注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

论老子

道,领导也。领导必需要不断呼唤,教导下属以及以身作则。下属的过和错皆因领导懒惰。

 
 
 

日志

 
 

Chapter 26: Hidden Losses  

2012-06-24 11:40:03|  分类: Buffer Mentality |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

“Is it true that the sum total of the actual productivity plus the quality losses and downtime losses always equal to 100%?” I asked John.

“It should be. Most companies just report productivity and downtime. These two numbers add together always equals to 100%. Or as a matter of fact, the productivity is the difference obtained from 100% minus the downtime losses.

Now you add a third factor, quality losses. The sum total of all three factors should be 100%,” replied John.

“But I had described to you a concept called, ‘speed losses’ in chapter 12. How do you account for this as a productivity loss?” I asked.

John was dumb-folded for several minutes. He then replied, “I don’t know. I have not heard of anybody trying to measure speed losses. In the first place, can it be measured?”

I explained, “Not exactly, Speed loss is almost impossible to measure accurately. That is why most companies do not capture it in their productivity report as speed loss.

Fortunately, speed losses can be reflected indirectly as a measurable loss in productivity if the earned-hour method is used to compute the actual productivity based on actual output quantity. Likewise, quality loss can also be converted into an earned-hour equivalent loss. This wonderful conversion of productivity and quality losses into earned hours plus the actual recorded downtime hours are in the same unit of measure. That is hour: a universal time that does not change.   

Using the earned-hour method, the sum total of the actual productivity plus quality losses and downtime losses usually is less than 100%. There is a need to understand the gap between 100% minus the sum total of the actual productivity plus quality losses and downtime losses. This gap prods you to look for the root causes of the loss in productivity.

We call this gap, the hidden losses. If the gap is substantial, it means there is a large potential for improvements. Speed loss is likely to be a substantial factor.”

“What a neat term to account for the difference in the short-fall in productivity in meeting the goal of 100% efficiency. What is hidden loss? I have never heard of this term. Can you illustrate to me, what it is?” asked John.

I explained, “In everybody’s mind, there is always an idealistic concept of being rewarded for not having to put in much effort. Or to put in the minimum effort to extract the biggest gain is the next best ideal situation.

But in reality, there is no such thing such as free-lunch or an invincible hand making things work in your way. That is why we have to constantly remind ourselves that liken to ants; we must work hard, everyday. 

Many of us are very fortunate to have found a job in a big organization. With a permanent job, it automatically means there is a fixed salary at the end of the month, every month. Irrespective of whether there is work to do or not during working hours, the onus or responsibility is on the shoulders of our supervisors or managers. When we have nothing to do after reporting to work is our managers’ fault for they had failed to make full use of our time and wasted our talent and resources on their hands. It is not the workers’ fault but the supervisors’.

Wasting company resources is a big issue. If a manager is not bothered if a worker is idling his time away or not, other workers will be grossly unhappy. Why?

In every worker’s mind getting paid for no putting in work is okay for himself but not for fellow colleagues. On the other hand, he would not mind to work hard if every other worker is working hard, too.

For this reason, all managers must not forget their number one, primary duty. That is, to ensure that every worker has more than enough work to do. However, this simple concept is not easy to be carried out. First and foremost, how to tell a worker has not got enough work to do?

Hidden loss is an ideal factor that surfaces the presence of losses in productivity among the workforces. It can be used to tell how much of the workers’ time is lost because they do not have enough work on hand to last them till the last minute of the day.” 

Impatient, John interrupted, “I understand the importance of keeping everybody busy and working hard to produce the highest level of quality and production output. But first thing first; can you share with me how do you measure hidden losses?”

“Here is a Figure for the computation of hidden loss,” I said.


Figure 26-1: Computation of hidden loss

Productivity

90.0%

output quantity x standard hour/unit

Quality losses

2.6%

rejected quantity x standard hour/unit

Machine downtime

5.5%

actual downtime obtained from downtime log

Hidden losses

1.9%

100% - productivity - quality losses - machine downtime

Total

100%

 

 

“The formula used to compute hidden losses is simple arithmetic. A simple Excel spreadsheet will take care of that. But is it really that significant in real life?” asked John.

I explained, “In the above example, the hidden loss is 1.9%. It is insignificant. But I can share with you four real life case studies that illustrate the presence of substantial loss in productivity due to hidden losses in a typical office or manufacturing environment. You can actually feel it in the air.”

