presentation

byDiwakar Sharma

Presentation TopicsIntroduction ObjectiveMethodologyAnalysis –SPSS, XLResults and DiscussionsConclusions & Recommendations

Introduction2 mins

IntroductionAircraft Industry worldwide are embracing lean

manufacturing for improving Quality of Work life by

creating, maintaining and continuously improving the environment in and around the work place

A serene environment and workable work exponentially increases

the productivity, quality of output, employee satisfaction, and helps in improving the brand image of the

companies among the customers and stakeholders.

IntroductionTo keep itself in pace with world class Aircraft

Industries, HAL’s Lean journey started with

the visit of Top leadership to Boeing, Israel Aircraft Industries, and to Rolls Royce.

learnt about Lean Initiatives taken by these aircraft majors to bring down drastically cycle times, lead times, inventory and cost

a lean consultant, who has been also assisting IAI was invited to HAL in December 2003 to make a presentation to the Top Management Team.

embarked on lean journey from December 2003 full time “Lean Resource Teams” led by Senior

Executives formed since December 2003 at all the divisions.

IntroductionLean Management was introduced in Avionics

Division, Hyderabad with

the formation of the Steering Committee and Lean Resource Team 18thJan 2004.

kick-start of lean initiatives with the visit of Mr. Crispin Brown, consultant on 20thJanuary 2004.

Since then Hyderabad has come along way. Their production increases are excellent and the progress made in production leveling is impressive and deserves praise.

Financial Performance 2005-06 to 2008-09

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

YEAR

VALU

E in

Rs

Cr.

SALES 285.41 317.12 436.18 666.01

VALUE OF PRODUCTION 464.28 544.18 756.60 887.35

PROFIT 28.32 37.83 47.51 75.70

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

9

254

472

909

1175

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

NO. U

NITS

PRO

DUCE

D

MONTH

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

10

IntroductionOn the eve of completion of five years of lean

Journey, Chairman (HAL) in a message to directors and divisional head has emphasized on the necessity of alignment of leadership at all the level around the purpose and importance of successful implementation of this change initiative.

Keeping in view the progress made by Hyderabad division and the importance of the requirement of visionary leadership at all the levels it was decided to carry out research onPerception of division’s employees on progress

of lean initiatives and on the topic “Impact of Leadership on

Systematic Organizational Change through Lean Initiatives” from the perspective of HAL Hyderabad division.

Objective Understanding the current status of lean initiatives at

HAL, Hyderabad Testing of Hypothesis “There is a positive correlation

between “top” level management leadership and the successful outcomes of a “lean” change initiative.”

Capturing employee’s perception about the current status of lean initiatives at HAL, Hyderabad in order to gauges the gap between the perceptions of the management and the employees of the Avionics division, Hyderabad about the progress of lean initiatives

Development of framework for successful implementation of lean at division level

Methodology In depth review of literature Survey questionnaire

Section A – General Information Section B – Implementation Section C – Outcomes D- Status of Lean implementation at

Hyderabad division/SLRDC Interaction with senior officials Review of various documents related to

lean consultant

Visionary LeadershipVisionary Leadership Formula (f(x)) *

f(x) = [(w)(Shared Purpose) + (w)(Empowerment) + (w)(Appropriate Organizational Changes) + (w)(Strategic Thinking)]

Where:(w) = weight factor

Shared Purpose = Vision + Communication

*Adopted from Nanus’ Visionary Leadership, 1992, p-156

Productivity Outcomes Productivity Outcomes Formula (f(y)) *

f(y) = [(w)(External Outcomes) + (w)(Internal Outcomes)]

Where:(w) = weight factor

External Outcomes = Customer Satisfaction + Schedule/Delivery Performance + Quality of Product or Service

Internal Outcomes = Resource Utilization + Return on Assets + Cycle Time

*Adopted from (Ulrich, et al., (1999), Results Based Leadership: How Leaders Build the Business and Improve the Bottom Line and (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), The Balanced Scorecard

Proposed Correlation Model

Pro

duct

ivity

Out

com

es

f(y)

Visionary Leadership f(x)0 1

1

X Change Initiative

The proposed correlation model of Productivity Outcomes vs Visionary Leadership

Research Methodology Hypothesis

Existing Theories

- Leadership- Productivity

Key Questions- Leadership Equation

- Productivity Equation

SurveyCollect data for each

equation variable

Correlation Model

- Quantify Equations- Leadership Index-Productivity Index

Hypothesis- Reject

- Fail to Reject

Hypothesis h1 = Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient (r) is a positive numeric value.

