7 Wastes Of Lean

The 7 wastes are at the root of all unprofitable activity within your organization.

The 7 wastes consist of:

1. Defects 2. Overproduction3. Transportation4. Waiting5. Inventory6. Motion7. Processing

Use the acronym 'DOTWIMP' to remember the 7 Wastes of Lean.

The worst of all the 7 wastes is overproduction because it includes in essence all others and was the main driving force for the Toyota JIT system, they were smart enough to tackle this one to eliminate the rest.

A Brief Tutorial on Mistake-proofing, Poka-Yoke, and ZQCJohn R. Grout, and Brian T. Downs ?

Shigeo Shingo was one of the industrial engineers at Toyota who has been credited with creating and formalizing Zero Quality Control (ZQC), an approach to quality management that relies heavily on the use of poka-yoke (pronounced POH-kah YOH-kay) devices. Poka-yoke is Japanese for mistake-proofing. These devices are used either to prevent the special causes that result in defects, or to inexpensively inspect each item that is produced to determine whether it is acceptable or defective.

A poka-yoke device is any mechanism that either prevents a mistake from being made or makes the mistake obvious at a glance. The ability to find mistakes at a glance is essential because, as Shingo writes, "The causes of defects lie in worker errors, and defects are the results of neglecting those errors. It follows that mistakes will not turn into defects if worker errors are discovered and eliminated beforehand"[Shingo 1986, p.50]. He later continues that "Defects arise because errors are made; the two have a cause-and-effect relationship. ... Yet errors will not turn into defects if feedback and action take place at the error stage"[Shingo, 1986, p. 82]. We suspect that Shingo and Deming would have a protracted discussion about whether workers or management are responsible for defects. No resolution of that issue is undertaken here.

An example cited by Shingo early in the development of poka-yoke shows how finding mistakes at a glance helps to avoid defects. Suppose a worker must assemble a device that has two push-buttons. A spring must be put under each button. Sometimes a worker will forget to put the spring under the button and a defect occurs. A simple poka-yoke device to eliminate this problem was developed. The worker counts out two springs from a bin and places them in a small dish. After assembly is complete, if a spring remains in the dish, an error has occurred. The operator knows a spring has been omitted and can

correct the omission immediately. The cost of this inspection (looking at the dish) is minimal, yet it effectively functions as a form of inspection. The cost of rework at this point is also minimal, although the preferred outcome is still to find the dish empty at the end of assembly and to avoid rework even when its cost is small. This example also demonstrates that poka-yoke performs well when corrective action involves trying to eliminate oversights and omissions. In such cases, poka-yoke devices are often an effective alternative to demands for greater worker diligence and exhortations to "be more careful."

An example of a poka-yoke device at General Motors (GM) was described by Ricard [ Ricard, L.J., "GM's just-in-time operating philosophy", in: Y.K. Shetty and V.M. Buehler, (Eds.)., Quality, Productivity and Innovation. Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, 1987, pp. 315-329.]: "We have an operation which involves welding nuts into a sheet metal panel. These weld nuts will be used to attach parts to the car later in the process. When the panel is loaded by the operator, the weld nuts are fed automatically underneath the panel, the machine cycles, and the weld nuts are welded to the panel. You must remember these nuts are fed automatically and out of sight of the operator, so if the equipment jams or misfeeds and there is no part loaded, the machine will still cycle. Therefore, we have some probability of failure of the process. An error of this nature is sometimes not detected until we actually have the car welded together and are about to attach a part where there is not a nut for the bolt to fit into. This sometimes results in a major repair or rework activity."

"To correct this problem, we simply drilled a hole through the electrode that holds the nut that is attached to the panel in the welding operation. We put a wire through the hole in the electrode, insulating it away from the electrode so as it passes through it will only make contact with the weld nut. Since the weld nut is metal, it conducts electricity and with the nut present, current will flow through, allowing the machine to complete its cycle. If a nut is not present, there will be no current flow. We try to control the process so that the machine will actually remain idle unless there is a nut in place."

Shingo identified three different types of inspection: judgment inspection, informative inspection, and source inspection. Judgment inspection involves sorting the defects out of the acceptable product, sometimes referred to as "inspecting in quality." Shingo agreed with the consensus in modern quality control that "inspecting in quality" is not an effective quality management approach, and cautioned against it.

