldn’t wait reading the book.

Conclusion of our experience was very enriching. Personally, I learned some new viewing points on working with people and I met some interesting persons. I also saw that P41’s approach to problem solving is perfectly applicable in healthcare. Hopefully we can put it to the test soon.

A special thanks to Mensit for the hospital welcoming and the lovely afternoon.

Greetings,
Tom

Temporal variation: lean and agile sea or forrest

2010-08-16T17:04:00.010+02:00

Hi All,

Be like the sea or the forrest: what is in between?

A good example of "borderling" can be given by transferring insights from ecological system thinking and apply it to production system.

In the study of Van Leeuwen (based on text here in Dutch) on ecological systems in the Netherlands speaks of variation in time and space. "Variation in time (Dynamics) results from a process. When the momentum is zero Van Leeuwen used temporal equality (stability). Van Leeuwen stated that variation (difference, close, separation) is perpendicular to stability (right, open connection). This applies to both patterns (in space) and processes (in time). Because of the special relationship between time and space is inversely proportional to spatial variation in time. The spatial variation in this transition creates diversity in ecosystems and species. Spatial variation provides diversity. However, it takes time to create diversity. When the spatial variation is lacking, there is little diversity. ... When living in a place always changing most plants and animals cannot adapt as quickly and
also reduces the diversity. Along a coastline there such a big momentum, by sea and weather
wind, you will few species of plants."

Some thoughts can be formed about the difference between a lean or agile production system. Too much time variation kills lean. Too much spatial variation kills lean. Too much product variation gives rise to many time changes, so lean likes small product variation. Lean wants to have stable times and products.

Agile outlasts lean eventually.

Traditionally, one tends to decrease the product variation. However, this appears to be less and less possible. How can a company survive like the few plants along a coast line with continuous changes? To use the metaphor even further. The (resources) clue is to realise that life is possible IN the sea where the variation of the sea plays less role. This latter is the biggest challenge.

You can be at 1 place at different times but at 2 places at the same time. "Dynamics as a constructive factor is dominant to space. It brings peace and unrest. An area that is left, will develop very different over the same area where a lot of unrest. Dynamics can arise from natural causes, such as tides. Man is also a very important source of dynamism. The intensity of the dynamics a major formative influence on diversity. Dynamics more or less often more or less important than spatial variation. When dynamic dominates space also applies to processes dominate patterns. The process is more important (has more influence on the result) than the pattern."

So Process Innovation dominates patterns described in a system. This is exactly my point when I talk about a new need for different planning methodologies.

Temporal variation describes the great challenges we are facing in production environment.

Have a nice day,
Ives

Thinking INSIDE the box

2010-03-11T19:20:00.006+01:00

Hi All,

Many brainstorms tend to look for solutions outside the defined system yet I believe it limits our thinking. (With system I include a product or a production process, e.g. everything you can think of. )
It limits our thinking because we tend to forget to understand what is inside the box. The best solutions are those that focus us to find a solution director, or operator, of the same system: finding a solution direction inside the system that we haven't seen before.

In a recent training program, it was a challenge to redefine the product or process from within. One issue was about the unevenness of a component resulting in a wrongly placed mask thus resulting in a wrongly placed product. The mask wasn't functioning ok because of the uneven component.

The solution function was made "uneven parameter" independent.

The real key is first to understand how a system operates. To do this you need to pinpoint the operational zone and time.
The operational zone is the exact space (the space you can touch) where the issue is happening.
The operational time is the moment the issue is happening.
Defining the zone and time is not easy. In most case we don’t know when and where the issue happens because we don’t have information about what is happening.
In any case, a hypothetical understanding creates the possibilities for formulating experiments that can prove you right or wrong. In any case, and as Edison said, you will find 10.000 reasons why the light bulb will not work. So you have gained insight.
Once you think you know how something works you can hypothesize, even predict, what can happen in the system. It’s like in science. We know what we know so far until we find an experiment that helps us expand our knowledge of how the system works.

The next step is to look for the parameters that are independent of the problem you are facing.

Looking through a different window to the same view.

Stating a parameter change involves defining what will not work in the system, or where you think something might happen based on your expericience. At this point we are usually blocked by the several alternatives we have tried before and failed. Our brain (or emotion) is telling us to stop thinking in this direction; our prejudged view limits us to see beyond. But it is exactly this action of looking for an asymmetry, the differences or equalities that will solve the issue. Ask youself the fundamental question, how many different parameters do you know ? (: magnetical, electrical, shape, mechanical, thermal , chemical, biological, psychological, mathematical, acoustical.) Are you really using all of these?

Have a nice day,

Ives

Borderling

2009-12-18T10:38:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

This is the new title of our first business novel ' Borderling'.

It describes the story of Regine starting in a company as a young process engineer. Her main task is to look for improvements. After following a course on process innovation, large improvements follow quickly. Another aspect is found in her talks to Melina, her best friend. Melina gives Regine insights on therapy & psychology such as foreground, parentification, legacy from Nagy.

I call it a psychotechnological business novel.

Out book is still in Dutch, but i expect it to be translated in English next year. Interested? See our website http://www.p41.be/

Have a nice Christmass and a happy new year,

Ives

uncertainty principle of problems

2009-11-08T16:58:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

We all try to solve problems.

I would make the difference between root cause and systems analysis techniques.

There are many different problem solving tools one of them frequently used in a process environment is the Ishikawa or also called the fishbone diagram.

In fact this is a lateral thinking exercise in the direction of methods, man, material, and machine.