Ho: β1 = 0

H1: β1 ≠ 0

Where:Ho = Null hypothesisH1 = Alternate hypothesis β1 = Slope of trend line

Analysis

The survey was distributed to approximately 317 people as sources of data and information

The total number of surveys collected was 87, representing a response rate of 27.4 percent

Out of 87 responses 16 were discarded based on the answer to questions C3 & D.1.13.

Demographics of Survey Sample Please indicate your Organization

Fig. 8.1 : Organisation

SLRDCHAL HYDERABAD

Pe

rce

nt

100

80

60

40

20

0

19

81

Which of these titles best describes

your role in the organization?

Fig. 8.2 : Role

Technical Workforce

SR. TECHNICAL STAFF

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT

SENIOR MANAGEMENT

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

22

57

19

In which functional area of

the organization do you work?

Fig.8.3 : Functional area of organization w here respondent w orks

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0 44

37

74

17

44

17

Leadership

Which of the following statements best characterizes

the evolution of the lean change initiative's vision?

Fig. 8.6 : Role of Enterprise Leader

in formulating the initiative’s vision

Suggested by the Ent

Written by LRT in co

Composed by LRT in c

Composed by LRT, rev

Composed and announc

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

30

2226

6

15

Which of the following leaders is recognized

as the most influential driver

of the lean change initiative?

Fig. 8.7 : The leader w ho is recognized as the

most inf luential driver of lean initiative

ED

AGMs & DGMs

LRT Head

Middle Managers

COP

Senior Technical Sta

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

26

7

46

97

Shared Purpose

The organization's level of understanding

of the lean initiative's vision is best characterized

by which of the following statements?

Fig. 8.8 : The organization’s level of understanding

of the lean change initiative’s vision

understood by all

understood by most

understood by some

not understood

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

13

3937

11

The visibility of the lean initiative's vision

to the organization is best characterized

by which of the following statements?

Fig. 8.9 : The visibility of the lean initiative’s

vision to the organization

very visible and all

very visible through

some locations throu

displayed in lobby

None of the aboveP

erc

en

t

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 7

19

48

7

19

Empowerment What is the extent of employee decision making

applied within your organization?

Fig. 8.10 : The extent of employee decision

making w ithin an organization

some employee

Signif icant decision

to most employees, a

to all employees, an

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

59

28

9

Appropriate Organizational Changes

Which of the following statements best describes

the level of integration between the organization's goal

and the lean initiative's vision?

Fig. 8.11: Level of integration betw een the organization’s

functional objectives and vision objectives

integrated and all

integrated and most

integrated but often

not integrated confl

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

15

39

28

117

Which of the following statements best describes the process

or processes employed to enable integration between

the organization's goal and the lean initiative's vision?

Fig. 8.12 : The process employed to enable integration betw een

functional and vision objectives

w ithin & b/w depts w

w ithin & in mtgs b/w

only w ithin dept

no processes employe

MissingP

erc

en

t

30

20

10

0

28

202022

9

Strategic Thinking To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)

have the following strategies been

implemented during the lean change initiative?

Fig. 8.13 : Extent of clear goals and objectives

implementation strategy

Effectively implemen

Too much implementat

Not enough implement

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

80

60

40

20

0

22

69

To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)



Fig. 8.14 : Extent of strategic alliances implementation strategy




NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

28

59

6




Fig.8.15 : Extent of committing new resources implementation strategy




NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

28

6

57

6




Fig. 8.16 : Extent of building the organization’s human capital

implementation strategy




NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

26

65

Productivity Outcomes External Value

To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, 5 and

Very = 6, 7) have the cust. satisfaction improved since

the implementation of the lean change initiative?