Informative inspection uses data gained from inspection to control the process and prevent defects. Traditional SPC is a type of informative inspection. Both successive checks and self-checks in ZQC are also a type of informative inspection. Successive checks were Shingo's response to the insight that improvements are more rapid when quality feedback is more rapid [1986, pp. 67-69]. Work-in-process undergoes many operating steps as it is moved through a manufacturing facility. Often inspections are conducted at intermediate stages in the process. Shingo's concern was that the inspections may not occur soon enough after production to give the best information necessary to determine the cause of the quality problem so that it can be prevented in the future. By having each operation inspect the work of the prior operation, quality feedback can be given on a much more timely basis. Successive checks are having the nearest downstream operation check the work of the prior operation. Each operation performs both production

and quality inspection. Effective poka-yoke devices make such an inspection system possible by reducing the time and cost of inspection to near zero. Because inspections entail minimal cost, every item may be inspected. Provided that work-in-process inventories are low, quality feedback used to improve the process can be provided very rapidly.

While successive checks provide rapid feedback, having the person who performs the production operation check their own work provides even faster feedback. Self-checks use poka-yoke devices to allow workers to assess the quality of their own work. Because they check every unit produced, operators may be able to recognize what conditions changed that caused the last unit to be defective. This insight is used to prevent further defects. Self-checks are preferred to successive checks whenever possible.

Since the main difference between successive checks and self-checks is which work station performs the inspection, in this research we do not distinguish between the two types of informative inspection. Both successive and self-checks provide information "after the fact."

Source inspection determines "before the fact" whether the conditions necessary for high quality production exist. (Note that Shingo's use of the term source inspection is not the practice of having the buyer's representative inspect the quality of work-in-progress at the supplier's facility, which is also called source inspection.) Shingo writes, "It had dawned on me that the occurrence of a defect was the result of some condition or action, and that it would be possible to eliminate defects entirely by pursuing the cause" [Shingo, 1986, p.50]. He further writes that "I realized that the idea of checking operating conditions before the operations rather than after them was precisely the same as my concept of source inspection" [Shingo,1986, p.51].

With source inspection, poka-yoke devices ensure that proper operating conditions exist prior to actual production. Often these devices are also designed to prevent production from occurring until the necessary conditions are satisfied. Norman [1988] refers to this type of device as a "forcing function." The example from GM that "forces" the nut to be present before welding can occur is an example of source inspection.

Source inspection, self-checks, and successive checks are inspection techniques used to understand and manage the production process more effectively. Each involves inspecting 100 percent of the process output. In this sense, zero quality control is a misnomer. These inspection techniques are intended to increase the speed with which quality feedback is received. And although every item is inspected, Shingo was emphatic that the purpose of the inspection is to improve the process and prevent defects, and therefore is not intended to sort out defects (although in some cases that may also be an outcome) [Shingo,1986, p. 57]. Shingo believed that source inspection is the ideal method of quality control since quality feedback about conditions for quality production is obtained before the process step is performed. Source inspection is intended to keep defects from occurring. Self-checks and successive checks provide feedback about the outcomes of the process. Self-checks and successive checks should be used when source inspection cannot be done or when the process is not yet well enough understood to develop source inspection techniques. Additional information about ZQC and failsafing is provided in the poka-yoke reading list.

In Shingo's seminal book on ZQC [1986], he criticized SPC and suggested that ZQC should supplant SPC as the preeminent tool for defect elimination in quality control. His main argument against SPC was that it is by nature an intermittent form of inspection, and therefore allows for some number of defects to occur. He further argued that SPC is designed to maintain the current level of defects , rather than to aggressively seek to eliminate them. In addition, Shingo claimed that "...a look at SQC methods as they are actually applied shows that feedback and corrective action - the crucial aspects of informative inspections - are too slow to be fully effective." [Shingo, 1986, p.68]

Given the fact that applications of SPC generally have substantial intervals between the taking of samples, it seems reasonable to argue that feedback will be faster with source inspection and informative inspection in ZQC. However, it is not clear that ZQC should be systematically faster than SPC at insuring corrective actions. Indeed, according to Shingo [Shingo, 1986, p.71], "Defects will never be reduced if the workers involved do not modify operating methods when defects occur." The willingness to take corrective action is a function of the attitude and commitment of both managers and workers, not an intrinsic attribute of a particular approach to quality management. Shingo's complaint about the actual implementation of SPC may also apply to ZQC.