Starting from a problem you figure out what are the fundamental causes. This analysis sometimes results defining the root causes by asking why, why, why, why and why. If one of the why is I don't know the root is standing under the former why.

A better approach is found by using Goldratt's approach of creating a tree. A good description is found at Lisa Scheinkopf "Thinking for a change". Formulation causes is not so easy as it seems. A similar approach was defined by Valeri Souchkov described as the root conflict analysis. Where the fundamental question is what are the conditions in which a problem. Here we believe that every effect had at least one cause. (usually its many more) It believes that something in time is happening. A results in B results in C.
(figure from here)

On the other hand i would define another problem analysis tool called (systems) function analysis. This approach looks at a systems which consists of objects, relations and these systems are best described in a dynamic equilibrium condition. (If you close a bottle of coke, after a certain periode the amount of CO2 going out will be the same as the amount of CO2 going in). It is hard to tell what is causing what because of the dynamic equilibrium. Mark that something is going on!!

The question of what caused a bump in my car is answered by which possible objects can be responsible for resulting in a bump in the car. Several objects together are responsible for cerating thisbump. The fact that the car is rolling, the uncontrolled reaction of the driver, the wall the car hits, the grip of the tyres on the ground...
(picture from paper presented at TRIZ future 2009)

A furnace heats a pan. However this relation is symmetric which means that this system could be seen as if the pan is cooling the furnace. There is a difference! The furance contains a energy source heating up the cooking plate. The pan doesn't have this energy sources itself. This aspect of the furance is called the law of completeness in TRIZ.

A pen is laying on the table or the table is supporting the pen: to give another example. In this case there is no energy conductance in this system.

The uncertainty principle of problems is in analogy with the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg where it is stated that it is impossible to measure the location of a quatum particle and speed (momentum) at the same time.

The uncertainty principles states that we can never know a fundamental root cause & understanding the complete system.

This also means that a problem is root caused by at least two objects and its relation.

This is exactly what Altshuller found stating that every problem can be reduced to a contradiction.

So solving problems means solving contradictions.

Have a nice day,
Ives

Follow up while implementing

2009-07-19T20:52:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

The last few months i was reminded again about the importance of follow up just to know how the production is doing or when implementing improvements.

0ver 60% of the information giving to a person is lost after 2 days. There is only one remedy.

REPEAT REPEAT REPEAT.

This takes time but you should invest in this. Using a written, visual, verbal and non-verbal language will help to make sure that teh message has gone through.

Once the actions start accumulating it is time for follow up.

Yet follow up seems difficult

Amazing how difficult this aspect of follow up is, most probably because of negative feedback. Follow up can be seen as negative feedback because nobody likes to be reminded about all the things he or she has to do. Nobody likes negative feedback so nobody likes to give negative feedback. The fundamental principle again is emotion. What will happen if this person gets upset or angry? So let's avoid this, but avoiding this is exactly what should not be done!

It is about time we learned not to fear our emotions or even go with them but embrace what we feel knowing that at any given we always have the choice not to follow it!

In giving the people, the people that actually carry out the work, the possibility to be heard makes a real difference. Don't forget to look at the non-verbal language, whiich is full of information.

The difference between SOLL as described on paper and what is actually implemented. Numerous times have a seen this difference. May be we have to acknowledge this, or should we do this?

Veerle being afraid

Veerle being angry

Veerle being happy

Veerle being sad

With thanks to Veerle Follens for the pictures.

An implementation should be finished as quickly as possible but the discussion on the subject andshould take much longer. Use at least 2,5 months to discuss and 1 to 2 weeks to actually do it.

Suc6

Ives

Product or process innovation?

2009-01-12T20:34:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

Let me wish you a successful year 2009!

This time I would like to discuss the difference between product and process innovation.

Recently I had an interesting meeting where a manufacturer asked me how to improve the alignment of some of its parts. The product is being manufactured and than serviced at the customer.

You could compare it to a machine that is being made and afterwards placed and aligned at the customer. For instance a loom contains the possibility to regulate most of its parts during assembly but also at the customer.

I had some trouble aligning my heat convectors in the floor because no regulation was made possible by the product. I had made a change of my own to enable the alignment, it was however a product change!

Logically the regulatory function in the examples was either included or not included yet. However, once the product has been aligned it is fixed in the aligned position and it reaches its end position.

From my point of view it was more interesting to use a tool to align the parts instead of integrating it permanently into the product because you only use it once.

This means that it might be more interesting for product designer to exclude functions that are only temporarily used. This sheds a new light on how to design a product because instead of making a rather complex regulation sub system or parts it might be cheaper to buy one tool that is able to deliver the function for the specific product. It is like IKEA giving you an Allen key to assemble the wardrobe and to push it a bit further they give you a saw so you can adjust it to your exact height and length. Imagine!

This is maybe one step further in the design for assembly and manufacturability thoughts. In this manner one really could eliminate the need for a function in a product and put it in the process when you service it out.

I have always wondered what came first, the chicken or the egg. According to the model of Abernathy-Utterback for Product & Process Innovation published from the mid to late-1970s it was clearly always a dominant design in the product. Maybe we should change this into a dominant design in the product and process features.

Have a great day!

Learning from the past (2)

2008-10-12T19:25:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Inventions from the past seem so normal. Most of them are not.

