Can OEE be Used to Reduce Operating Cost?

OEE or Overall Equipment Effectiveness measures manufacturing performance against perfection. It is regarded as the global benchmark for managing and improving manufacturing efficiency. Any deviation from perfection drives up operating cost. OEE looks at three different losses and multiplies them across to assess total losses. Those losses are:

Availability – This is a measure of downtime (both planned and unplanned)

Throughput – This measures rate loss against the theoretical maximum run rate

Yield – This measures the amount of efficiency lost due to quality issues

Each of these factors has a cost impact. There are measurable financial and other costs associated with having people at work, the lights on, and machines operating. Anytime these things are happening and you aren’t producing at theoretical maximum levels, you are suffering efficiency and financial losses. Most factories are operating at or below 60% OEE but have no idea. Additionally, most factories do not measure productivity, and many who do, use methods that exclude significant losses such as changeover times, start-ups, throughput loss and many others. Again, anytime you have people on the clock and product yet to be made, anything less than the theoretical max output is a loss…for whatever reason – controllable or uncontrollable. At the end of the day, all aspects of running your business are controllable; the only real question is: are you willing to do what it takes to “fix” something that is perceived as “uncontrollable”. I’ve worked with manufacturers who, for years, wrote off “bad raw material” as uncontrollable but have never talked with the supplier about fixing the problem or investigated sourcing with other suppliers. In almost all cases, uncontrollable is synonymous for “we don’t want to deal with it”.

The Logic

For a factory with a direct operating cost of $10M annually and an OEE of 60%, the total efficiency losses are 40%. Therefore 40% of the direct operating costs are also losses, or $4M in this case. At 100% efficiency, the operating cost would be $6M.

World-class execution is 85% OEE, which equates to a direct operating cost of $8.5M in the example above. For the same factory, there is a $2.5M savings opportunity for improving from 60% to 85% OEE. What would you do with an extra $2.5M dollars per year? Expand production? Pay bonuses? Acquire a new business? Buy a small yacht and sail around the world?

Achieving 85% OEE is challenging but attainable for the vast majority of manufacturers. Click the link below to receive a free report on how much savings opportunity you might have based on your direct operating costs and efficiency performance:

My Total Savings Opportunity

If you don’t know your OEE, we can get you up in going on Impruver in less than a month. It will help you track OEE by product, line, shift, team, and even individual. It’s a great tool for highlighting exactly where to focus improvement efforts. For the sake of the tool mentioned in the above link, input 60% as a reference point and see what you get for a savings opportunity if you’re unsure of your current OEE.

 

 

Advertisements

The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects – Motion

Manuficient - Motion [Katrina]

Motion – any movement that takes time and / or effort that does not directly add value. In this series titled “The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects”, we examine case studies for when companies, government organizations, or entire industries have allowed a specific type of waste to escalate to a disastrous effect. In this post, we review the waste of Motion to understand what causes it, how to see it, and how to eliminate it.

Jump to:

The 8 Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects:

Defects | Overproduction | Waiting | Non-utilized Talent & Ideas | Transportation | Inventory | MotionExcessive Processing

Case Study:

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina broke the levees in New Orleans’ lower 9th ward, resulting in catastrophic flooding. Despite the desperate and obvious need for relief, local, state, and federal emergency response agencies failed to supply sufficient aide with any level of urgency. Officials deliberated, stalled, and wasted critical time deciding when, how, and rather or not to respond. An estimated 1,836 lives and $108 Billion were lost due to the flooding. It’s difficult to quantify exactly how much of this loss can be attributed to the poor emergency response; but we can all agree that the amount of time and effort wasted prior to providing aide was a complete disaster in itself.

Corrective Action:

During the event, aide, although debatably insufficient, began to arrive for some affected by the flood. Many people have fled the northern gulf coast to cities like Houston, Nashville, and others around the US – never to return home. Programs to help Katrina victims to resettle elsewhere sprang up around the United States. After Katrina, FEMA was granted authority and tools to respond to crisis more urgently, including the Post-Katrina Emergency Response Act (PKERA). This new system was tested a few years later during Hurricane Sandy and the results were markedly improved.