A detailed, academic treatment of the relationship between SPC and ZQC is presented in working papers by Grout and Downs (1995). The essence of their conclusions is when used for informative inspection,

ZQC is not as effective as SPC for defects that result from variance in measurement data

ZQC is a special case of SPC for defects that result from variance in attribute data.

ZQC's source inspection can be used effectively to eliminate mistakes and in conjunction with SPC to eliminate the recurrence of special causes.

Empresa Líder en Recursos Humanos Solicita:Puesto: Jefe deproducciónEdad: 24 a 35 añosSexo: MasculinoEstadocivil: IndistintoEscolaridad: Ingeniero Industrialtitulado.Experiencia: De al menos 2 años en planta de preferenciade empresas internacionales de alimentos o farmaceúticas manejando personalsindicalizado, seguridad industrial y calidad.Descripción delpuesto: Actividades: administrar los recursos (personal, materiales y equipos),con controles establecidos para cumplir el programa dentro del tiempo, cantidady calidad requerida, coordinar el proceso de los productos, verificandofísicamente estos y que los procedimientos se lleven a cabo, para cumplircon los estándares establecidos, planear la distribución adecuada delpersonal de planta mediante la coordinación directa en las líneas deproducción, para cumplir con los programas establecidos por supplyplanning, dirigir al personal mediante las buenas relaciones humanas y lamotivación para incrementar la armonía entre todos y conseguir losobjetivos de la empresa, capacitar y desarrollar los recursos humanos

disponibles, mediante la retro-alimentación para obtener la máximaeficiencia y productividad de su trabajo, desarrollar un medio ambiente debuenas relaciones con el personal sindicalizado, mediante un trato justo y unrespeto mutuo para conservar la disciplina y la moral en el mayor grado posible,controlar las producciones diarias mediante el uso adecuado de documentos, parapoder tener un óptimo registro de tiempos de producción, personal yentregas de producto, verificar velocidades de la maquinaría mediante elseguimiento de los ciclos de producción para cumplir con el estándarde producción y mantener el uso correcto y cuidados de los equipos,participar en las actividades inherentes al sistema de control de pérdidasy protección al ambiente que se defina en la empresa y las que lalegislación nacional marque, coordinando y/o contribuyendo directamentepara obtener el objetivo de la organización en las áreas mencionadas,coordinar cambios de formato, revisando el programa diario y semanal deproducción para cumplir con lo programado en cada una de las líneas,supervisar la asistencia mecánica a los departamentos de procesos yempacado, verificando que los mecánicos ejecuten ajustes continuos a lasmaquinas de las líneas durante el turno de producción, para que estano se interrumpa y se mantenga en operación las líneas, promover elcambio y modificación de equipos, herramental y logística deproducción en las áreas de procesos y empacado con el fin de acelerarla productividad, eficiencia y calidad, promover y desarrollar la formaciónde equipos de alto desempeño y los grupos de mantenimiento autónomo,implementar y sostener el orden y la limpieza en toda la planta a través delas 5 S, implementar la metodología de TPM en toda la planta, incrementarla eficiencia a través de resolución de problemas críticos quesepresentan en las líneas de producción, asegurar la calidad de losproductos, dándole seguimiento a los controles estadísticos deproceso, asegurar el envio de incidencias de pago del personal sindicalizado, alcentro de servicios de Unilever, estos deberán ser en tiempo y forma, deacuerdo a los procedimientos establecidos.Requisitos: Dominio deseguridad industrial y calidad, conocimientos en las áreas relacionadas conlas actividades como son: seguridad, calidad, mantenimiento, ingeniería,almacenes, investigación y desarrollo, planeación, tecnología einnovación en manufactura, etc. Principales habilidades: gusto por sutrabajo, solución de problemas, adaptación al cambio, trabajo enequipo, trabajo bajo presión. Conocimientos técnicos: seguridadindustrial, manejo de personal alrededor de 200 empleados sindicalizados y otrosmas de confianza, mecánica básica, administración de personal,manejo de windows (general) y manejo de SAP preferentemente. FrancésAvanzado. Muy buena presentación.Sueldo: $25,000 a $26,000prestaciones superiores a la ley (vales de despensa, automóvil, celular,etc) y comisionesHorario: Lunes a Sábado de 8:00 a 18:00 hrs. Zona detrabajo: TultitlánEnviar curricula en caso de cubrir todos losrequisitos especificados por mail con el nombre de la vacante. Nosotros noscomunicamos para agendar entrevista. Solo te pedimos indicar que checaste la