In order to keep up with the increasing demand for those newfangled contraptions, horseless carriages, Ransom E. Olds created the assembly line in 1901. The new approach to putting together automobiles enabled him to more than quadruple his factory’s output, from 425 cars in 1901 to 2,500 in 1902.
Olds should have become known as "The father of automotive assembly line," although many people think that it was Henry Ford who invented the assembly line. What Ford did do was to improve upon Olds’s idea by installing conveyor belts. That cut the time of manufacturing a Model T from a day and a half to a mere ninety minutes. Henry Ford should been called "The father of automotive mass production." from http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/assbline.htm

Henry ford and the assembly line http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=JgvYGi5J-Cg

Again some very good examples of increasing productivity through using technology!

But Ford tried to standardise production through standardising the product. One color, one type, ...simple operations in a high speed each after the other. Ford had the opportunity to change the design to make the manufacturing more easy. (This technique today is called Design For Assembly and Manufacturability, see Boothroyd and Dewhurst)

Unfortunately this high degree of standardisation is not possible today. The variants disturb the good balanced workflow even in the flow production line. The more the demand decreases the more the production types goes from flow upto project production. How can we deal with these 'disturbances'? The answer is again 'technology' but variant independent technologies!

Have a nice year end!

Ives

Learning from the past (1)

2008-10-12T12:04:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

That process innovation, finding new technology breaktrhoughs, was the direction to increase productivity drastically is easily shown from several examples from the past. I'm going to do a series of these in the following boggs.

In England the production of steel and iron was improved in the late eighteenth century resulting in a large mechanization of the production systems. The effect was that where most production was done at low scale, a large scale mass production came about.

The avalability of iron and steel made it possible to produce trains, bridges, railway stations, etc.

Inventing better methods to manufacture steel resulted in greater quantity and quality.Notice in the following story the different technological inventions that made it possible to come to a uniform way of producing. (the following text was adapted from http://science.jrank.org/)

Because the focus of improving steel must have been the talk of that century it is not surprizing that William Kelly of the United States, and Henry Bessemer of England, both working independently, discovered the same method for converting iron into steel. Kelly built his first converter in 1851 and received an American patent in 1857. In 1856 Bessemer completed his vertical converter, and in 1860 he patented a tilting converter which could be tilted to receive molten iron from the furnace and also to pour out its load of liquid steel. The Bessemer converter made possible the high tonnage production of steel for ships, railroads,bridges and large buildings in the mid-nineteenth century.

However, the steel was brittle from the many impurities. An English metallurgist, Robert F. Mushet, discovered in 1856 that adding an iron alloy (spiegeleisen) containing manganese would remove the oxygen. Around 1875, Sidney G. Thomas and Percy Gilchrist, two English chemists, discovered that by adding limestone to the converter they could remove the phosphorus and most of the sulfur.In England, another new furnace was introduced in 1861 by two brothers, William and Frederick Siemans. This was the open-hearth furnace, also known as the regenerative open-hearth because the outgoing hot gases were used to preheat the incoming air. Pierre Émile Martin of France improved the process in 1864 by adding scrap steel to the molten iron to speed purification. During this period hardened alloy steels came into commercial use; Mushet made a high carbon steel in 1868 which gave tools longer life in France, a chromium steel alloy was produced in 1877 and a nickel steel alloy in 1888. An Englishman, Sir Robert Hadfield, discovered in 1882 how to harden manganese tool steel by heating it to a high temperature and then quenching it in water.Around 1879, the electric furnace was developed by William Siemans. This furnace was used very little prior to 1910 because of the high electrical costs and the poor quality of electrodes used to produce the arc for melting.

The open-hearth furnace was the most popular method of steel production until the early 1950s.

Isn't this remarkable? The basic technoloy stayed the same during almost 90 years! Clearly no major improvements have been found.

Pure oxygen became more economical to produce in large quantities and in 1954 the first basic oxygen process facility opened for production in the United States. Today, most of the world's steel is made by either a basic oxygen furnace or an electric furnace. Strange that we are still working with technology developped in the 18the century. (adapted from here)

Have a great day,

Ives

On change (1)

2008-06-14T12:23:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Projects involve change. As Peter Sacreas said, "Yes, change, but you want improvement, not every change is good!"
When talking about change & improvement a general factor that is used in almost every change management programme is to get involvement of the operators. Listen to what they say because they will perform the actions after all.
Several forms have been tried to involve the operator. In the seventies and eighties quality circles where used. Later on in the nineties the term "team management" was popular so several action teams, self managed team where started.

The following thoughts are regularly used. "Start with a small project so we can reach success and "prove" to the rest this approach is successful. Select those guys that are willing to cooperate and have a positive mindset. Most projects are at the level of continuous improvement and small breakthroughs. "
Recently we tried out a new approach on implementing 5S where the concept of networker was introduced. A networker is somebody that has a great span of contacts. This is an easy way to reach many people in the factory without having to follow the usual hierarchical communication line.

But what did we learn from this team approach?

