Lean Manufacturing - Assignment Example

Lean manufacturing Name of the Student: Name of the Instructor: Name of the course: Code of the course: Submission date: Lean manufacturing Benefits of lean manufacturing Different scholars, for instance, Liker (2004) and Womack (2003) among others have recognized the massive pressure to enhance productivity and quality concurrently with reduction of costs on modern organizations, obliging them to implement lean manufacturing. This has led major businesses to try and adopt LM aimed at remaining competitive in market which is increasingly becoming global (Rajenthirakuma & Thyla, 2011, p. 1). This is based on diverse benefits entrenched in this system as outlined below. Firstly, lean manufacturing (LM) has been credited for decreasing the lead times for consumers (Melton, 2005, p. 663). In this case, lean manufacturing has been attributed to increasing the production velocity (the required time in processing a product from the initial raw material to delivery to the consumers). This is usually done through the elimination of process steps, wait times, movement and downtime (Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd, 2003, p. 8). In actual sense, scholars like Ferdousi and Ahmed (2009) among others have cited that lean manufacturing has the capacity of reducing the product lead times for consumers by 8%-50%. The second benefit of LM is that it culminates in less process waste (Melton, 2005, p. 663). This benefit is underpinned in the key objectives of LM which is aimed at compressing time by eliminating waste which eventually results in the improvement of the overall production process. In this case, waste can be perceived as all the elements in production which serves the purpose of increasing the cost without necessarily adding value which the consumer is willing to produce (Rameez & Inamdar, 2010, 585). This has led different scholars like Taj (2005) to define LM as manufacturing without waste. The other benefit of LM is reduced inventory for manufacturers (Melton, 2005, p. 663). In this case, inventory can be described as the storage of products, raw materials, intermediates and so on, all of which cost money in an organization (Melton, 2005, p. 666). Most of the above benefits and their percentages have been summarized by Lathin and Mitchell (cited in Rose et. al., 2011, p. 872) who determined that manufacturers can project to minimize by 90% in lead times, 90% in the cost of quality, 90% in inventories as well as 50% increase of labour productivity as a result implementing LM. The last benefit of LM which will be explored in this analysis is related to the environment. This is founded on the determination by Sobral (2013, p. 65) that organizations are increasingly concerned about the environmental aspect of their production activities. In this case, there has been an assertion that it is natural in the lean concept, its constant focus on systematic reduction of wastes and its intrinsic value-stream fits well with the wider strategy of environmental protection (Miller, et. al., 2010, p. 14). Other benefits of LM include enhanced knowledge management, less rework, financial savings and elevated process understanding (Melton, 2005, p. 663). Most of the above benefits are captured in the subsequent framework. Figure 1.0: Benefits of ‘lean’ Source: Melton (2005, p. 663) Lean failures Despite the diverse benefits of LM outlined in the preceding section, this system has some apparent failures. This is evidenced by diverse scholars, for instance, Bhasin et al. (2006) who revealed that only some 10% or less of companies in the United Kingdom succeed in the process of implementing TPM and other LM practices. Some of these failures are outlined in the subsequent analysis. Firstly, it is imperative to note that one of the most central key to successful implementation of LM is that all the components and elements of the business ought to make the transformation through total commitment to lean concepts, tools and theories. This is best epitomized whereby if the finance department is still utilizing standard cost accounting, then the company might never see the financial gain of implementing lean. In this case, one of the failures of lean is the lack of a proper mechanism in this system aimed at fostering total commitment between various departments which will culminate in the overall success of LM. Secondly, there is the aspect of top leadership in various organizations. Under this leadership factor, it has been noted that the management organ of any given institution intending to implement the LM system ought to have a clear vision, good level of education, strategic initiatives as well as the willingness to support initiatives aimed at productivity improvement like LM (Turesky & Connell, 2010, p. 114). Nonetheless, there are instances where the top leadership in an organization either fail to have an understanding or are unwilling to embrace the LM philosophy which eventually culminates in its collapse at the organization. On the other hand, the basic idea of LM has been revealed to be founded on basic tenets of waste and inventory reduction as outlined in the preceding section. However, the generic overemphasis in