Interesting Fact:

All major studies concluded that the US Army Core of Engineers (USACE) were primarily responsible for the failing levees. However, they were granted immunity under the Flood Control Act of 1928. The USACE cited budgetary constraints for installing the insufficient levee system. This is one case where saving perhaps a few million dollars ending up costing thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars in the end.

For more details on this case study, check out the Wikipedia article at the following link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina

Motion waste occurs in abundance in just about any manufacturing or supply chain operation. Anything from reaching across a table to grab the next unit to shuffling pallets in the warehouse to get everything to fit can be considered motion waste. It is nearly impossible to eliminate all motion waste but it can definitely be reduced greatly. Reducing motion waste reduces process cycle times resulting in an increase in throughput. The best way to measure motion waste is the perform a detailed breakdown of the work needed to execute a process called a Time & Motion Study. In this case, the more granular, the better. For example, a time & motion study output might look like this:

Manuficient - Motion Waste Chart

 

Observe how over 30% of the time spent processing this unit was wasted motion. This type of waste can be reduced by identifying the waste from time & motion studies on critical process steps and optimizing workstation design to increase efficiency. This method allows you to optimize for efficiency within a process step at a very technical and granular level; but can yield tremendous cost and lead time savings if you can increase throughput at the bottleneck step by 30%.

Impruver also helps you see motion waste. Motion waste reduces throughput, increases operating costs, and lengthens lead times. Impruver helps to motivate employees to reduce motion waste by highlighting achievements such as Raising the Bar (outperforming the previous standard). When motion waste is reduced, it can lead to the previously established standard being exceeded, at which time best-practices and operator recognition is distributed across your manufacturing network. This helps others to make progress toward creating breakthroughs in performance as well.

 

 

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects – Inventory

Inventory – any materials or other resources stored or staged until demanded. In this series titled “The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects”, we examine case studies for when companies, government organizations, or entire industries have allowed a specific type of waste to escalate to a disastrous effect. In this post, we review the waste of Inventory to understand what causes it, how to see it, and how to eliminate it. Lean.org defines inventory as “materials (and information) present along a value stream between processing steps.”

Jump to:

The 8 Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects:

Defects | Overproduction | Waiting | Non-utilized Talent & Ideas | Transportation | Inventory | MotionExcessive Processing

Case Study:

In 2007, Toyota issued a massive recall that affected 9 Billion vehicles worldwide. The recall was triggered by several reports of gas pedals “sticking” and causing unintended acceleration. At the time of the incident, dealerships across the US were holding substantial amounts of inventory, which could not be sold until they were all serviced to minimize the risk of further unintended acceleration issues. A study was conducted to estimate the losses associated with all of this inventory that was placed on “hold”, which revealed that dealerships were losing the staggering amount of $2.5 Billion per month in combined income.

Corrective Action:

In response to this issue, Toyota conducted an investigation to identify the root cause of the unintended acceleration and concluded that the configuration between the floor mat and the gas pedal was defective. They also began to experiment with an alternative supply chain model with the Toyota Scion where a base unit would be built to about 70% at the factory, then buyers would be allowed to customize how the vehicle would be finished. Finally, the base unit would be shipped to the buyer’s local dealer to complete the final manufacturing steps; a process known as Late-Stage Customization. This kept inventory low for the Scion at the dealerships and allowed consumers more control over the features and functionality that would be included with their vehicle. Unfortunately, the Scion did not perform well in the market; however, I don’t think the supply chain model was the problem. It simply isn’t a very good looking car.

Interesting Fact:

Even though Toyota distributes vehicles all over the world, the only reports of unintended acceleration came from the United States. Also, there was never a definitive conclusion for a mechanical failure that was causing the problem. However, once the floor mat / gas pedal configuration was changed, no further issues were reported.