As far as I’m concerned we are approaching this too much in "a flatland". Ken Wilber uses the term flatland to describe what happens when one or more of the quadrants is ignored or undervalued. Science describes our external world. Science and also "the management” is a world view that measures our 'reality'. Whatever can't be measured in some way is deemed to be unreal or valueless. Values, feelings and intuition have no part in the calculated world. This is the biggest remark from all operators I spoke to when doing an improvement programme. We have created a flat land where the whole left side of the four quadrants has been flattened into the right. It seems we have been developing in a flat land. Even how we evaluate the people involved is rather horizontal. Using team roles developed by Belbin is useful however a more interesting development is vertical. In the picture below a vertical development (wave) has been pointed out by Wilber. (Picture & quotes from here) From The Integral Vision at the Millennium: "The Upper-Left quadrant (which is the interior of the individual, and which in the simplistic figure 1 only contains one stream and eight personal waves), actually contains a full spectrum of waves (or levels of development--stretching from matter to body to mind to soul to spirit; or again, from archaic to magic to mythic to rational to integral to transpersonal, not as rigidly discrete platforms but as interwoven nests); many different streams (or lines of development--the different modules, dimensions, or areas of development--including cognitive, moral, affective, linguistic, kinaesthetic, somatic, interpersonal, etc.); different states of consciousness (including waking, dreaming, sleeping, altered, no ordinary, and meditative); different types of consciousness (or possible orientations at every level, including personality types and different gender styles), among numerous other factors. Taking all of these items into account allows us to utilize the important research findings from developmental studies, but also place them in a larger context that suggests their important but limited contributions, complementing them with an understanding of multiple modalities, dimensions, states, and types, to result in a richly textured, homodynamic, integral view of consciousness. "

Unfortunately how can we reach this integral change technology? How can we help to develop our operators if we ourselves are in constant growth?

According to Maslow people complain on their level of development. It is no use to talk about a scientific rational approach if we are still in the wave of a mythical cultural development!

Therefore tuning into the apparent culture of an organisation and helping it evolve along several lines is the biggest challenge for any advisor, engineer or consultant.

Have a nice day,
ives

On the 5W's

2008-04-26T13:14:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Some time ago i got a question from a client who was concerned with remarks on the 5Ws in the blog. It is advisable to read this article first. Here are my remarks

The text in italic is taken from the blog.

So why do I recommend banning 5-Whys from your organization? Because of the following 5 major reasons:
1. The 5-Why technique doesn't reliably lead investigators to fixable causes of either human performance or equipment problems. Why? Because it does not have embedded expert knowledge and is usually used just to record the investigators beliefs about why a failure occurred. (It does not lead and investigator beyond their current knowledge.)

You can now not know no more than you know now. You can therefore afterwards note that you knew not enough btw when do you know enough? Will we ever know everything? At this moment your analysis of the possible causes has been your best recommended vision. We believe that the "causes" come from all the relevant objects in the system and how all these objects interact at a certain moment. All these objects may directly influence each other and defining the possible influences give you what you need to create an undesired effect. There are more conditions (eg objects, attributes and interactions defined by scientific laws (we also call these scientific laws effects eg the Seebeck effect) needed to create an effect. (yet nothing more than these objects because the scope you have defined).

(Picture from source)

2. 5-Whys is NOT reliable for use by novices OR experts (because of the problems described above that are inherent to the cause-and-effect philosophy).

3. The 5-Why technique in not robust because it causes people to focus on a single problem and miss more subtle problems.

Entirely agree, it a system this means that several objects and conditions are needed to create an undesired effect. When i was working with a company in the textile sector they kept on telling me it was the quality of the thread that caused so many machine stops. I didn't agree because the thread alone doesn't doe anything. It is the interaction of the machine (pulling the thread, pushing it through holes) together with the attributes of the threads that may cause the thread to break. The thread alone doesn't do anything unless it is in the machine!

4. The 5-Why technique usually isn't tested or documented and usually has poor training. Why? Because some claim that 5-Why is so easy people don't need documentation or training. And why should anyone test a system that is so easy to use?
Entirely agree, we are easily misguided by our first beliefs.

5. The 5-Why techniques is not designed to be compatible with a consistent, well thought out categorization system for trending.

Entirely agreed, as soon as certain properties formulated from the assumptions (hypotheses) made, one comes to a model that gives a more clear picture of what we think is happening. This model can be tested through experiments and analysis of measured data. Eventually cause and effect thinking is very closely related to science. Building a model results in making and defining your experiments.

The question of 5 Why should rather be "What conditions do we need to cause an effect as we have seen".

If you want to create a fire with a match you need oxygen , flammable material and someone to strike the match against the side of the match box. Solving the problem of the fire can be done by eliminating oxygen OR eliminating the side of the match box (the surface is made of sand, powdered glass, and red phosphorus) OR eliminating the flammable material OR no striking at all (the friction caused by the glass powder rubbing together produces enough heat to turn a very small amount of the red phosphorus into white phosphorus, white phosphorus burns easily (=scientific effect) OR eliminating the match (made of sulfur, glass powder, and an oxidizing agent) The heat and oxygen gas then cause the sulfur to burst into flame

If these experiments show that the model was wrong, the model has been wrong itself. This way learn you something!

If you want to go beyond these 5 reasons you could also bring up the issue of BLAME.
In many implementations of the 5-Whys, people are taught to simply ask "Why?"
When they do this during an interview, the interviewee naturally becomes defensive.
Why? Because they interpret the question as blaming them for something. Therefore, instead of providing information, they start providing justification. They want to avoid the blame inherent in the "why" question. Thus the 5-Why technique may lead to an atmosphere of blame and suspicion.