“Really,” doubted John.   

 

Illustration #1: Sinar Mas – a business organization in Indonesia

 

“In November 1997, I visited the headquarter of Sinar Mas, the second largest conglomerate in Indonesia shortly before it collapsed under the weight of the financial crisis that hit the ASEAN countries severely.

At every quarter of the office and whichever floors I went to, I saw people; many people. It was an office full of people.

It doesn’t take the sharp eye of a consultant to figure out that most of these people were not doing their work. They were simply idling and chit-chatting their time away. It appeared to me they have all finished their work and are waiting for the day to end. But my watch told me that it was only 10:30 am in the morning.

What is wrong with these people? Aren’t they supposed to be working?

I could not make out what I saw. So I asked my guide, a fellow management consultant from McKinsey & Company, United States who had just taken up an assignment with Sinar Mas for less than 4 months.

He replied, ‘Hmm! In Indonesia, the Rupiah is cheap. Dirt cheap compared to the US dollars. And the worker’s pay is very low too. Most of them earn less than US$50 equivalent a month. This company which gave me an assignment is not bothered with low labor productivity at all. Moreover, the boss feels he has a duty to the country to keep people fully employed.’

For goodness sake, I do not understand the logic behind paying people to keep them employed but with nothing for them to do? Are these people simply relatives and friends of the managers who feel in their capacity as managers they are obliged to give their relatives and friends well paying jobs?

I was brought up in Malaysia and built my career in Singapore. I do not understand what socialism means. But then, neither is Indonesia a socialist country. But what I saw in Sinar Mas was socialism in practice.

To a person not trained in the field of productivity, having superfluous number of workers means the ability to finish a piece of job much faster is undisputable. As the saying goes, ‘With more people, things get done faster’ or ‘Many hands lighten the load’.

But anyone who had studied human behavioral science will tell you a contradictory story. In my eyes, what I saw in Sinar Mas was the message, ‘Why am I working so hard when everyone around me is idle?’

A new worker picks up this mentality almost instantly. Or in other words, this mentality sinks into every new worker pretty darn fast. It does not have to be taught. Everyone feels it is in the air, in the cafeteria, in the office, in the meeting rooms and even in the board room.

In each and every individual worker’s mind, he tells himself, ‘I don’t have to work hard. I just need to get the bare minimum done and call it a day.’

But what is the bare minimum?

Someone’s barest minimum may not be another’s minimum. There is always someone else who can beat the lowest of the minimums. The entire workforce just got itself into a whirlpool that sucks everyone down the productivity ladder.

The focus is no longer on getting things done, but rather on how smart you are in avoiding doing any work. And the smartness unveils itself in the form of a whole new plot of ugly office politics, absenteeism, missing in action and etc.”

“Wow! In this company the hidden losses must be much higher than 50%, perhaps, at 80%. Certainly the management has not been measuring the productivity of its workers.

Does it know how to measure its workers productivity level? Not knowing how to do so could be the reason. And this reason probably justified the buffer mentality of its management. That is just adds more people to get things done,” said John.

“It does not mean that organization in a third world country does not know how to measure the workers’ productivity level. An American multi-national corporation, such as Hewlett-Packard too, does not know how to measure labor productivity,” I added.

“Is it so? Give me hard real facts,” John pursued.  

 

Illustration #2: Hewlett- Packard’s inkjet operation in Singapore

 

I explained, “I dare say if I were to be given an assignment to improve labor productivity, I can halve the number of staff if Sinar Mas is located in Singapore or Malaysia. But would this mean the same buffer mentality does not exist in Singapore or Malaysia?

If your answer is ‘No’, you are dead wrong.

In chapter 6, ‘Downtime losses’, the example of the TOVA station is part of the inkjet manufacturing assembly line of Hewlett-Packard, an American multi-national company operating in Singapore.

The production supervisor wanted to keep the two excess workers on top of the current four. To him it was a necessary evil. After all, two additional workers out of the total of 45 workers under his supervision lower the direct labor productivity by a mere 4.4%.

Ringing in his mind was a bigger question, ‘What if the TOVA station gives problems again?’