these tenets often culminates to lack of accountability and transparency of the stakeholders in the production process provided the outcomes of the entire production process culminates in the achievement of the above tenets. It is thus not surprising that Toyota, which is the icon of LM has a massive problem emanating from the sticky gas pedal which has prompted the recall of Lexus and Toyotas going back to 2005. This has been traced back to a bad design in components made by CTS, an auto parts suppliers based in Indiana (Graff, 2010, p. 1). Additionally, it is imperative to note that the impacts of vagueness and incompetence in project selection in a certain organization cannot be avoided even with the implementation of LM. This is founded on the determination by Turesky and Connell (2010, p. 115) that the quality of the project selection is an integral propeller of the overall success of a lean initiative. Thus, the vagueness and insufficiency of statistical foundation in the identification and prioritization of projects more often than not culminate in lean failure. Lastly, miscommunication within an organization is a key component to lean failure. This is revealed by Turesky and Connell (2010, p. 114) that communication is a critical part of LM. In this case, the lack of continuous communication in providing and receiving feedback within a lean organization has the impact of derailing continuous improvement. Overcoming these failures There are diverse mechanisms which can be primed in an organization geared towards overcoming the failures outlined above. Some of these mechanisms are expounded in the following analysis. To begin with, training and development is key to the success of LM. This is revealed by Turesky and Connell (2010, p. 114) who determined that the managers in all the levels of an organization ought to exhibit participation in the training and development programs in the organization. In this case, they ought to have the necessary capacities of implementing LM as well as have an understanding of the benefits of lean. Moreover, it is imperative to note that interventions like training play a core role in the provision of an opportunity for employees to develop and maximize their level of knowledge and skills and eventually grow. In this case, the trainings in LM ought to be comprehensive both to the managers as well as the employees. This fact is revealed by Turesky and Connell (2010, p. 115) who determined that there is need for training to occur not just for the team members but also for the management echelon of an organization aimed at creating an environment for team ownership. Thus, this approach is integral in solving the challenges of poor project selection among the managers, increase their understanding of LM and thus limit the likelihood of overemphasis on some tenets of LM and neglect others and at the same time foster the coordination of LM practices by employees and managers in various departments. The second intervention is adoption of a direct leadership model. This often involves one person, mostly either the CEO, the line manager or the plant manager. In a situation whereby this person is leading lean, then there is a high likelihood that he/she possesses a clear vision of what the meaning of lean is based on how the institution would work and perform (Tracey & Flinchbaugh, 2006, p. 57). In this case, this person is bound to disseminate the strategic objective and vision to other departmental managers in the organization as well as the employees in various departments which will be key in cultivating their commitment. Subsequently, the adoption of this leadership model is integral in ensuring that the challenge occasioned by instances where the top leadership in an organization either fail to have an understanding or are unwilling to embrace the LM philosophy which eventually culminates in its collapse at the organization. This will create a clear avenue for the dissemination of the LM philosophy in the organization. The other approach is the establishment of a clear communication channel to foster giving and receiving feedback within the lean organization. Diverse scholars have highlighted the importance of this approach in ensuring the success of LM, for instance, Mehta and Shah, (2005) who inferred that feedback is key in the provision of a prompt response in case of any deviation from the performance level which is targeted. Similarly, Lucey et al., (cited in Turesky & Connell, 2010, p. 114) determined that clear communication patterns in an organization implementing LM is imperative in improving the level of awareness among the employees, accountability, inclusion as well as a sense of achievement in lean efforts. This is coupled with the importance of effective feedback in learning from past failures or mistakes which offer fundamental information for improvements in the future. Lastly, the act of the management in any given organization communicating the lean successes to the employees has been cited as being integral in affording the employees with enhanced understanding of the diverse benefits of lean and in the creation of a positive perception of lean among the different members in the organization (Turesky & Connell, 