Fig. 8.17 : Extent of customer satisfaction improvement

Very

Somew hat

Somew hat

Somew hat

NOT AT ALL

NOT AT ALL

NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

9

20

13

31

467

9


Very = 6, 7) have the Schdule / Delivery improved since


Fig. 8.18 : Extent of schedule/Delivery performance improvement

Very

Somew hat

Somew hat

Somew hat

NOT AT ALL

NOT AT ALL

NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

30

20

10

0

28

1113

22

11

4

9


Very = 6, 7) have the Quality improved since


Fig. 8.19 : Extent that quality of product or service has improved

Very

Very

Somew hat

Somew hat

Somew hat

NOT AT ALL

NOT AT ALL

NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

11

35

1515

47

66

Productivity Outcomes Internal Value

To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and

Very = 6, 7) has Resource Utilization improved since


Fig. 8.20 : Extent of resource utilization improvement

Very

Very

Somew hat

Somew hat

Somew hat

NOT AT ALL

NOT AT ALL

Missing

Per

cen

t

40

30

20

10

06

30

20

13

20

64


Very = 6, 7) has ROA improved since


Fig. 8.21 : Extent of return on assets improvement

Very

Very

Somew hat

Somew hat

Somew hat

NOT AT ALL

NOT AT ALL

NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

30

20

10

0

1517

11

24

7

4

911


Very = 6, 7) has Cycle Time improved since


Fig. 8.22 : Extent of Cycle Time improvement

Very

Very

Somew hat

Somew hat

Somew hat

NOT AT ALL

NOT AT ALL

NA

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

30

20

10

0

7

28

15

11

22

446

4

Overall Outcomes To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and

Very = 6, 7) do you believe the lean change initiative

was successful

Fig. 8.23 : Extent that lean initiative w as successful

Very

Somew hat

Somew hat

Somew hat

NOT AT ALL

NOT AT ALL

Pe

rce

nt

30

20

10

0

11

2828

22

7

4

Correlation Model PRODUCTIVITY VS LEADERSHIP INDICES

y = 1.7328x - 0.8458

R2 = 0.4738

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

LEADERSHIP INDEX

PR

OD

UC

TIV

ITY

IND

EX

y = 1.7328x – 0.8458 r = 0.6883 Where:

y = y coordinate on graphx = x coordinate on graphr = Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

Hypothesis Testing of the Model Ho: β1 = 0 , i.e., the sample population’s trend line slope is zero H1: β1 ≠ 0

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.67147728

R Square 0.45088174

Adjusted R Square 0.44268595

Standard Error 0.15435539

Observations 69

ANOVA

df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 1 1.310735767 1.31073577 55.01379 2.70206E-10

Residual 67 1.596314233 0.02382559

Total 68 2.90705

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

Intercept -0.8084165 0.190794091 -4.2371149 7.08E-05 -1.189243199 -0.427589788 -1.1892432 -0.427589788

0.675 1.69009979 0.227864445 7.41712817 2.7E-10 1.235280331 2.144919253 1.235280331 2.144919253

Normal Probability Plot

Sample Percentile

0.2

Null hypothesis is rejected

“significance of F” column is the probability that the population sample’s slope is 0

With a numerical value for “significance of F” equaling 2.70206 E-10

this means that it is highly unlikely that the population of this sample’s slope is zero and it is highly unlikely that there is no prediction due to regression from this model given the sample statistics obtained

Hence, it is highly likely that this regression model adds significant predictability of the dependent variable.