But he did not understand how detrimental the effect of keeping just two extra workers within his work group is. The effect is far much greater than the 4.4% he thought. The low productivity at the TOVA station is not going to be contained at just this station. It is like a disease. It spreads. And it spreads pretty fast like viruses. Why do I say so?

On a micro level, two extra workers on top of the current four mean 50% more workers than is necessary. After sharing the workload equally among six workers each worker is required to work 67% of the time to keep the machine running smoothly. This is provided the current four workers are already working at 100% efficiency.

In this example, these four workers were actually working at much less than 100%. Based on my task audit results, they were operating at about 50% efficiency level. The resultant six workers perhaps, were working at closer to 30% efficiency level. Meaning two-third of the time they were idling.

What will be the effect of six workers who are idle two-third of the time to the other workers who are working nearby?

Quite naturally these other workers will think, ‘What lousy luck I am in? I am assigned to take charge of this lousy machine that demands my full attention. I can’t find time to rest for even a short while. But look the adjacent station, five or six of them are idling, having nothing much to do, most of the time. It is so unfair to me. I get about the same pay as they do, but down rotten in luck I get to work three times as hard.’

Unable to fight off the bombardment of such scenario day in and day out, the spirit of the workers dwindled. Low spirit leads to low morale. Certainly, low morale discourages these workers to slow down; getting slower and slower as the day goes by. And not to my surprise, they soon learned that by slowing down their pace, they were able to bring their plight to their supervisor‘s attention that they too were short-handed.

Needless to say, the productivity level of this work group dropped to about 60%. If their productivity had not dropped to this productivity level, how was I able to recommend a 38% reduction in the manpower required when I did the task audit?

There are thousands of workers working in a factory. There are so many factors that affect the production output rate. And frequently, production backlogs occur. In order to catch up with backlogs most production supervisors and production managers would like to keep an extra pool of workers, much more than necessary. In no time, the whole factory will end up with full of people idling for most of the time of the day.

It is imperative that management knows very well that its workers cannot be left idle with nothing to do. If they are left idle, trouble will soon surface. First and foremost, low productivity leads to low profit, if the company is not already operating at a loss. Poor profit or loss eventually means lower income to the workers. Low income means the workers will leave for greener pasture elsewhere. The company may have to end up raising the wage rate to entice workers to stay with the company or to attract new workers to come onboard and work for it. The resultant higher wage rate means even lower profits or more losses for the company.”

“Wait a minute,” said John, “Let me summarize what you had said. ‘Managers must be monitoring the productivity level of his workers at all times. When reviewing the productivity numbers, management must review the hidden losses. Management cannot just walk around the factory floor and depends on its gut feel to sense the spirit and motivation level of its workers by sniffing in the air and decides whether there are hidden losses or not.’”

“You are right, John,” I said, “The use of the concept, ‘hidden losses’ is to unveil the downtime losses that would otherwise, had gone unnoticed. Let me give you another example that illustrates the concept of hidden losses. This time I am using an example that happens right in our eyes here in Bintan.”

“That will be great. It will be a real eye opener to me,” exclaimed John.

 

Illustration #3: Productivity of the receiving inspectors

 

I explained, “On the first day to Bintan, my boss Samuel led me to the Material Quality department. Huge backlog of in-coming materials were waiting for the receiving inspectors to perform incoming inspection. I looked around and noticed that everyone is busy at work and does not even raise their heads when Samuel walked in. Something must be amiss.

He said, ‘This department really sucks. The backlog is more than 3 days’ worth of inventory. The production lines could not meet the on-time delivery because parts are stuck up right here waiting for the receiving inspectors to carry out in-coming inspection. Urgent parts must be accepted by them before they can be moved these parts to the production floor.’

Disappointed, he just walked away leaving me behind to figure out what was wrong here.

Later the day I interviewed Sumith, the manager for the Material Quality department. He told me, ‘Eric, the number of urgent parts is more than a hundred part numbers. Naturally, the receiving inspectors will not be able to clear this large number of urgent parts fast enough. Sometimes, we feel the number of urgent parts are so over-whelming that it is easier to identify the non-urgent parts than the vast number of urgent parts.’

I went down to the receiving inspection section and watched the receiving inspectors carrying out their work. I noticed through their eyes there is no passion. I observed their motion were a lot slower than a normal person would be performing. I hypothesized that the morale of these receiving inspectors was low.