For more details on this case study, check out the 24/7 Wall Street article at the following link:

http://247wallst.com/autos/2010/01/29/toyota-dealers-face-2-5-billion-monthly-loss/

This case study exposes one of the many major problems with building and carrying inventory. Building inventory has the same issue issue as batching, which is a form of inventory in itself. When there is a quality defect that needs to be contained, many times the entire batch needs to be recalled and investigated due to limited granularity in traceability.  This requires the manufacturer to cast a wide net instead of being able to pinpoint the specific units that are affected by the defect.

Another major issue with carrying inventory is that it enables poor manufacturing execution and erodes operational discipline. Part of the equation for determining how much inventory you need is how unreliably your factory performs. In other words, being unreliable means you need to maintain higher inventories to meet service expectations. The path of least resistance is to build inventory as opposed to addressing your factory’s reliability issues. A little trick to kicking off a lean implementation is to cut your finished inventory gradually and challenge your teams to maintain service levels with lower inventory stocks. This will require improving factory reliability and becoming more lean in the process. Finally, inventory hurts your factory’s lead time on special order and rush items. This is because orders often need to wait in inventory buffers in between process steps before the next value-added step can be completed.

Impruver also helps you see waste from inventory, which often manifests itself in the form of unreliability. In Impruver, unreliability shows up as downtime, rate, and yield losses. By addressing these issues, you can increase plant reliability and subsequently reduce safety stocks. When inventory is reduced, working capital is freed up to be invested in other more important matters. Impruver also allows you to quickly estimate the savings to be gained in just one click by driving out efficiency losses. This powerful functionality is made available to everyone from the shop-floor up to be used for justifying continuous improvement ideas.

 

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects – Transporting

A worker operates a forklift to transport floor boards at a wood flooring factory in Huzhou
A worker operates a forklift to transport floor boards at a wood flooring factory in Huzhou, Zhejiang province July 13, 2012. REUTERS/Sean Yong

Transporting – the act of moving people, materials, or information from one place to another. In this series titled “The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects”, we examine case studies for when companies, government organizations, or entire industries have allowed a specific type of waste to escalate to a disastrous effect. In this post, we review the waste of Transporting to understand what causes it, how to see it, and how to eliminate it.

Jump to:

The 8 Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects:

Defects | Overproduction | Waiting | Non-utilized Talent & Ideas | Transportation | Inventory | MotionExcessive Processing

Study:

Based on data from the National EMS Information System (NEMSIS), the US national average time for an ambulance to arrive after an emergency call has been placed is 9.4 minutes. Just to level-set, the gold standard for ambulance arrival time is 8 minutes within 90% of the time. The data suggests that, on average, ambulances arrive 1.4 minutes late for an emergency call.

Additionally, the time to transport a patient back to the hospital to receive full treatment averaged 12.2 minutes in the dataset. This means that the time between the emergency call and the patient arriving at the hospital averaged almost 22 minutes in total.

Manuficient - Ambulance Arrival Time Data
Copyright 2016 Manuficient Consulting

 

Interesting Fact:

The chances of surviving cardiac arrest diminishes greatly after 5 or 6 minutes of waiting time. How many deaths or serious complications could be prevented if we could design an emergency medical system with an overall response time of less than 5 minutes?

For more information on this data, visit the NEMSIS at:

http://www.nedarc.org/

 

Transporting waste is abundant in just about any manufacturing or supply chain system. Since, for all practical purposes, multiple objects cannot occupy the same space at a time, transporting is an inevitable condition in the way we live, work, and play. One of the challenges to reducing transporting waste is that most methods of measuring productivity fail to highlight its existence. It’s important to measure delivery lead time from step to step within the factory and throughout the supply chain to help identify transporting waste; this also needs to be monitored on a continuous basis. Once you know to look for this type of waste, losses can fairly easily be measured and reduced in manufacturing or supply chain processes. For example, tools such as 5S, line layout, work cell design, and point-of-use supply (POUS) are all great approaches to minimize the waste of transporting within a factory.

Impruver also helps you see waste from transporting in the form of lost efficiency. In Impruver, this type of waste could either show up as downtime or rate losses. For example, if operators are having to travel across the factory to retrieve parts needed to perform a changeover, this entire time is captured under the planned downtime category. In this case, you might rearrange where items are being stored or staged in order to minimize transport time, changeovers, and efficiency losses due to planned downtime.