Scenario One – Avionics division, Hyderabad vs SLRDC, Hyderabad

For Avionics Division, Hyderabad: y = 1.6817 x - 0.8025 r = 0.6762

For the SLRDC, Hyderabad: y = 1.9426 x -0.9962 r = 0.7452

HAL, HYD vs SLRDC

y = 1.6817x - 0.8025

R2 = 0.4572

y = 1.9426x - 0.9962

R2 = 0.5553

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

LEADERSHIP INDEX

PR

OD

UC

TIV

ITY

IN

DE

X

HAL HYDERABAD

SLRDC

Linear (HAL HYDERABAD)

Linear (SLRDC)

Scenario Two – Comparison of Different Leadership Roles within the Sample

For the Sr. Management Segment:

y = 1.2414x - 0.3513 r = 0.6084

Functional Scenario - Leadership vs Productivity Indices

y = 1.2414x - 0.3513

R2 = 0.3701

y = 1.7567x - 0.9254

R2 = 0.4891

y = 1.2998x - 0.4864

R2 = 0.341

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

Leadership Index

Pro

du

cti

vit

y I

nd

ex

SENIOR MANAGEMENT

MIDDLE MANAGEMENT

ENGINEERS

Linear (SENIOR MANAGEMENT)

Linear (MIDDLE MANAGEMENT)

Linear (ENGINEERS)

For the Middle

Management Segment:

y = 1.7567x - 0.9254 r = 0.6994

For the Engineer Segment:

y = 1.2998x - 0.4864 r = 0.5839

Status of Lean Implementation at HAL, Hyderabad Results on perception of

respondents about success of implementation of lean initiatives at Hyderabad

Division / SLRDC

5 “S” Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Most of the employees of the division are fully aw are about 5S" w rt

success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

07

48

13

28

4

Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Your department is consistently maintaining and improving 5S rating"

w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

07

50

1917

7


"w ork areas w ithin organization focus on sustaining their basic 5S"


AgreeNeither Agree nor dDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

39

24

33

4Awareness about 5S

Improvement in 5S rating

Sustaining 5S

Kaizen Events


"Most of the employees are fully aw are about the aim of KEs"


AgreeNeither Agree nor dDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

43

20

30

7

Awareness about kaizen events


"Most of the w ork areas are sustaining the improvements through KEs"


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0 4

41

31

22

Sustaining improvements through kaizen events

A3 Plan Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Departments are extensively using A3 Plan for their day-to-day w ork"


Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 4

17

50

20

9

Use of A3 plan

TPM

Effect of TPM


"TPMs have enhanced the confidence of shop f loor operators"


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0

7

41

31

9

66

PDM Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"People in your department are fully aw are about division's PDM"


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6

17

57

13

6

PD

M

awarene

ss


"People in your department are fully aw are about PDM metrics"


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

50

40

30

20

10

0 4

11

24

43

13

6

PD

M m

etrics A

warene

ss Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"PDM's Measure and Action is fully integrated w ith functional objective"


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

04

15

31

22

11

17

PDM metrics integration with functional objectives


"Integration of PDM's Measure w ith measurable quality objectives"


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

30

20

10

0 2

2426

28

7

13

PDM metrics integration with measurable quality objectives

LDMS Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"LDMS is practiced by most of the functional areas"


Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

6

37

28

17

13

Practice of LDMS

Outcomes of Lean Implementation at HAL,

Hyderabad Results on perception of

respondents about outcomes of implementation of lean initiatives at Hyderabad

Division / SLRDC

Capacity Enhancement Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Capacity Enhancement has empow ered the functioning of A&T Shops"

show ing visible change initiatives in the Division

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

15

56

17

11

Positive effects of capacity enhancement

Production Leveling

Production increase and Production leveling


"Excellent production increase and impressive production leveling "


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

22

52

15

47

Reduction in the production problems


"reduction in the production problems due to design issues "


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

9

37

28

15

66

Reduction in the production problems due to design issues


"reduction in the production problems due to material issues "


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 4

48

22

11

69

Reduction in the production problems due to material issues

Transformation of functioning with process view

The functioning of the functional areas is becoming process focused


"functioning of the functional areas is becoming process focused "


Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor d

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Missing

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

48

24

13

4

9

Conclusions & Recommendations2 minsConclusionMajor contributionsRecommendations- There are 8 key

Recommendations

BACK UP SLIDES

What is Lean?A broad collection of principles and practicesaim is to refashion the production process in a

manner that includes the elimination of waste, the removal of inventory buffers, a focus on quality and continuous improvement as a lean enterprise.