Up in my mind, there is more than one way to boost up their morale. Monetary reward alone may not be the only answer. I decided to install a productivity monitoring system to measure the relative productivity of the receiving inspectors. Of course I want to surface out among the 8 receiving inspectors, who are the slow workers who had been idling their time away from the more hardworking ones. The downtime losses dissipated among the slower receiving inspectors must be addressed first.”

“How do you do that? It is human downtime. It is never or almost impossible to measure the downtime of a human worker. I like to learn from you,” requested John.

I continued, “First, I got Happy, the incoming quality engineer to carry out a time study. I asked him to list down all the sub-tasks of the receiving inspection process. Next, I asked him to carry out a time study using a stop watch to measure the cycle time of each sub-task.

I added up the sum total of all the standard times for the 24 sub-tasks and calculated the average standard time taken to complete the inspection of one batch of incoming materials. The average standard time for the receiving inspection process was 28 minutes per batch or 0.45 hours per batch.

Assuming each receiving inspectors works 8 hours a shift, each of them should inspect 17 batches (8 hours per shift divided by 0.45 hours per batch = 17 batches inspected per shift).

At the end of the day, Happy computed the productivity factor using the formula; number of batches inspected multiplied by 0.45 hours per batch divided by 8 hours per shift and multiplied by 100%.

The end result of this computation is an efficiency number transformed into a percentage unit of measure. Ideally, an inspector should hit 100%. A lower than 100% efficiency means an inspector is slow (lost through speed loss) or was not doing inspection or idles away his time (downtime losses).

Refer to the Figure 7-3 (not attached). You notice Dedi Saputra’s efficiency was only 65%. He has a lot to catch up to hit 100%. Other than Michael whose efficiency was 102%, the rest of them have room for improvement.

     Happy made use of the above chart and explained to the receiving inspectors that the goal is to hit 100% which is the normal inspection rate expected from every one of them. The receiving inspectors questioned Happy how the above efficiency number was derived. Happy explained to them the rationale of the computations and the standard time used turned out to be about the comfort level of the receiving inspectors. They concurred with this way of measuring their efficiency.

Two weeks later the receiving inspectors were not happy because they have to carry out activities that were not directly contributing to the measureable output. Happy told me the few situations where the receiving inspectors were unhappy.

I told Happy, for a start you go ahead to get them to track the time lost while carrying other activities that do not directly contribute to their output. Assume these are visible downtime akin to the tracking of equipment downtime.

The assumption was, let the known downtime be tracked so that we can analyze the downtime losses later. We can identify the top three downtime losses and try to reduce them. This process can be repeated time and again to bring all the downtime losses to their lowest level.    

Two months later, the productivity of the receiving inspectors was measured. This time the downtime factor was incorporated.

From the chart (not attached, if you were to ignore Deddy Hendrawan who is the lead receiving inspector, the sum total of the downtime and efficiency of 4 of them did not add up to 100%. The shortfall cannot be accounted for using a combination of the productivity efficiency and the recorded downtime losses. This shortfall is assigned to a new classification called, ‘hidden losses’.”

John interrupted and asked, “What is the purpose of injecting a new category called, ‘hidden losses’?”

“You have not heard of this term, ‘hidden losses’ simply because the method most companies used to define productivity is not capable to surface this hidden loss factor. The initial goal of all the receiving inspectors is to reduce the percentage of hidden losses to zero.

In this example, over the past two months, Zuherman, Ridwan and Adeprayudi had managed to reduce the hidden losses to zero. It could also mean there is no speed loss among these three receiving inspectors. The remaining four of them still have room to catch up in speed or there is a need to find out had they been carrying out non-value added activities or not or simply they are idling some of their time away.”

“I understand now. The hidden loss is a neat way to smash the buffer mentality that most management had conveniently chosen to ignore measuring the true productivity level of the workers. If it doesn’t measure it, it sees no evils.”

“You are dead right. But really very few companies in the world know about this technique of using hidden losses to surface opportunities for improvement.

Let me move on to the next example and share with you where something has gone wrong in the way an operations manager runs the production department. It was a discussion that happened a week ago,” I said.

“That is really wonderful. It is a real case happening down here,” exclaimed John.

 

Illustration #4: Individual worker’s productivity against team goal

 

I explained, “Gurmit, the group HOS lead specialist was down in Bintan for one of the Focus Improvement Events. During the discussion with the 5 store keepers, we came out with 16 Kaizen or continuous improvement ideas. One of them was to introduce a productivity indicator for measuring the efficiency of the individual store keeper.