Our feelings (or thoughts!) obstruct us in seeing what is happening in the system. This is why we always start our training with the six thinking hats from the Bono to let everybody experience that putting aside your first judgement enables you to obtain new ideas. Finding the best recommended vision is of course shimmered by the previous "internal" psychology which is coloured by perceptions, value judgements, feelings. These should fall first in a scientific approach. Opening yourself to other insights (strange to your own insights, not thinking that you know what happened but with curiosity discover the different conditions needed to create that undesired effect) ensures you an in-depth scientifically curiosity to reach the root causes of certain effect. It is notable that you cannot get deeper in root causes then sciences best recommended visions (e.g. gravity) and I found it pleasing to that read that you needn't go so deep. Mark is completely right. To try put the gravity responsible for the fact that someone falls is nonsense. If the point of gravity is unbalanced any object will fall. Some what you could modify to be the objects from the system on which you yourself have an impact! Eg in the case of falling, these are respectively, the person himself (and his ability to handle surroundings that cause to fall, the condition in which person itself was (mentally/physically)), (condition of) shoes, (condition of) the ground, to carry out the action.

Have a nice day.

Conflict resolution: a first overview

2008-03-30T20:59:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Conflicts seem to be all around us. The most famous of all production conflicts is the Quality-Cost-Delivery model where the conflict says that in trying to improve the Q the cost will go up or the delivery will go down. Strangely enough i tried to find the origin of the QCD model but unable to trace it back to its origin. Does anybody know who used it for the first time? OK, lets continue.

There are many conflicts in production. Here is a small list of some of the issues.

Many intermediary places versus ease of assembly
Higher quality versus short production time
Large parts, many crates versus length of a production line
Work safe versus work fast
Work ergonomic versus work quick and easy
Many parts at a line although they are for variants versus time to transport them
Automated machine versus creation of bottlenecks (many small handling's create maneuverability, but if all steps are automated you can hardly balance)
Order/ clean environment versus produce fast
Tooling to make the work easier (e.g. lift) versus time loss due to lift
Standard packaging versus need on the line
Continuous replenishment versus discrete replenishment
Splitting up left assembly from right versus mistakes made through this split up
Splitting operation into small steps versus low motivation
Long operations versus time needed to know the whole process
Changing versus discipline

How can we solve these at a glance insolvable conflicts?

Well, lets have a look at conflicts.

What is a conflict. To start with: it is easier to have one thing in our mind than two. And if the other person has the opposite in mind you both might have a "social conflict". You're wrong I'm right. The conflict does not have to be with 2 people. You yourself can formulate technical/social conflicts easily. Such as i want to have more time for pleasure but i need to work to earn money to have pleasure. Opposites are all around us, men -woman, black -white, magnetic north & south, ..

The conflict becomes bigger if both sides polarise. If the conflict becomes more "extreme" in opposites. If you think you need both but you can only one. Watzlawick calls this type of (social) conflict (and change) a first order. A second order change is described as in the example of a group of peasants that where on a killing path. A first order change is when they encounter the police they fought and many people were killed. A second order change is when the police explains that they are there for practising shooting on the pigeons and that thy are not here for them!

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." (Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack-Up" (1936))

Looking at solving conflict the following strategies were proposed by Gerhard Schwarz (see here for the full text) The following conflict-solving strategies , can be met through

1. escape: "run away"
2. destruction: "kill your opponent"
3. submission: "subordinate your opponent"
4. delegation: an independent authority (judge) decides the conflict
5. compromise: an arrangement between the two positions

6. consensus: seeking for a dialectical synthesis

Clearly the first 3 strategies are similar to what would happen if an animal is under attack (see here for an interesting book) and also show similarity with Ken Wilber's Human Consciousness Project, where the levels of conscious flows in the left bottom quadrant through agricultural, magical, mythical, scientific and spiritual.

As engineers we learn to make a compromise. If something has to have a huge speed but it can not warm up, we tend to look for the speed that has an acceptable temperature. (this a compromise).

The conflict becomes aporetic if all strategies up to 5 can not be used any more. Only on a higher level will this conflict be solved. A conflict has to fulfill three conditions in order to be called aporetic:
(A) There must be two opposing positions.
(B) Both positions must be true or at least legitimate.
(C) Both positions must depend upon each other; one cannot exist without the other

Here i would like to quote from Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink, the power without thinking". In his book he describes the triangle test with Coke and Pepsi. This test is that there are two glasses of Coke and one of Pepsi. The test is seemingly simple: point out the Pepsi glass. It seems that it is to the point of chance as to identify the Pepsi glass. Malcolm points out that if you can "describe and hold the taste of the first" and then the second in our memory and covert to sensation into a permanent, we are understanding the vocabulary of taste" (adapted from Blink, p186).

The dialectic model of Hegel "these antithesis syntheses" is finding the third direction that lifts the conflict as if the conflict never existed. Process innovation is about finding the "third direction" that lifts the conflict.

Conflict resolution strategies.

Lifting the conflict means looking at similarity. In therapy the commonalities are searched. What do those two opposites have in common, what are their mutual assumptions?

Another conflict resolution approach is found at Goldratt "evaporating cloud". (see here)

There is an apparent opposite (conflict). What are you trying to achieve (what are the root causes) and what is the mutual goal is the approach of Goldratt's evaporating clouds. The important aspect of this tool is the analysis of people’s needs and the assumptions that are often made. The connections are “if…then…” or “if…and if…and if…then…” cause and effect relationships. Here we clearly look again at what is the common goal. Under every arrow lie assumptions. Determining those assumptions through making “in order to, we must...” statements, and then adding the word “because...” to it, will get you to finding one that seems susceptible to questioning. One assumption that can be broken.

Another conflict breaking approach is found in TRIZ. One of the old approaches is the contradiction matrix. Where 2 opposite parameters conflict a inventive solution is applicable. This inventive solution originated from patent analyses and applying abstract thinking. More powerful approaches such as ARIZ and Su-field analysis were modelled.