vacante en OCC para fines estadísticos de la empresa. GRACIAS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Información Adicional Sueldo: $25,000 to $26,000 mensualPuesto: Tiempo CompletoCódigo de Ref.: 7974

?

México-DF - Ingeniero de Procesos Servicios

?

Empresa Líder en Recursos Humanos Solicita:

Puesto: Ingeniero deProcesosEdad: 24 a 36 añosSexo: MasculinoEstado civil:IndistintoEscolaridad: Licenciatura Titulado

Experiencia:Mínima de 2 años en puesto similar en procesos de manufactura,programas de mejora continua, programas de seguridad industrial ycoordinación de líneas de produccción.

Descripcióndel puesto: Coordinar y controlar procesos de manufactura, así como elseguimiento y aplicación de procesos de calidad. Manejo de líneas deproducción y personal sindicalizadon. Análisis de indicadores deeficiencia y controles estadísticos.

Requisitos: IngenierosIndustriales o afín, titulados únicamente. Conocimiento de la rama demanufactura y calidad, instrumentos de medición, conversiones, seguridadindustrial, especificaciones de calidad (ISO9000, Lean Manufacturing, 5s, Sixsigma), indicadores de eficiencia, controles estadísticos, manejo delíneas de producción y personal sindicalizado. Indispensableconocimiento avanzado de autocad y project. Disponibilidad de horario yfacilidad para viajar. Deseable tener pasaporte y visa aún no vigentes..Inglés Avanzado. Muy buena presentación..

Sueldo: $21000 a$21000, prestaciones de leyHorario: Lunes a Viernes de 8:00 a 18:00. Zonade trabajo: Cuautitlán Izcalli

Enviar CV a:ploaezamanpower

Interesados enviar su curriculum por mail. Solote pedimos indicar que checaste la vacante en OCC para fines estadísticosde la empresa. GRACIAS

?Información Adicional

Sueldo: $21,000 to $21,000 mensualPuesto: Tiempo CompletoCódigo de Ref.: 9437

?Datos de la Empresa

Paola Loaezaploaeza@manpower.com.mxManpower - RECLUTAMIENTO DF MASIVOS CSOAV. INSURGENTES SUR NO. 1971 LOCAL 50 PLAZA INN C.Mexico, Distrito FederalPh: 5322 54 00

Applying Lean Manufacturing To Six Sigma - A Case StudyBy Niraj Goyal

There are continuing questions about the relationship between Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma techniques. This relationship has been expressed as follows:

Stretch the process applying Lean techniques

Solve the problems of deviation from the standards

Ensure maintenance of the improved status using Six Sigma techniques

However, if the system and processes are too poor, stretching it could break it. In this case Six Sigma techniques should be applied to solve some of the top line problems before stretching it.

The case presented clearly demonstrates this relationship.

This work was carried out in a large company based in the US and India in the business of converting printed paper from customers into electronic copies. It is a continuation of the earlier case study entitled "Six Sigma Case Study: Converting Paper to Electronic

Documents." The paper material is quite heterogeneous in nature -- consisting of assorted magazines and legal papers.

The results obtained have obvious applicability to the back rooms of industries processing large amounts of data -- IT enabled services, banks, insurance companies, hospitals, and computer based office processes. They are also applicable to most organizational processes.

As emphasized in the earlier work, in the author's opinion and experience, success is a function of techniques and more importantly a mindset change in the organisation. The narrative unfolds in the same sequence as the project did pointing out the critical stages where results were achieved and where mindset changes occurred.

1. Define And Measure The Problem1.1) Selection of the problem: A meeting of the senior management of the company was held and a brainstorming session produced a list of over 30 problems. These were affinitized into two categories:

"End result" problems faced by the external customers

Internal problems that were causes of customer problems rather than basic problems themselves

The realization that the first category of problems was the one to be attacked (customer focus) came spontaneously.