The store keepers agreed that they should be measuring their own productivity. It is a form of feedback to how well they are doing. Today, they do not know how their performance is being measured.

During lunch, Gurmit asked me this question, “Why do you measure the productivity of the individual store keepers? We should set a team goal instead of a goal for each individual worker.”

I asked, “Why not?”

Gurmit explained, “A worker or two may go on leave or on sick leave. How do you expect the team to accomplish the team’s goal, everyday? It is not possible to do so with fewer people than the normal manning level.

When I was the plant manager, I choose to set a team goal. Irrespective of the number of workers who are on leave or absent, the team must deliver 100% of the team goal by the end of the day.”

“I asked, ‘Is this the way you set goals for your people? You are actually setting this goal for yourselves. You just ignore the fact that there will be people who go on leave or falling sick. You just want your own numbers to be met. This is a selfish way of goal setting,” I put my point across to him.

Gurmit was stunned. He was dumb-folded for a few minutes. He then humbly asked, “Eric, what choice do you have? If you were to measure the workers individual’s productivity, they will stop work the moment they achieved their own target. Nobody will be interested to meet the team’s goal despite knowing several people among them were absent. Every operations manager preferred to set a team goal.”

I asked, “Here are a 10-dollar note and a 5-dollar note. Which one do you want?”

“Of course, the 10-dollar note! It is a no-brainer,” replied Gurmit.

“I would take both the notes. That will give me 15 dollars in all,” I said, “I would want the workers to meet their daily target and at the same time, meet the team’s goal every day despite of the number of people who are absent.”

“Hey! Eric. That is no possible. It is a situation of either this or that,” defended Gurmit.

“Why is it no possible? Is it because you do not know how to measure the worker’s productivity?” I asked.

“Yes! You are right. Though I am a lean master, honestly I do not know much about Industrial Engineering. I understand Toyota Motor Corporation applies that very well. But in the lean production workshops, hardly much was talked about I.E. in the class,” said Gurmit.

I clarified, “It is rather hollow if you lean about the lean stuff taught in the lean workshop where Industrial Engineering was totally left out of the syllabus. I.E. is the foundation of the lean production system.

Let me get back to the main point. A student goes to school and sits for a test. He is expected to score 100 marks. That is 100%. He therefore, tries his best to achieve 100%.

The same thing applies to the work place. Every worker goes to work and he is expected to hit 100% efficiency. This is a measure of his daily productivity. Short of hitting 100% efficiency, it means his productivity has dropped or is simple has been low.

Gurmit, how do you measure efficiency?”

Gurmit replied, “In the lean workshop, we were taught the concept that the takt time is the most critical piece of information. Once we have determined the takt time, the rest of the computations for all kinds of resources, factory layout, Kanban system, material inventory and storage requirement and etc will fall in place.

In fact, we had developed a neat Excel spreadsheet to compute all the statistics critical to the decision-making process. Depending on the complexity of the production processes, more or lesser numbers will be input and the spreadsheet automatically computes the key statistics and the analysis is ready for decision-making. It is so easy.”

“Easy?” I asked, “In the first place, did you ever ask the most fundamental assumption - ‘What is takt time?’ and ‘What is its unit of measurement?’ I bet none of the instructors or Professor Daniel T. Jones[1] himself had ever asked this question.”

“Why do you ask that? Its unit of measurement is simply, hour per unit,” explained Gurmit.

I asked, “How do you measure the productivity of a worker with this unit of measurement?”

“Well, if the takt time is 1 hour per unit, he should complete 8 units in an 8-hour shift. If he finished his work at the end of the day, he is said to have achieve his target,” explained Gurmit.

“Do you call that 100% efficiency?” I asked.

“That should be the case, shouldn’t it be?” asked Gurmit.

I said, “A worker can finished 8 units by the end of the shift or he may required 2 more hours to finish all the 8 units using a total of 10 hours including over time. How do you differentiate between these two situations?”

Gurmit was dumb-folded. He knew he had not found a useful measurement to differentiate between these two situations. He was thinking hard for several minutes but to no avail.

I asked, “How do you compute efficiency? To be more exacting, how do you compute percentage?”