 

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects – Waiting

Manuficient - Waiting [Herseys]

Waiting – time spent idle or unproductive until parts, materials, information or other inputs are made available. In this series titled “The 8 Lean Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects”, we examine case studies for when companies, government organizations, or entire industries have allowed a specific type of waste to escalate to a disastrous effect. In this post, we review the waste of Waiting to understand what causes it, how to see it, and how to eliminate it. Leanmanufacturingtools.org defines waiting as “the act of doing nothing or working slowly whilst waiting for a previous step in the process.”

Jump to:

The 8 Wastes and Their Potentially Disastrous Effects:

Defects | Overproduction | Waiting | Non-utilized Talent & Ideas | Transportation | Inventory | MotionExcessive Processing

Case Study:

Leading into the Halloween of 1999, Hershey Foods lost over $150M in revenue due to a preventable mishap in supply chain execution. The company tried to “go live” on multiple supply chain management systems at the same time. In addition, they failed to follow the prescribed implementation plan provided by the software’s developers. The result was that even though the product had been produced, they were unable to “see” the project in the newly implemented management systems and subsequently, could not process orders. Their customers and consumers were left waiting for product that did not arrive, which cost Hersey’s $150M and their customers’ businesses also took a hit. Profits dropped 19% for Q3 of that year and continued to drop for Q4 due to lost credibility and damaged customer relationships.

Corrective Action:

Hershey’s then implemented an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system that allowed them much greater visibility over their supply chain, inventory, and critical customer data.

Interesting Fact:

The software’s developer estimated 48 months to correctly implement the supply chain management system but Hershey’s rushed the implementation for fear of how Y2K would affect the computer systems. As we’re all aware of now, Y2K had no effect on computer system operability; thus this fearful and rash decision was completely unfounded.

For more details on this case study, check out the CIO article at the following link:

http://www.cio.com/article/2440386/supply-chain-management/supply-chain—hershey-s-bittersweet-lesson.html

Waiting is a waste that frequently occurs in any manufacturing operation. This is often caused by either poorly balanced work areas or unreliable processes; and sometimes both. The key is to be able to spot waiting waste as it’s happening and take quick action to eliminate it by getting to the root cause and preventing it from happening again. Fortunately, waiting is one of the easiest types of waste to see as it’s happening. It only takes one to be present, engaged, and seeking waiting waste. A great tool for this is to install a high-visibility indicator that detects movement. When the expected movement is not occurring, it can be expected that the process step is waiting and an alert can be provided. Continuous Improvement happens when people actively seek out opportunities to reduce and prevent waiting waste whenever it occurs. This happens when the appropriate cultural behaviors are being promoted.

Impruver also helps you see waiting waste in the form of lost efficiency. In Impruver, waiting waste would either show up as Rate Loss (if the line is running but below standard rate) or Unplanned Downtime Loss (if the line is stopped and the stoppage is recorded). This enables you to not only capture losses but also to quantify the financial impact that waiting waste is having on your business.

 

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

How to Do a Stress Free Lean Implementation

Manuficient - Top Performers

Lean is said to be the “Machine that Changed the World,” which a fantastic book written by Jim Womack, Dan Jones and Daniel Roos. According to Wikipedia, “Lean manufacturing or lean production, often simply “lean“, is a systematic method for the elimination of waste (“Muda“) within a manufacturing system.” We are now learning that Lean has applicability across far more industries than just manufacturing such as healthcare, finance, education, and many others. However, implementing lean has been a major challenge for business leaders across all sectors, including manufacturing. A study released by McKinsey stated that “70% of Continuous Improvement initiatives fail”. This is a striking statistic considering how popular Lean and other Continuous Improvement initiatives are.