Then prioritization was done to select the most important problem using the weighted voting system followed by a quick discussion to produce a consensus. The theme (CTQs) selected was "Consistency of Quality and Timeliness."

The Consistency of Product Quality was resolved first and a 98% error reduction was achieved.

The project described here was born out of a chance remark by one of the participants in the group: "We are going to add new capacity." To my casual query, "Why?", came the answer: "We need to improve the turnaround." Immediately I intervened stating that turnaround is not dependent on capacity. The disbelief that stared back at me was but a reflection of the mindset prevailing and the task at hand to change it.

A cross-functional team including the planning personnel, and the key representatives of the operations from each stage of the process was formed to test the principles of Lean Manufacturing in practice.

1.2) Definition of the problem: A second level of brainstorming generated a list of problems which were affinitized into customer problems and internal problems. The customer problems were expressed:

1. Delayed delivery -- frequent customer complaints

2. Peaking of incoming loads aggravates delays.

The other problems were set aside as they were causes of the customer problems rather than intrinsic problems themselves.

The Project Charter was then set out as follows:Problem = Customer desire - Current state

1.3) Measure the problem: A suitable data collection check sheet was designed and data was collected two weeks on the turnaround time of documents to define the problem quantitatively. The following results were obtained:

Customer Requirement Of Turnaround Time: <5 daysCurrent State Average Turnaround: 5 dayssigma: 1 day3-sigma (99.7%) Delivery To Standard: <8 days

The interpretation of consistency of delivery (turnaround) using sigma created disbelief at first as the group struggled to understand the concept. Gradually however it was grasped -- the problem was not the average turnaround, which was within the customer limit but the variability. This was the second major mindset change and led to the definition of the goal: Reduce Turnaround time by 50% so that its (average + 3 sigma) < 4 days.

2. Analysis of the ProblemA flowchart was prepared outlining each activity in the process. Many gaps were revealed that had to be filled up and thought through. Standard times of each process per batch of 50 pages were tabulated in a specially designed check sheet. The team was amazed when the time for the value adding steps added up to only 31 hours. The most important mindset change had begun, asking, "Why do we take 5-8 days?"

The principles of Lean Manufacturing and turnaround time reduction were then introduced:

Zero waiting time

Zero Inventory

Scheduling -- internal customer pull instead of push system

Batch to Flow -- cut batch sizes

Line Balancing

Cut actual process times

Finding the vital causes: Data was collected for three batches clocking the timing at each stage and comparing it to the standard timings to find where time was being lost on a specially designed data sheet.

With the data it took the group only a few minutes to draw a Pareto Diagram of delays and conclude three vital reasons causing 70% of the delay was non-processing (waiting) time due to:

Lack of awareness -- large waiting times for small items falling between departments

Inventory

Unscheduled work patterns and therefore unavailability of personnel at the right time

3. Idea GenerationThe old mindsets were shattered but the group was struggling to understand the concepts confidently enough to start applying them in regular production. An experiential simulation classroom exercise in which the group members participated was designed and carried out to experience the concepts first hand. Armed with this conviction, the team proceeded to the next step to design a pilot test.

Planning the Pilot: A step-by-step implementation plan was drawn up. It was estimated that cutting inventory and scheduling the production cycle to flow in the current batch sizes would lead to the achievement of the goal. The whole chain was briefed about the new method and agreed on a schedule. The team was ready to run the pilot.

4. Idea ModificationA pilot batch was run to test the scheme: It took 36 hours. Amazed jubilation followed by an enthusiastic buy-in of the concepts -- demonstrating my belief that nothing works better than results in accomplishing mindset change. From then on it was difficult to restrain the group from pushing ahead too fast.

5. Implementing The Change5.1) Scheduling: Production was carried out in a number of parallel lines in a 1-2-1-7-1 configuration. Careful scheduling and planning of the set up was done to convert each stage to the new mode of running. Training was carried out, and the conversion begun with data acquisition for further problem solving.

5.2) Implement the change: After eight weeks of a step-by-step introduction the new schedule was running and estabilised at all stages. Everyone was pleasantly surprised at the ease of implementation and learned that involvement of all functions and effective countermeasure design using data makes implementation of dramatic improvement easy and quick.

