Gemba Tales   ™

Lean stories, lessons and reflections

Archive for category 5S & Visual Management

Cutting Edge Visual (and Sensory) Control

May 25

Posted by markrhamel in 5S & Visual Management | 2 Comments

This past weekend I made a quick visit to see my parents. It was my mom’s birthday and a great opportunity to share some time with my ailing father. And there was a glimpse of some domestic lean…

I was grilling steak and grabbed a knife to check the center. Yes, I know real cooks don’t do that. I am not a real cook.

Anyway, as I picked up the knife by the handle, there was something poking my hand. It was a twist tie!

I gave my mother an incredulous look. She explained.

Seems my father tends to put the wood handled knives in the dishwasher. High temp water bath and wood – not a good combination. So, my mother slapped a twist tie on the knife to remind him that it is not a candidate for the dishwasher (unless he’s the dishwasher).

Now, I usually prefer a more self-explaining control, but the gemba-based population within my folks’ house is pretty small. Overall, inventive and a little bizarre.

Visual and tactile control – zero dollars. Time with my folks – priceless.

Related posts: Effective Visual Controls Are Self-Explaining, Kaizen in the Laundry Room…and My Domestic Shortcomings

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags:

Effective Visual Controls Are Self-Explaining

Feb 10

Posted by markrhamel in 5S & Visual Management | 11 Comments

I’ve driven past the building pictured below well over a dozen times. It appears commercial in nature, but with the lack of descriptive visual controls, I had no idea, until now, what it is.

Commercial signage typically provides folks with more insight into the name and type of business. The lack of ABC information was driving me a bit crazy…which of course made me think about the self-explaining attribute of effective visual controls.

Among other things, gemba-based observers should be able to understand, unassisted, what a given object, process or system is. If relevant, a visual control should also share the subject’s purpose, and related operating rules, including a definition of the normal condition (and often, what to do in response to an abnormal condition).

…Back to ABC. Turns out it’s a liquor store (a.k.a. “package store”). Seems that in North Carolina, the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Commission controls the sale of alcoholic beverages in the state. There’s a bunch of ABC stores throughout the state.

It certainly was not self-explaining.

How many mysterious ABC’s do you have in your plant, office, lab or hospital?

Related post: Visual of the Visual?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags:

Airline Carrier’s Visual Management – Branding and LOL

Aug 30

Posted by markrhamel in 5S & Visual Management | 1 Comment

Visual management is typically applied for the purpose of indicating process and system performance so that everyone can tell, at glance, whether the situation is normal or abnormal. Abnormalities should prompt an appropriate response.

Well, the low-cost South African airline Kulula, has taken a whimsical approach to visual controls. Actually, it’s a branding strategy with really nothing to do with lean thinking. But, it is pretty funny. Enjoy the pictures, below.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags:

Point of Use Storage – Sometimes It’s REALLY Important!

Aug 13

Posted by markrhamel in 5S & Visual Management | 10 Comments

Point of use storage is an excellent strategy for reducing the waste of motion (and transportation). Sometimes motion is a minor inconvenience. Sometimes motion is a bit more problematic.

The picture to the left is real. No Photoshop here! The name of the location is withheld to protect the innocent people who have to use the “workstations” and the guilty (it’s just not worth it) who established the “system.”

It’s kind of funny…if you don’t think about the implications for the employees whom we should respect.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags:

Ineffective Visual Controls – 9 Root Causes

Mar 26

Posted by markrhamel in 5S & Visual Management | 4 Comments

visitor badgeI just had an experience that prompted me  to think about the effectiveness, or sometimes lack thereof, of visual controls. Yesterday I was at a client site. No kaizen, just training. I was sporting a vistor’s badge (see picture), when one of  the class participants said something like, “Hey, you’re expired!” I came back with an intelligent, “Huh?”

It seems that the badge uses a time sensitive sticker that is white when the badge is first given to the visitor. After 24 hours or so it displays a red tiger stripe to indicate that it’s expired – meaning you need to show your ID and sign in again. Presumably, it’s a visual control to better identify the normal versus abnormal (unapproved) visitor.

Didn’t know that. I was walking around the facility for three days with my expired badge. I routinely walked right by the security folks and everyone else. No one said a word until the fourth day! Why didn’t the visually controlled badge  “work?” Why do visual controls fail consistently or intermittently?

Here’s my incomplete list of the root causes of ineffective visual controls (in no particular order):

  1. Introduced without training. Oftentimes new visual controls are deployed with nary a word to those who are supposed to manage them or respond to them. Stealth deployment is not successful.
  2. Not worker-managed. Visual controls are supposed to be worker managed. It’s silly to expect someone else (a supervisor or manager) who is not there real-time to reliably trigger a visual…in a timely manner. And it takes the worker out of the equation. So much for engagement and ownership.
  3. Not self-explaining. If a visual control cannot be immediately deciphered as to its purpose, operating rules and status, it ends up being a guessing game. No one has time for that and no one has a gemba decoder ring.
  4. Not visual/visible. Visual? What visual?  Some visual controls just are not very visual due to diminutive size, lack of color, poor location, etc.
  5. Too hard or complicated to use. Visual controls are designed to quickly, effectively and universally identify abnormal conditions so that those conditions can be addressed. They shouldn’t be adding muda. Visuals that are physically and/or intellectually a pain to maintain or trigger just won’t be reliably used.
  6. Obsolete. Sometimes the underlying system or process  is changed and the visual control is no longer used. Leaving it around is visual pollution and is confusing.
  7. Lack of discipline. It takes a level of discipline to maintain visual controls. Lean leaders must constantly reinforce their use and they should be an audit item within their leader standard work.
  8. Love of covert operations. Visual controls make things, well…visual. They promote an environment in which there are no secrets. For many reasons, some employees are not a big fan and purposely do not use the visual controls. Here, lean leaders need to hold folks accountable.
  9. Lack of faith. Oftentimes employees reliably maintain their visual controls and then give up when they determine that no one reliably responds to the abnormal conditions. Why the heck use a visual when no one seems to care?!  Apathy for abnormalities drive apathy for visual controls.

I’m guessing that I have missed some other root causes of ineffective visual controls. Any thoughts?

Related post: Visual of the Visual?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: ,

Visual of the Visual?

Jan 13

Posted by markrhamel in 5S & Visual Management | 1 Comment

eye picEffective visual controls are, among other things, self-explaining. What does that mean? It means that someone with no inside knowledge of a process should be able to quickly understand the “system” without human assistance. This understanding should extend to the purpose of the system, the operating rules and the owner. From that, the casual observer should be able to easily discern a normal versus abnormal condition. The non-casual observer should be able to do the same and then start thinking about identifying root causes and implementing countermeasures.

Many people think I’m crazy when I suggest that they create a “visual of the visual.” Sounds redundant right? Sounds like muda. However, how many times have you been in a plant, office, lab, clinic, etc. and wondered what the heck that thing is, how it works, and/or whether it is working? That “thing” could be a heijunka box, kanban batch board, TPM autonomous maintenance board, document aging bin system…fill in the blank.

A simple test at the gemba can often reveal how UNself-explaining systems can be. Simply ask employees to explain the system. Often, they can’t. So much for engaged workers, so much for sustainability. If the system is not self-explaining, then it certainly can’t be, like all good visual systems, worker managed.

One more point. The very task of creating a visual of the visual requires the creator(s) to think through the operating rules (essentially the standard work) and how best to articulate them so others understand. The same goes for the defined purpose and for the selection and identification of the process owner.

Does this make sense?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post