Implementation steps and improvements from implementing lean

The consultant carried out introductory sessions with the shop floor sections after which each section embarked on implementing Key 1. The SMT liked the idea of lean but they did not show any direct commitment to lean and only the MM participated in the training. However the MM did not directly participate in any improvement activities. The consultant drew up process maps to highlight wasteful activities and the staff were charged with eliminating these wastes. The process maps revealed significant sources of waste and the shop floor staff completely redesigned their layout, eliminated 80% of work in progress and 30% of walking and lifting that they were doing. They also compressed their work space to 60% of their original size. One

of the most satisfying projects for the staff was the introduction of shadow boards to tidy up work place clutter. The site tour revealed these shadow boards alongside a basic Kanban system and numerous SOPs. Nonetheless the factory was disorderly and these basic tools and techniques were the only real changes the organisation had seen over the years they had been implementing lean. The SMT had introduced an OFI system but the shop floor staff had lost interest in this system as none of the SMT were actively encouraging them to use this tool.

3.7.7 Staff engagement and behavioural changes towards lean

The previous MM had an authoritarian style and so giving the shop floor staff some control over their workplace was receive favourably. Giving staff the responsibility for making decisions enabled the MM to get better buy-in to the initiative and motivated staff to change. The incremental approach to implementing the 20 Keys also meant that there was only minor resistance from the shop floor staff. The organisation was not attempting any radical changes so shop floor staff viewed lean merely as a cleaning and organising tool l to make their jobs easier. The small amount of resistance soon eroded as staff started seeing how the changes were helping them. One of the senior managers strongly opposed the idea of lean but the GM manager changed his view through by giving him the ultimatum of commitment or redundancy. However, the MM and the TL had to constantly push the shop floor staff to maintain the housekeeping standards as they slid back to their old ways when production got busy. This showed that the 20 Keys programme did not have any impact on breaking old workplace habits and staff were still seeing lean as something extra they did on top of their existing chores.

3.7.8 Adding value to the end-product

The consultant had done process maps in individual areas such as manufacturing, customer service, distribution but he had not mapped the whole process from start to finish. The departmental roles were compartmentalised and they were not seeing their process as a value-adding stream. There was no link between the customer and the 20 Keys initiative and the shop floor was not aligned with their customer demands. Whenever the MM was probed about customer value his response was that the sales and marketing departments were responsible for dealing with customers. They were not seeing their process as streams adding value to the customer, instead they had

compartmentalised customer value as a sales and marketing responsibility. Their approach to customer value once again reflected their compartmentalised understanding of lean manufacturing.

3.7.9 Sustaining the lean momentum

Company D had made very little progress with lean. Besides reaching level 2.5 out of 5 with Key 1 in over four years they have achieved little else with their lean initiative. On viewing the Iceberg Model the MM stated they were still at the very early stages

of ‘above the waterline’ aspects of lean but he believed that by adopting a incremental

approach they had well-established ‘below the waterline’ aspects throughout the organisation. The MM was correct in his impressions of ‘above the waterline’ efforts of the organisation but he was clearly mistaken about what achieving ‘below the

waterline’ aspects encompassed. Company D has failed to embed a culture of

continuous improvement. The reasons for their failure are discussed next.

Subsidised funding ‘pushing’ change

The organisation did not have any external or internal drivers for change. The NZTE subsidy was the main driver behind the implementation of the lean initiative. The GM liked the idea of lean manufacturing but in fact the funding convinced him to commit to lean. He initiated lean as soon as he was given the opportunity to be part of the subsidised programme.

Lack of change strategy

The SMT did not develop an action plan for change and they implemented the 20 Keys in isolation with no link to a wider organisational strategy. Company D had not understood the voice of their customers and they did not identify the root-cause of their problems. Their implementation approach did not address the real problems that persisted. Their focus had always been on implementing the 20 Keys as a tool for long-term productivity growth.

Erroneous understanding of lean

Company D’s approach to lean reflected their compartmentalised understanding of lean. They saw lean manufacturing as a tool for short-term productivity growth and not as long-term holistic methodology for embedding a continuous improvement

culture. They viewed the 20 Keys as a ‘standard’ step-by-step tool for manufacturing operations. Production took priority and improvement projects were put on hold when deadlines had to be met. The shop floor was inclined to resort to their old ways when they were busy.

Lack of SMT commitment to change

Most off the SMT did not directly participate in the improvement activities and only the MM showed commitment to the change initiative. Overall, the SMT commitment was weak within Company D. The SMT’s failure to actively drive the initiative has impacted the progress of the initiative. The drive for change was left to the shop floor team-leaders. The team-leaders understood the basic concepts of lean but they found that the consultant training did not sufficiently equip them with the ability to implement changes on the shop floor.

Not developing the lean champion’s capabilities

The SMT did appoint a champion to oversee the initiative but they did not develop a strategy to give him the capabilities to lead the change into the future. The OM was the lean champion but he failed to develop the necessary skills to lead the lean initiative forward. He decided to undertake a participatory role during the NZTE programme and relied on the consultant to provide the necessary leadership.