6. Checking The ResultThe turnaround achieved was as follows:Average Turnaround Time: 3 dayssigma: 0.4 daysAverage + 3 sigma: 4.2 days (i.e. < 5 days)

The goal had been achieved!

The Production line personnel reported tremendous benefits:· Ease of tracking production batches· Increased productivity (over 50%) and therefore reduced costs · Better quality · Ability to handle peaks of input data of up to 75% for 2 days per week within customer specified turnaround limits

7. Standardization Of ControlControl charts were introduced and a special presentation on how to draw and interpret them was made to the line personnel. A Standard Operating Procedure with a concise reporting format was developed for regular review, management control and killing of any new causes of variability. The team was left with the mindset of continuous improvement -- "If you do not improve, you deteriorate".

Future Action: At the end of the project when asked what could be achieved in terms of turnaround the team confidently asserted that they could cut it by half to a 3 sigma performance of <1.5 days, or more than a six sigma performance for the customer. This was estimated to yield a further 40% increase in productivity. The mindset change from the pre project stage was an intangible gain but perhaps the most important one.

This Project is now in progress.

Conclusion -- Selling QualityThe combined effect of Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma has led to improvements in product quality (98% reduction in errors) and turnaround time (50% reduction). These improvements have resulted not only in cost reduction, but also the possibility of presenting these improvement stories to the customer, building the reputation of the company as a leading supplier of quality, and thereby increasing the probability of getting higher volumes of business.

About The AuthorNiraj Goyal has 25 years of rich and varied working experience in multinationals in various operating roles, among them Operations Director, Cadbury India Limited, where he was exposed to and was among the leading implementers of the TQM movement. A few years back he set up his own consultancy, Cynergy Creators Private Limited. Mr. Goyal consults in India and US with a diversity of industries - training them and facilitating the implementation of the techniques of TQM and Six Sigma until the culture of continuous change is internalized. Further details about this article and assistance for similar change initiation and implementation through training and facilitation can be obtained from Mr. Goyal at nirajgoyal@vsnl.in.

Process Redesign to Reduce Cycle Time _ A Case StudyBy Dibyajyoti Bandyopadhyay

A power distribution company in India, catering to the needs of domestic, commercial, industrial and agricultural users, was not meeting the country's Electricity Regulatory Commission performance standard regulations for metering and billing. Those standards require the company to provide new power connections within 30 days from the date an application is received. In each case that the company was unable to meet the standard, it was required to pay a penalty for the delayed connection. This translated into an annual cost of 1,980,000 Rupees (US$46,000). A Six Sigma DMAIC project was initiated to reduce cycle time. This is the case study of that project.

Improvement Opportunity: The Define/Measure PhasesThe project scope was limited to the process of providing new power connections to users up to a 100kw load in approved and electrified areas where the power supply network exists. The defect was defined as any new power connection that required more than 30 days to complete. Data collected for a five-month period showed an increasing trend in the number of defects with an average of 330 per month (Figure 1). Completion of the data collection plan yielded the information reflected in Table 1.  Figure 1: Monthly Status of Pending Connections After Stipulated 30-Day Time Limit

Table 1: Summary Statistics of Collected Data          

 Mean 46.2 Standard Error 1.1 Median  41.0 Mode 31.0 Standard Deviation 25.6 Sample Variance 654.5 Kurtosis 4.7 Skewness 1.8 Range 171   Minimum 2   Maximum 173   Sum 27328  

The project targeted benefits included cost savings associated with the amount paid in penalties, local conveyance expenditures, employee costs, and document handling as well as an increase in customer satisfaction.

Analysis and Interpretation: The Analyze PhaseA cross-functional team was formed to prepare a process map with each activity identified by one of three categories – real value-added, business value-added, non-value-added – based on the following criteria:

Real value-added included essential activities that transform inputs into outputs that are necessary to meet customer requirements and have perceived value to the customer.

Business value-added included activities that are installed by management and deemed necessary to support, control, and monitor internal business functions but have little or no perceived value to the customer.

Non-value-added included nonessential and non-processing activities that do not contribute to customer satisfaction or improved business operations.  The results of the analysis showed that only 19 percent of the process activities are real

value-added. From a time study carried out to estimate the standard man-minutes required for performing each process activity, it was determined that the process required a maximum time of 8.2 hours. Real value-added activities comprised only 25 percent of the overall processing time (Table 2) indicating that in some stage of the process, significant breakdowns were occurring.