But the basic pattern is that we "blind" ourselves with one or two way thinking. The third direction is available. Before now and after. Energy, matter and information. Mind, body and spirit. Past present and future, Thought words action. "The first step to change anything is to know and accept that you yourself chose that it is what it is. & If you really want you life to start, change your idea about life.Call for a new reality."(Donald Neal Walsh) In essence, solving conflict is about change of what you think is true.

Process innovation is a systematic approach to find the other direction. It is about answering the questions : How many ways do i know to perform this or that action? How many ways do i know how to react to this or that situation?

J'ai décidé d'être heureux.C'est excellent pour la santé.
VOLTAIRE (1694-1778)

Have a nice evening.

Ives

(re) Use what you have

2008-02-01T20:00:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

I hope you all enjoyed then change in number from 7 to 8.
Today I would like to discuss the (re)use of what you already have. Process Innovation is about re-using what you already have but didn't realise you had it. Let me give you some examples.

Some days ago I was in Norway for a SMED exercise. The material that had to be removed was removed by a box manually. I wondered how the material got into the silo. The answer of course was a pump. The next you can guess. Can't we use the pump to suck the material away? The investment to change the pump and pipes is much lower compared to the gain.

The best alternatives are alternatives that use the resources within the system. The trick is to check the function of the process at hand. Where else can I find a similar function performed in the same system?

Another company in the blow moulding sector combines steel with rubber. For one product an operator had to use a manual press to undo the curving of the product (steel & rubber while blow moulding) The experience was that using a oven to heat the steel plate gave better results yet a downfall was that the binding material already on the steel worsened. How to overcome this? Strangely enough when the steel plate was inserted in the machine and the rubber was injected a studied showed that the plate always curved in the same direction. This poses the next question as to why not pre-curve the plate in the other direction so when blow moulding the plate would become straight. Some test ware performed positively. So using information can be an interesting resource. Knowledge is a resource. Also doing it in advance can be very attractive.

A painting company wanted to stir the three component paint better. But how? A chemist knows that an Erlenmeyer consisting of a magnetic pin and a magnetic field give a good stirring result. This technology was already in use in the company, but never the connection was made with the 'normal' process. So using another field can give a good result.

Many companies use cranes to transport a piece from a box to a work table. Once finished the reverse is done. Why not use the box as a work table? This solution was implemented and gave an improvement of 10 minutes on a process of 20. Another object gives the same function!

To measure a correct alignment a measurement device was attached to the machine. While the machine turns the operator checks the movement of the instrument. A quicker solution was found by the company itself by using “the other resource”: the operator! The operator easily rotates the measurement device himself, doing it much faster than the machine could. (This was an investment of 300 Euro).

So the resource can come from a
Object (space, time, field, Knowledge), Function , System ,Organisation you already have. So next time look at the system surrounding what you have, you may be able to use it!

Have a great time,
Ives

Technological Innovation part 1

2007-12-29T17:20:00.001+01:00

Hi All,

A couple of days ago i was startled by the following quote: "Innovation is not the ability to master or adopt a technology, but the ability to see how that technology can meet a business need or solve an - as of yet -unsolved problem. (from here)".

Indeed, Technological Innovation (see here where i discussed Technological Innovation) should provide an answer to increase the company value. What technology could provide me the best performance for a certain product for a certain market. What are the steps needed to make the product. Traditionally one will look at the competitors where a similar process is used to produce the product. Technological Innovation should provide the answer to produce the same product 41x quicker, 41x more qualitative, 41x more productive. I used the factor 41 arbitrarily. But setting high standards gets you to find high results. The business value of a technological innovation could be either one of these
- solving a bottleneck or increasing the throughput
- producing with better quality fit for the market
- improving productivity through reducing input resources e.g. material, energy, change over workforce (note that there used to be about 200 steps to make a light bulb, today only four are needed)
- the ability to make a different product fit for the market
- increasing safety issues
- eliminating several process steps
- improving measurements of the process and decreasing the variance of the process

Technological process innovation can be reached in three different ways.

If you want to make light you can use fire, a candle, a lamp, a tungsten light bulb, LED's, TL , a gas lamp, halide lamps, neon lights (read interesting article here). If your industry only uses light bulbs, you'll find a lot of choice. Looking at other technologies and applying them to your industry so you can get a difference is what process innovation is about. This is changing the type of technology.

But on the same level you can also go upwards. The second type of technological innovation could be seen as an automation step. I have seen many companies that have automated their process. It is something like this. The first step is fully automated (e.g. sawing window frames, forming complex forms from a sheet, cutting a form into a sheet, etc.) these steps are usually taken by large setup times. The second is a semi-automatic step where some repair work is done because the former step is insufficient (drilling holes in window frames, grinding the sheets to get the exact form where the forming process was unreachable,...) The last step is finishing. Usually this is a manual (assembly) step where simple non-powered tools are used such as cutters, hammers . Making seats, tunnel consoles, headliners, cars all processes that are in a flow line, job shop or project based environment will have these characteristics.

A technological innovation would be to get the manual last step to a higher degree of automation as in the following figure. You can easily see that the last step is the 3 figure, the second step the 4Th and the first step the last figure. Process innovation states that the next evolutionary step will be going from using non-powered tools to powered tools to full automatic machines.

The third way to go to an technological innovation I'll tell you later:)

Have a nice 2008,

Ives

Let us see that we are seeing wrong

2007-12-14T21:42:00.000+01:00

Hi All,

"Let us see that we are seeing wrong."