If you go into any of those factories where Lean has failed (and even some where it has succeeded), you’ll quickly find that it generally leaves a bad taste in people’s mouths. Be it because some companies have gutted workforces and administrative jobs under the guise of Lean or that people had to give up things that they held sacred in the name of cutting waste…many people harbor a disdain for Lean. How did an initiative designed to improve product and process quality turn into such a reviled and despised creature?

In conducting and studying many examples of Lean implementations I’ve determined that three key ingredients are needed for success. Those ingredients are:

  1. Technical Expertise. Lean isn’t that hard to learn but somebody needs to know what they’re doing in the beginning at least. This could be an inside or outside person or group. Eventually, everyone needs a strong lean competency and it needs to become a requirement for staying with the company or getting promoted
  2. Commitment. Leaders need to visibly show their commitment and make decision consistent with a Lean culture.
  3. Motivation. If the people at the top or bottom don’t want to do it – it won’t happen. A Lean implementation requires substantial changes in behaviors, the slaughter of sacred cows, and debilitating power struggles. It’s not easy for anybody.

In all reality, the last item trumps the previous two. Let’s face it, people will eventually do what they’re motivated to do as long as management gets the heck out of the way. Do you really need an engineering degree to do 5S or make a few changes to reduce waste and inefficiency? The answer is no. So …the easy way to implement Lean is by pairing the implementation with things people are motivated to do such as:

  • Look good in front of their bosses and peers
  • Get recognized for a job well done
  • Compete and win
  • Have input on the way things are done
  • Prove themselves by getting results
  • Be judged fairly
  • Help others
  • Be a valued contributor to the business
  • Remain gainfully employed
  • …the list goes on and on.

So, to implement Lean, you need to motivate people to eliminate waste and be more efficienct; then give them the tools and support to do what they will be super-motivated to do. To do this, follow these steps:

Step 1Implement OEE. This will tell you and everyone else exactly how much efficiency loss you have, what types of losses you have, and where the biggest opportunities for improvement exist, etc. OEE will serve as your scoreboard for how good everybody actually and undoubtably is. It also puts everyone on the same playing field in terms of measuring productivity. [Week 1 – 8 but continue tracking perpetually]

Step 2Start highlighting success stories for people doing things better. Share Personal Records, Record Breaking Weeks for the team, Best-Practices, Top Performers for the Day or Week, and so on. This will create a culture that feels like winning…and send a message that winning means getting better, which means…increasing efficiencies. All of a sudden, getting better is starting to feel “good” and perhaps even “fun and exciting”. [Week 6 – 15 but continue into perpetuity]

Step 3Provide a continuous stream of tools and techniques for getting better. Teach people root cause analysis, value stream mapping, SMED, kaizen events and anything else they are clamoring to know by this point in the process. You should also consider taking engineers, managers, and key personnel to other factories who have a really good Lean program so they can benchmark ideas. These factories love to show off the great work they’ve done to implement what a vast majority of companies struggle with. [Week 10 on]

That’s it. Pretty easy right? Well there are always varying levels of depth and complexity of tools that can be applied but you can cross those bridges when you get to them. It’s important to follow these three steps in sequence and allow time for each step to take hold in the organization. Most companies try to implement lean by doing step 3 and then step 1 or they just start of with a massive cutting of headcount. Implementing OEE is not as easy as this article makes it sound and neither are the other 2 steps. Fortunately there’s a tool that virtually automates the first 2 (and most difficult) steps called the Factory Operating System (fOS) at www.factoryoperatingsystem.com. This is the best tool out there for implementing Lean or any other Continuous Improvement initiative. In this system, calculating and tracking OEE requires less than a minute per production run to input data and it spits out OEE by line, shift, person, team, product, timeframe, or any other way you want to slice it. It also highlights top performers, record breaking weeks, personal records, and other success stories across your operations chain of command. It’s super-powerful and it’s free, which makes it really great!