2010, p. 114). Thus, based on the above merits of robust communication in an organization towards ensuring the success of LM, it is plausible to infer that this approach can play a critical role in solving the challenge of miscommunication which has been cited as a major reason behind lean failure in the preceding section. Nonetheless, Puvanasvaran (2009, p. 129) was quick to note that one of the key challenges of communication is ensuring that the changes which are being introduced are accepted and executed by everyone at all levels. The last approach of overcoming the above failures is through instituting a mechanism of ensuring sustainability of the lean system primed at the organization. This is achievable through devising new ways of working at the organization. Different scholars have been cognizant of the fact that while lean manufacturing is key in contributing towards the bottom line with quick wins at the organizational level, there ought to be a realization by the company that there is a possibility of larger productivity gains for long-term as opposed to short-term gains if at all there is proper sustenance of lean. In this case, Franklin (2004, p. 45) warned that the culture which has been established in an organization can be detrimental in deterring the implementation of lean. Therefore, it is extensively critical for the management and the employees to have a comprehensive understanding of the established culture entrenched in the organization which is key in the creation of a cost-effective implementation plan. The importance of ensuring sustainability of the vision and strategic initiatives aimed at ensuring that LM takes root in any given firm has been underpinned by Turesky and Connell, (2010, p. 116) who determined that persistence is not only essential but also extremely integral when a company is undergoing a change towards LM. This is key for the move after the challenges addressed in the preceding section have been overcome. In addition, organizations which have embraced lean manufacturing ought to engage their human resource towards elevated innovations and creativity towards looking for better ways of addressing any failures which may emanate from diverse dynamics in the business environs. This is not only important into ensuring participation of the employees but also the long-term sustainability of lean. Measuring the success factor Measuring the success of the lean system implemented in a particular firm is vital in not only identifying any loopholes in the system but also in setting an ideal platform for future improvements. This is based on the fact that different dynamics in the business might alter the course of the change process and lack of realizing and addressing these dynamics can be ley in inhibiting the success of LM. In this case, the measurement of the success of LM can be comprehensively undertaken through instituting a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism (M&E) in order to measure the success of this system both in the short and in the long-term. The M&E process of assessing the success of implementing LM can be undertaken in two basic forms of M&E; in the course of implementing the LM system and after the completion of the LM system has become fully integrated in the operations of the business. To begin with, quarterly monitoring and evaluation (M&E) will be conducted to assess the reaction and sentiments of the employees about the changes which have been occasioned by the instigation of this new system. This is founded on the fact that there is bound to be elevated reactions from the employees with the introduction of a new system in an organization. This is founded on the reality that the changes which are intended to be initiated by a new system like LM are aimed at improving performance of both the individuals and collectives in the organization but sometimes cause significant controversy between the management and the employees (Yan & Jacobs, 2009, p. 11). In addition, the monitoring processes are aimed at regularly checking either the improvement or deterioration of the business processes after the implementation of LM has been rolled out. This affords the management with an ideal chance of initiating any necessary changes in order to elevate the level of efficiency and effectiveness of the new system. The process of monitoring can be undertaken periodically, for instance, after every two months. This can be achieved through the development of effect and output indicators which are juxtaposed with the set objectives in the course of implementing the LM system. This is followed by a conclusive evaluation of the overall impact of the LM system on the general output of the firm. This is in terms of reduction of inventories, reduction of process waste, minimization of lead times as well as increased financial savings among other benefits of LM which were outlined in a preceding section. Additionally, an evaluation of the employees’ feelings towards the instituted system is important in the efforts to realize whether they require training and development initiatives aimed at enhancing their knowledge and skills about LM. Several tools can be put into utility while conducting the M&E process. This includes but not limited to sample output and effect indicators, monthly statistical reports, client feedback form and incident report form/consent for release of information. This permits the evaluation of the incremental effect of organizational context and the effects of LM independent of industry effects (Anvari, 2011, p. 24). Subsequently, a synergy of both the above processes embedded in a robust M&E mechanism is integral in assessing the success of the LM system adopted in any given institution and injection of any changes aimed at achieving its eventual success. Questions related to this literature that can be used during the interviews 1. What do you understand by the concept of Lean manufacturing? 