This is the question i got today from a high tech company. We are stepping down from bottleneck to bottleneck until the expense to find a new improvement is so high and the profit is so low. Every year it become more and more difficult to get 10% improvement. Help us to see something new!

An intriguing question.

We seldom doubt what is commonly used. We don't doubt the patterns that we think are there!

'Caminante, no hay camino. Se hace camino al andar' (Antonio Machado) (There is no path. The path is made by walking)

So many management theories tend to show the path, but there is no path. This behaviour reminds me of how we cope with emotions. We tend to take over the emotions from the person that is showing them. It is not because somebody is angry we have to be angry also. The same accounts for the statement: "it is not because I'm pointing somewhere you have to look at it!"

We hardly question the way we find solutions, the way we implement solutions. Many management theories are add new knowledge but not all this knowledge is applicable in your company. You can not apply the process of the birth of an egg to the process of birth of a monkey.

A paradigm shift is needed.

The key issue here is to find the constraints of the underlying theory. To ask yourself if everybody is doing lean management if it is OK to do it yourself! Lean strives at eliminating waste but the condition to start using lean are dependent of the market. If your market is very fluctuating lean will not be the answer! 6 sigma today is a very integrated in business life, but do we need it all the time?

If you think there is a path, think it is snowing so you loose your path.

Remember the joke about a consultant!

A consultant was driving his new BMW along a county road and came upon a shepherd herding his flock. He thought he'd have some fun with the old shepherd so he roared up in a cloud of dust. He stepped out of his car wearing an Armoni suit, Gucci shoes and Revo sunglasses, then he said to the shepherd: "I've got a proposition for you. If I tell you exactly how many sheep you have in your flock, will you give me one?" The sheep herder though for a moment, and calmly said: "Sure, why not?" So the guy parked his car, whips out his IBM Think-Pad, connects it to his mobile phone, surfs the Internet and finds the NASA Web site. Using the site, he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system and scans the area. Next he opens a database and an Excel spreadsheet and after a few minutes, he prints out a report on his portable printer. He then turned to the shepherd and said, "You have exactly 1,586 sheep." Impressed and a little stunned the shepherd said; "That's right, guess you'll have to take one of my sheep with you." He watched as the young man selects one of his animals and bundles it into his car. Then the shepherd got an idea; "Hold on a minute young man. If I can tell you exactly what your line of business is, how about you give me back my animal?" "That sounds fair, why not?" "You're a consultant." "That's right! But how did you guess that?" "There was no guessing required. You turned up here with all sorts of fancy stuff nobody needs, you expected compensation for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked, and you know absolutely nothing about my business. Now, give me back my dog."

How to escape the known paths!

I think it is important to question the known theories! If a consultant tells you that he installed a new management system, that this is exactly what you need, but if it doesn't work it is due to the people in the company that don't follow the defined rules, he'll be too much focused on his beliefs. I call these guys the "these" consultants. (As in Hegel's triad: these -antithesis -syntheses). Hegel added that civilisation evolves through "finding manifested itself in contradiction and negation. Contradiction and negation have a dynamic quality that at every point in each domain leads to further development until a rational unity is reached that preserves the contradictions as phases and sub-parts by lifting them up to a higher unity. This whole is mental because it is mind that can comprehend all of these phases and sub-parts as steps in its own process of comprehension. It is rational because the same, underlying, logical, developmental order underlies every domain of reality and is ultimately the order of self-conscious rational thought, although only in the later stages of development does it come to full self-consciousness. (from Wikipedia) The acceptance of the antitheses will bring us into a syntheses, a new paradigm.

Defining your own antitheses and the birth of a syntheses

I can only help to define other paths that may or may not be there, help to make clear what are the constraints that are underlying every theory and find the antitheses. So try to contradict everything you think is true. Try to find the other side of what you like and the positive in what you hate. De Bono calls this technique Positive Minus Interesting. Every statement can be contradicted, it is the learning part e.g. the syntheses what really makes you jump!

I wish you all a merry X-mas.

Ives

If we only knew!

2007-11-17T20:01:00.000+01:00

Hi all,

We all get a kick if we come up with a great idea that eventually seems to work. This kick is a good thing because it keeps us on our toes but it could also get us in the "Not Invented Here" thinking.

In many organizations there is a belief that unless they invented something, it can't possibly be good, let alone a great or worthy solution to their problems. It is a natural response to feel superior to some else ideas because they have been thinking about these things for so long, so what would be the chance that an outsider could come up with something useful?

I suppose that Innovation Management is at opposites with NIH thinking. Every solution to a problem has already been applied elsewhere most possibly in another context, industry, or scientific discipline.

“If HP only knew what HP knows, we would be much more profitable” former CEO Lew Platt.

To open up the field of every solution has already been applied the following questions will help:

(see also)

1. “Actling”
–“If we only knew what Our Company knows…”
•Norms, standards, common knowledge, reuse, etc.
2. “Knowling”
–“If we only knew what Our Industry knows…”
•Benchmarking, professional associations, certification, etc.
3. “Borderling”
–“If we only knew what The Industrial World knows…”
•Multi-sectoral collaboration, technology database, etc.
4. “Researchling”
–“If we only knew what Academics & Science know…”
•Cross-scientific collaboration, etc.

Most companies today not even reach the first level, to know what its own company knows. Many knowledge is tacit, e.g. between the ears of the people, and the individual may or may not be aware of what he or she knows and how he or she accomplishes particular results.

Turning production process information into Knowledge though would allow for huge process-knowledge-innovations .