Implementing Lean can be a great step toward reducing operating costs, increasing capacity, reducing lead time, improving product quality among many other wonderful things. Don’t make the mistakes most companies make by failing to motivate your people before slamming them with tools, jargon, and complex ideas that will just scare them away. Let the motivation come first, then they will be a) creating their own tools and b) asking you for more tools and techniques to get their systems to operate more efficiently. This way you create a demand for Lean instead of pushing it on people and creating a painful experience for everyone that probably won’t even sustain results. A manufacturing efficiency expert such as those at Manuficient can help you to implement Lean in a non-abrasive way that systematically encourages your people to do better everyday.

fOS Lead Capture2PPM Lead Capture2

Engage with us:

Subscribe | Request Material | Schedule a Call | Request a Proposal  

Connect with us:

Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin | Google+ | Blog

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

How to Salvage a Continuous Improvement Implementation in a Unionized Plant

Manuficient - Angry_mob_of_four

Any manager who has worked in a unionized environment can tell you that it presents its own entirely unique set of challenges; aside from running the day to day business. A union, in its very nature, promotes stability and thwarts the types of changes that are sometimes essential for a continuous improvement implementation such as Lean Six Sigma or other. In a typical non-union environment, a comprehensive CI implementation takes anywhere from 2.5 – 5 years. In a union environment, you can expect this duration to be a bit longer; ranging from 3.5 to 7 years. Also the chances of failure are significantly greater in a unionized environment because of the duration and perceived conflict of interest for the union. However, there are a few strategic approaches that should be artfully employed in any improvement initiative; each of which is designed to leverage the very nature of the environment:

1) Focus initially on non-direct labor waste reduction. This includes material, energy, overhead or other. Any talk of direct labor or hours reduction will raise immediate red flags in a union and the most vocal members will quickly poison the well on your initiative. Focus instead on reducing material or energy waste in the onset and engage union authoritative figures in leading / executing the projects. Most employees generally want to see the company save money but not at their personal expense. Engaging the union leaders will send an early signal that this initiative is “safe” and will reduce resistance levels. Use these early wins to generate momentum behind the initiative.

2) Make the goal of the initiative to drive up efficiency. This could be positioned as “we are expecting business from several new customers and need to increase our capacity / throughput without significantly changing our asset footprint”. Set up your KPI’s to show productivity levels during scheduled time and not total time. This means if the line was scheduled for 6 hours and employees were on the clock for 8 hours, show productivity against the scheduled 6 hours. Keep a backlog of additional value-added work for the additional hours created. This way, you can use your continuous improvement initiative to drive for greater efficiency within the scheduled time. If you don’t actually have a burning platform, you may need to create an artificial sense of urgency to get better. Without this pressure to get better, it will be difficult to make the case for becoming more lean. People will make every excuse for why you should not try something different, which will only stagnate your growth. If you will be purchasing new equipment, leverage these acquisitions to show your own commitment to becoming more efficient. Just about everyone loves new toys in the factory. Over time, attrition will occur and openings can be evaluated for necessity to right-size the workforce over time. This may also mean that you won’t see some of the financial benefits from efficiency gains right away. You need to have a little faith that the gains will come as long as you stick with it.

3) People in the union are no different from everyone else in two regards: they want more time and more money to use to their liking. A lesson from Freakonomics, people’s behavior tends toward the most favorable incentives and away from disincentives. A huge part of any improvement initiative will require significant behavior changes so any effective change agent will need to be psychologically savvy to get people to break old habits. If people smell that engaging in CI will mean less money in their pockets, they will resist. If you set up your CI incentives to put more money in people’s pockets and / or allow them more free time (without losing pay), the critical mass toward CI activity will be leveraged in your favor as the change agent. Read my earlier blog post on Value-based compensation for some great ideas on how daily compensation could be set up to reflect actual value contribution instead of hours on the clock.

Implementing continuous improvement in a union environment is a challenging job but can certainly be done. The fundamental benchmarks are the same but the pace can be reduced significantly. Union plants are a lot less agile in many ways because many practices are regulated by stringent contracts, which can definitely slow the rate of change. However, by recognizing the leverage points (such as very high expertise) and pitfalls, you can craft a powerful strategy for a bullet-proof continuous improvement implementation.

Copyright © Calvin L Williams blog at calvinlwilliams.com [2015]. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Calvin L Williams with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.