2. Has your company so far adopted the lean manufacturing system? 3. What was the reception of the employees after the introduction of the lean manufacturing system? 4. What are the key benefits which your organization has derived from implementing the lean manufacturing system? 5. What were the challenges which were evident in your company in the course of implementing the lean manufacturing system? 6. Which interventions have been primed by your in the efforts to overcome the aforementioned challenges, both in the short-term and in the long-term? 7. What are the differences between the lean manufacturing and the production systems which are run by your competitors? 8. Which mechanism has been instituted in your institution to measure the success of the lean manufacturing system? 9. Which are the interventions have been set in your organization to ensure the sustainability of the lean manufacturing system? 10. What do you project to be the future of lean manufacturing in your institution? References Anvari, A., 2011, ‘Evaluation of Approaches to Safety in Lean Manufacturing and Safety Management Systems and Clarification of the Relationship Between Them’, World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 19-26. Bhasin, S. & Burcher, P. 2006, ‘Lean Viewed as a Philosophy’, International Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 56 -72. Ferdousi, F. & Ahmed, A., 2009, ‘An investigation of manufacturing performance improvement through lean production: A study on Bangladeshi garment firms,’ International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4, No. 9, pp. 106-114. Franklin, T., 2004, ‘Changing the climate’, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 83, No. 2, pp. 45–47. Graff, N., 2010, ‘Is Lean Manufacturing to Blame for Toyota’s Woes?’, retrieved 05 June, 2013, < http://www.todaysmachiningworld.com/is-lean-manufacturing-to-blame-for-toyotas-woes/>. Liker, J. 2004, The Toyota Way, Madison, WI, McGraw-Hill. Melton, T., 2005, ‘The benefits of lean manufacturing: What Lean Thinking has to Offer the Process Industries’, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 83, No. A6, pp. 662–673. Miller, G., et. al., 2010, ‘A case study of lean, sustainable manufacturing’, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 11-32. Mehta, V. & Shah, H., 2005, ‘Characteristics of a work organization from a lean perspective’, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 14–20. Puvanasvaran, P., 2009, ‘The roles of communication process for an effective lean manufacturing implementation’, Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 128-152. Rameez, HM., & Inamdar, KH., 2010, ‘Areas of Lean Manufacturing for Productivity Improvement in a Manufacturing Unit’, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 45, pp. 584-587. Rajenthirakuma, D., & Thyla, PR., 2011, ‘Transformation to Lean Manufacturing by an Automotive Component Manufacturing Company’, International Journal of Lean Thinking, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1-13. Rose., AMN., et. al., 2011, ‘Lean manufacturing best practices in SMEs’, Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, January 22 – 24, 2011. Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd, 2003, ‘Lean Manufacturing and the Environment: Research on Advanced Manufacturing Systems and the Environment and Recommendations for Leveraging Better Environmental Performance’, retrieved 05 June, 2013, < http://www.epa.gov/lean/environment/pdf/leanreport.pdf>. Sobral, MC., 2013, ‘Green Benefits From Adopting Lean Manufacturing: A Case Study From the Automotive Sector’, Environmental Quality Management, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 65-72 Taj, S., 2005, ‘Applying lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries,’ Management Decision, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 628-643. Tracey, MW., & Flinchbaugh, J., 2006, ‘HR’s Role in the Lean Organizational Journey’, World at Work Journal, pp. 49-58. Turesky, EF., & Connell, P., 2010, ‘Off the rails: understanding the derailment of a lean manufacturing initiative’, Organization Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 110–132 Womack, J., & Jones, D., 2003, Lean Thinking, New York, NY, Free Press. Yan, B., & Jacobs, K., 2009, ‘Evaluating Employee Responses to the Lean Enterprise System at a Manufacturing Company in Cape Town, South Africa’, International Journal of Control and Automation, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 11-22. Read More