Table 2: Analysis of Various Activity Categories

Activity Category Number of Activitiesin Progress

Estimated StandardMan-Hours/Case

Estimated MaximumMan-Hours/Case

 Real Value-Adding 14 2.04  25% Business Value-Adding 29 2.82  34% Non-Value-Adding 31 3.31  40% Total 74 8.17  680 

To assess where significant breakdowns in the process were occurring, the total cycle time was divided into five sub-categories based on various milestone dates (Table 3).

Table 3: Definitions of Each Sub-Cycle Time

 Sub-Cycle Time   Definition Sub-Cycle Time-I (SCT-I)   Time between date of receipt of application and date of demand note

preparation Sub-Cycle Time-II (SCT-II)  Time between date of demand note preparation and date of printing of

demand note Sub-Cycle Time-III (SCT-III)  Time between date of printing of demand note and date of payment by

customer Sub-Cycle Time-IV (SCT-IV)   Time between date of payment by customer and date of progress card

generation Sub-Cycle Time-V (SCT-V)  Time between date of progress card generation and date of energizing

 

 

 

 

The Pareto analysis of the sub-cycle times revealed that two cycles were accounting for 88 percent of the total time (Figure 2).

 Figure 2: Contribution of Each Sub-Cycle Time

A brainstorming session identified the significant factors affecting these times. From that information, solutions were identified.

Recommendations: The Improve PhaseTo redesign the process all non-value-added activities were eliminated, business value-added activities were minimized, and real value-added activities were streamlined. Key improvements included the following:

The application form and agreement form were combined, reducing the number of required documents and eliminating duplicate information.

Databases related to meter reading status and bill payment status of existing customers were made accessible online to detect potential status issues before accepting the application. Detection at the application receiving stage rather than at a later stage helped reduce rework and improve customer satisfaction.

Systematic calculations of charges and implementation of an e-mail messaging system for communication of potential issues made the process flow faster and be less prone to errors.

The redesigned process was piloted in one district during a four-week period. A time study was carried out to estimate the standard man-minutes required for performing each activity in the new process (Table 4). Results were positive, with the new standard deviation set at 4.8 days and the mean total cycle time reflecting 12.1 days, a substantial reduction over the previous process mean of 46.2 days. In addition, the number of activities in the process was reduced from 74 to 36.

Table 4: Analysis of Various Activity Categories

Activity Category Number of Activitiesin Progress

Estimated StandardMan-Hours/Case

Estimated MaxiumMan-Hours/Case

 Real Value-Adding 9 1.7  32.7% Business Value-Adding 27 3.5  67.3% Non-Value-Adding   0 0.0    0.0% Total 36 5.2  100.0% 

At Last: The Control PhaseTo monitor and control ongoing process performance, the company implemented a database to track each application and monitor the key sub-cycles. A concise reporting format also was developed to track the weekly progress of energizing within each zone and the overall performance for each district.

A cost-benefit analysis conducted after full implementation of the new process in all zones quantified the net savings for the company (Table 5) and confirmed the success of the project.

Table 5: Cost-Benefit Analysis

 Account Headings Amount (Rupees) Remarks

   Savings/per annum from:   Penalty money   Expenditure on local conveyance 

        1,980,000       1,008,000 

  Based on past performance Based on data provided by the claimants

   Total Annual Savings        2,988,000      Expenditure per annum for:   Purchase of two mobile        supply vans       (one for each five districts)   E-mail costs (2,000 Rupees per       month per zone)

          160,000            960,000 

 Based on cost of vans totaling 800,000 Rupees amortized    over five years. Annualized cost 160,000 (Maintenance    cost of vans was not considered) Approximated 

   Total Annual Expenditures        1,120,000   Total Net Annual Savings        1,868,000  

The Elements of Success When Starting Up Six SigmaExclusive Six Sigma Research from iSixSigma Magazine

Thinking of starting a Six Sigma initiative this year or next year? For

any adventure, the first few steps can set the mood for the rest of the

journey. The same is true for a Six Sigma deployment, in which

thoughtful planning can make the difference between respectable

returns or a quality quagmire. This iSixSigma Magazine research study explored

the ins and outs of starting up a Six Sigma initiative and sought to identify the elements that contribute to a

program's success during the first two years. Those companies that will begin an initiative next year will

find in this study baseline data to consider in deployment planning, and those well into their Six Sigma

initiative can compare their deployment to the findings here.