The old quality proverb "Measuring = Knowing " is still valid today. Many of the complex problems in production are caused by not knowing the relations between all objects involved. So if you don’t measure it you can’t manage it. This is the place where simulation models come in handy. Gathering data to predict when a welded piece will deviate from expected, when a change over needs to recalibrate because we don't know how the next piece is different from the first...
Another cause of complex problems is the company blindness due to lack of systems thinking. It is easier to be focused on one issue that than trying to see the whole picture and evolving in time. It is like the use of a metonymy. A metonymy is an oversimplification such as in “France won in the world cup” where in fact we mean that soccer players from French origin played according to rules against a number of other teams from other nationalities. According to the rules they eventually won.

We see a lot of problems as we use metonymy to speak easier, trying to solve the oversimplified issue. Looking at all relations of the objects within the system that create the problem you'll know better what are the different strategies to try to solve it.

If you know this, you 'll get further!

But don't forget, if your thoughts prove you wrong in the future don't blaim yourself because you can never knew more then, than you knew at that moment!

Ives

Shadows of the world

2007-10-25T21:41:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Today i was reminded by a Toyota expert that time study is nothing but the shadow of a real person and he was right! The time study is a generalisation of all people at standard pace (100). The motivation, feeling, and all other aspects, a Monday morning stiffness from an exhausting weekend are all not included in the time study. Even with predetermined times we make classes from 1 up to 20 cm and consider that the times are equal (cfr MTM-UAS).

On the one hand we need insight in time, layout, ergonomics, safety and spend a lot of time analysing this but by doing all the analysis we tend to forget that the real action is on the floor. Gemba, on the work floor, is the Japanese word for it? So all our analysis is but a shadow of what is really there, and shadows can be misleading. The shadow is a simplification of what is. An Autocad drawing is not the real thing. It can even be a wrong representation of what is and we think it is the world. In stead of working with representations of the real world, we should learn to SEE the real world. Go burn the chair and SEE to learn.

Ives
Photo from here

Ghost lines

2007-10-02T21:40:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Some time ago i was in a company that produced ventilation systems. The layout was surely not 5S! Many pieces stood in the way to get a good flow, the stocks were unidentified and overwhelmingly present. But what really fascinated me was the story of the Ghost lines. Some of the operators told me that there was a ghost line. A ghost line is the fact that a different product is made through the same line, so the operators could earn some money on their own. I'm not sure that the bosses really knew about this! A production process is so much limited by the types of products they make. In principle the production only makes what the company wants to sell, but in almost all cases the same process is capable to produce much more different products. In fact considering a production facility one could do a reverse marketing study. What products can i build with the current machinery. This could open up new markets, new profits.

Where are the Ghosts in your production system?

Have a great day,

Ives

The experience of the operator

2007-09-21T20:19:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Today i witnessed the strength of team work in finding new opportunities in the production system. A colleague of mine, Eddy Claeys, made a great breakthrough with his team using 5Whys and starting from what the first bottleneck would be if the production would really increase.

The experience of the operator is important to use when looking for a greater understanding of what the problem really is. Also his involvement in finding a solution is impertinent to succeeding the implementation. The other way around of 'not invented here' syndrome.

So I'm really pro thinking together and understanding why a problem is occurring.

On the other hand i was surprised by the statement of the visiting Japanese Toyota Expert saying that in another part of the production the experience of the operator should be "standardised". The point here is that a part of the handling depends on the experience of the operators. Some more experienced operator master the way how to assemble a piece, on the other hand a inexperienced operator will not succeed in mounting a piece properly.

So it is easily suggested to "standardise" the operation to get a hold on the experience. In other word describing what the operator does will help make it more uniform. But i would stop here!

I rather believe that the inability of an inexperienced operator lies in unknown quality factor. Let me explain. When an operator has to mix a heterogeneous liquid he could use a classical mixer. How long does the operator has to mix depends on his subjective viewpoint. So some operators will stop where others continue. How can we solve this? By defining the quality parameter of a OK mixed liquid and thus measuring it by technology can you loose the not graspable viewpoints. So rather than writing down HOW the operator works, rather ask the question of what quality parameter can be used to measure it uniformly. Search for this and the experience will disappear making it easy for everybody to do it. Another example is counting. In the middle ages making a calculation was only possible for highly educated people such as monks. Until a calculation device was engineered and a shop owner could use it to calculate the bills. Today everybody on the planet can calculate without any difficulty using the cellular phone or EXCEL or some other calculation technology.

Have a great evening

Logical definition of process innovation

2007-09-13T23:13:00.000+02:00

Hi All,

Rather a short blog on process innovation. Process innovation falls into process and innovation.

A process is a set of activities, which transforms input elements into output elements.
or
A process (labour) is a set of activities changing the characteristics of the system (state) until ending in a new (dynamic) equilibrium (end state). This is done because the result (end state of the system) is desired and delivers greater value (more ideal).

A process always has a one or more customers either internal or external. A process ends in a product (tangible) or service (intangible).

Innovation is an invention which has been implemented for the desired result such as for economical, social, safety or environmental reasons.

An invention is a validated creation.
An invention generates a increase of validated knowledge.

Validation refers to feasibility, repeatability and predictability. (e.g. science)

A creation is a representation (through either oral (acoustic), visual (text or drawing), olfactory, kinetic or gustatory ways) of a possibility (which can be either of direction, concept or idea) derived through thought.

So process innovation is an implementation of a validated creation of another way to transform the characteristics of the system elements into a desired state resulting in increased value.

Tata 4 now,
Ives