Lean production is about expanding capacity by reducing costs and shortening cycle times between order and ship date

Lean is about understanding what is important to the customer

LEAN: An Attitude that drives ActionZero Tolerance for

Waste

Relentless pursuit of Waste

Leadership, managers, supervisors…. Everyone just won’t tolerate waste

Waste of all kinds:Time, effort, money, materials,

opportunitiesEverything

EveryoneSeeking out waste

Identifying where it is

Eliminating it Everywhere

TPS or Lean is successively TPS or Lean is successively

overcoming all the obstacles to overcoming all the obstacles to

linking every step into a continuous linking every step into a continuous

FLOWFLOW sequence, precisely sequence, precisely

**synchronized with the demandsynchronized with the demand of of

the end customer.the end customer.

( * TAKT TIME ( * TAKT TIME concept )concept )

Make the work flow

The work cannot help but move

fast!

Lay the work out in the minimum

space

in a Nutshell

GOALS

Reduction in cycle time

Quality Improvement

Reduction in Inventory

To become World Class Enterprise

Lean is solidly supported by two pillars of :

Continuous Improvement Continuous Improvement

Respect for People

Such an environment can only be

created where there is “Development of Development of

PeoplePeople” through knowledge

management & learning organization.

Removing obstacles, Removing obstacles, engage the minds of people engage the minds of people

to support & to support & contribute their ideas contribute their ideas

to the organizationto the organization

Eliminating WasteWaste is just one-third of the equation for making lean successful.

Eliminating unevennessunevenness in the production schedule and Eliminating overburdenoverburden to people and equipment are just as important.

Make an ongoing effort to teach individuals how to work together as teamswork together as teams toward common goals

WASTE

Lean Philosophy

ValueValue WasteWaste

Quickly

Continuously

Process mapping.

Identify the Value Stream.

Eliminate non-value added

activity

VALUE STREAM MAPPING:-

i) Current state.

ii) Future state. ( Repeat Above

)

( To Tackle Unevenness in Production ( To Tackle Unevenness in Production )

( To Achieve ( To Achieve Teamwork )Teamwork )

The relentless effort for Waste elimination and

continuous improvement is effected by the

following TPS tools, which is application of know

solutions to known problems. * Policy Deployment Matrix * Policy Deployment Progress Review * Lean Daily Management System * Visual Control 1 Piece flow Kan Ban Cellular layout

SMED Kaizen event ( VSM, TPM, Poka Yoke, 6 etc.,)

MEASURES & GAPS

SPECIFICGOALS

ACTIONS

“LOCATIONS”

POLICYDEPLOYMENT MATRIX R

ES

OU

RC

ES

You providethese

You are“given”These

You agreeWith these

You Ownthese

You commitTo these

Looks at variant, Initiate necessary actions

MeasuresAnd targets

PlanedBaseline

Status May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Plan

Do

Check

ActGoals Measures

Commitments

Actions

Results

CorrectiveAction

Results

MeasurementGaps

Measurement

Policy Deployment Matrix

Measure Follow-up

sheets

Target AchievementWorksheets

PolicyDeployment

ProgressReview

PDPR: Policy Deployment Progress Review

Information is displayed in an interesting and exciting way to inform and stimulate employees and visitors.