“It is a number divided by another number and multiplied by 100. That gives a percentage measurement,” replied Gurmit.

“No. Not that simple. What about the unit of measurement? In the first place, the unit of measurement between the numerator and the denominator must be the same. Then you can cross out the unit of measure and leaving behind a %,” I explained.

“This is really going back the school for an Arithmetic lesson,” exclaimed Gurmit.

I continued to explain, “The unit of measurement for takt time is hour per unit. Hour per unit as in the takt time and the unit of output are not apple-to-apple. They do not cross out each other and therefore, you cannot compute the percentage in this way. How many hours does a worker have in one work shift?”

“8 hours. Assuming an 8-hour shift,” replied Gurmit.

I said, “To make things simple, Let us assumed that the given takt time of 1 hour per unit is the standard time for the worker. Note. I am leading you back to the use of standard time, the most fundamental arithmetic value for all Industrial Engineering applications.

As a production planner, how many units of products do you plan for this worker?”   

Gurmit replied, “8 units. 8 units multiply 1 hour per unit equals to 8 hours. The unit disappeared. The unit of measurement for the numerator, ‘units’ crosses out with the unit of measurement for the denominator, ‘hours per unit’ and leaving behind the unit of measurement, ‘hour’.”  

I said, “You are a quick learner, Gurmit. But I am going to give this hour a name. It is called, ‘planned hour’. It denotes the number of hours of work you have planned for the worker.

At the end of the day, the worker should complete all 8 units by the end of the shift. I am not going to measure the achievement of the worker by 8 units completed. I am going to multiply the 8 units of product completed by 1 hour per unit and say he has earned 8 hours of work. The unit of measurement is ‘earned hours’. Essentially, it is hour. The word, ‘earned’ is just an adjective.”

“Planned hours and earned hours? They are considered as the same unit of measurement; essentially hour,” said Gurmit.

“Not good enough. I still need to borrow another common term, ‘available hour’. There are 8 hours in a shift. The available hour per shift is 8 hours. If the worker were to continue his work requiring 2 hours of extra over-time, the available hours afforded to him is 10 hours, (8 normal shift hours plus 2 overtime hours).

If he were to complete all 8 units within the 8- hour shift, his efficiency is 100% (8 earned hours divided by 8 available hours and multiplied by 100%).

If he required 2 extra overtime hours, his efficiency is only 80% (8 earned hours divided by 10 available hours and multiplied by 100%).

Note. This is the power of using efficiency to differentiate the productivity performance of the two different situations.”

Gurmit nodded his head, “Yes, indeed this is a transparent, neat and doubtless way to measure the productivity of the workers. I do not know how to do that.”

“Without a properly defined productivity indicator, you will never be able to compute the hidden losses. In this example, the hidden losses or to be more exacting, the speed losses of a slowed down in human pace is not visible even though it surfaced later in the form of unplanned for overtime hours.

However, most managers cling on to this buffer mentality, ‘As long as the team goal that I had set for them is accomplished, they are efficiency. I too, had met my goal for the day’s delivery.’”

“Eric, this is really an eye-opener. And you are very sharp. You questioned the basic fundamental of the use of takt time,” said Gurmit in awe.

I ended the story and said, “John, in my next book, “The untold secrets of VSM”, chapter 3 writes about the misused of takt time.”

“Eric, in the lean workshop, the facilitator did not analyze the unit of measure component of the takt time. You do. You are simple, very meticulous. You query everything. You are several classes about the lean masters.”

I summarized my discussion with John Zeneski, “John, when you read the next chapter, ‘Setting productivity indicator’, you will find several samples of how a manager sets productivity indicators for his company. None of them used this earned hour method.

By the way, the next chapter writes about the factory overall productivity that has a lot more relevance to equipment-based kind of productivity measurement. ”

John said, “Eric, you have addressed the problem about the workers’ productivity in the most wonderful way. Most operations manager simply just ignored this subject.”

I closed up the discussion, “Well, this is what I learned through the hard knock school. Nobody taught me.”


 



[1] In 1985, Professor Daniel T. Jones spent US$5 million and 5 years to studied 90 different car factories in the world. In 1992, he wrote the book, “The machine that changed the world”. He addressed the Toyota Production System as the lean production system. Lean in this context simply means there is little waste in the production system.  

  评论这张
 
阅读(228)| 评论(0)
推荐

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017