Notice BoardsPerformance BoardsPhotographsColoured Floor PaintSigns

Lean Daily Management System(LDMS)

LDMS: Lean Daily Management System

To-Do List

Daily “PDPR”

“Clock” ChartWork plan

• Focal Point for daily management

• Very reactive•Stand-up morning meetings (or more frequent)• Focus on what we need to do to achieve the daily “plan”

• The “standard work” (when it exists)

• Combination of leading and trailing indicators

• Clock chart gives “leading” potential problems that must be solved to stay on “plan”• Daily “PDPR” give recent results

• To-Do list provides “instant” PDPR/b

• Action items to ensure that the plan can be recovered

• Everyone contributes their views on potential problems

• Can use mechanical Andons to give even faster reactivity

To-Do list is used to detail clock chart problems and to collect

any issues needing action

Clock chart provide a visual indication that

all that is needed to

complete the plan is available

or notThe daily work

plan or standard work is the

“anchor” to see if any gaps exist

that must be corrected

The results are measured daily any

gaps to target performance reviewed and

corrective actions identified

A simple mechanical Andon

provide a visual control visible from

a distance

DAYS

3029

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

1817 16 15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

32

131

LDMS - CLOCK CHART

HOUSE KEEPINGD

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUETAKT TIMEEQUIPMENT/TOOLING

FG

E

QUALITYSTANDARD WORK IN PROGRESS

SAFETY

DESCRIPTIONSYMBOLS

BC

A

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

BLUE

RED ACTION REQUIRED

NO ACTION

LDMS – CLOCK CHART

Clock Chart The Criteria for selecting potential problems depends on the individual machine/cell/line

While selecting the criteria, make a list of potential problems

Discuss with the Operators/Supervisors, they will explain what problems they face daily

01302928

27

26

25

24

23

22

21

20

19

1817 16 15 14

1312

11

10

09

08

07

06

05

04

0302

BA

D

G

IJ

E

C

H

F

CLOCK CHART FOR DSG-01 VALVE ASSEMBLY

IS TESTRIG RUNNING OK?

TESTER AVAILABLE ?

SKILLED ASSEMBLY

BIN PARTS AVAILABLE

HAND TOOLS AVAILABLE ?

ENSURE HEIJ UNKA

AS PER SCHEDULE ?

IS COIL KEPT

AS PER STANDARD ?

AVAILABLE ?

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

PERSON AVAILABLE ?

AT WORKSTATION ?

IS SPOOL AVAILABLE

BOX IS FULL ?

AS PER STANDARD ?

IS IRON CORE AVAILABLE

COMPRESSED AIR

Daily PlanThe daily plan is defined and

displayed It explains the expectations

from the cell / machine for the day or shift.

Daily PDPR The Daily “PDPR” gives the details of the

PCDQS targets for the machine / cell and the actual results for the previous day.

If the clock chart is fully green, the targets are expected to be achieved.

Any failure results in an entry into the TO-DO list to facilitate immediate corrective action.

To Do ListLEAN INITIATIVE

REF. NO. AND DATE

1

DATE RAISED

2

NAME WHO

RAISED 3

WASTE PROBLEM/ OPPORTU

NITY 4

AGREED ACTION

5

RESPONSIBILITY

6

TIME/DATE OF

COMPLETION 7

PROGRESS INDICATOR

8

1, 1.08.2004 01.08.04 Govind Raj

Layup sequence sheet not available

Layup sequence sheet will be supplied K.Suresh

1.08.04 0930hrs

2, 02.08.2004 02.08.2004Soma sekhar

Sealant tape not available

Sealant tape will be giiven MN Suresh

02.08.04 1000 hrs

LDMS -TO DO LIST

LDMS: Process tree

Team gathers

each morning about 15 mins after

start of work for stand-up meeting

At start of working time (shift|) the team leader

ensures that yesterday’s results and

today’s plans are updated on board

Did we achieve yesterd

ay’s targets

?

Group writes up the

problems/root causes on the to-

do list

Did we complete

all the to-do list actions as per plan?

Group reviews to-day’s plan

Do we have

everything we need

to complete to-day’s

plan?1) PDPR-chart 2) To-Do list 3) Daily Plan 4) Clock chart

Group agrees actions to be implemented

and completes to-do list

Rapid Implementation

5) To-Do listTo-Do list

Off to

work

No! No!No!

Yes! Yes!

Yes!

presentation

Documents

lean implementation

lean manufacturing

kickstart of lean initiatives

lean change initiative

hals lean journey

years of lean journey

level management leadership

successful outcomes