1,191 Number of total survey respondents

52 Percent of respondents who reported that their company invested less than $500,000 in Six Sigma the first two years

47 Percent of respondents who said between 1 and 10 projects were completed during the first two years of their company's Six Sigma deployment

31 Percent of respondents who reported that employees internally promoted to Six Sigma roles were the ones to initially drive their company's program

20 Percent of respondents who said the most challenging aspect of their Six Sigma

deployment the first two years was selecting the right projects

58 Percent of respondents who reported that executive compensation at their company was not tied to reaching Six Sigma goals

61 Percent of respondents from companies with highly successful-rated Six Sigma programs who reported that executive compensation was tied to Six Sigma

42 Percent of respondents who reported that "tangible commitment from company executives" was the most important criterion of a successful Six Sigma program

1.3 Percent of respondents who reported that their company deployed Six Sigma enterprise wide and said the deployment was highly unsuccessful

17 Percent of respondents who said Six Sigma was brought to their organization by a former GE executive

39 Percent of respondents who said the initial motivation that led their organization to investigate Six Sigma was "as a way to improve the quality of existing products/services"

Critical findings of this exclusive benchmarking research include:

FINDING 1: You get what you pay for. A higher level of investment results in a higher return on investment.

FINDING 2: Money talks. Companies that tie executive compensation to reaching Six Sigma goals are more successful, and their senior management is more committed. Commitment delivers. The number one factor in a successful deployment is executive support.

FINDING 3: Companies that begin Six Sigma with an enterprise-wide deployment have a higher ROI than those that start with a pilot program.

FINDING 4: Selecting the right projects and getting them done prove challenging to companies starting up Six Sigma.

FINDING 5: Highly successful-related Six Sigma programs more often rely on finance analysts than project leaders to calculate project benefits in the first two years.INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL                         SECRETARÍA DE EXTENSIÓN Y DIFUSIÓN                     DIRECCIÓN DE SERVICIO SOCIAL Y EGRESADOS              UNIDAD PROFESIONAL INTERDISCIPLINARIA DE INGENIERÍA Y                        CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y ADMINISTRATIVAS

                                 ENCUESTA LABORAL

Estimado Egresado: Tu colaboración es importante para llevar a cabo la encuesta de inserción laboral 2004; La aplicación  de esta encuesta tiene como fin conocer tu incorporación en el mercado laboral y ciertas características de tu trabajo actual.

Boleta: ______________________

Carrera: __________________________________________________

Nota: Registra dentro del recuadro el número que corresponda a tu respuesta; NO dejes ninguna pregunta sin contestar. Es urgente el reenvío de esta información al correo electrónico osve_upiicsa@yahoo.com.mx , para cualquier aclaración comunícate al 56.24.2000 ext. 70087 ó 70341.Gracias por tu participación.

I. Género:  1) Femenino 2) Masculino                     (   )

II. Situación académica:    1) Pasante  2) Titulado         (   )

III. ¿Actualmente te encuentras laborando?                            ( )1) Nunca he laborado    ¿Por qué?: ________________________________(Fin de la encuesta)2) No,  pero si he laborado (pasa a la pregunta IV y continúa con la encuesta)3) Sí  (pasa a la pregunta III.A y continúa con la encuesta)

III.A ¿Laboras en un área acorde a tu formación profesional?           (   )1) No2) Sí

IV.   ¿Este ha sido ó fue tu único empleo?                            ( )1) No2) Sí  (pasa a la pregunta  VI)

V. Señala cuántas veces  has cambiado de trabajo, después del  primer empleo que conseguiste después de tu egreso:                           (   )1) Una vez2) Dos veces3) Tres ó más veces

VI. ¿Cuánto  tiempo te llevó conseguir tu actual ó último empleo?       (   )1) Menos de 3 meses2) Entre 4 y 6  meses3) De 6 a 8 meses4) Más de 8 meses

VII. ¿Cuál fue el principal requisito para conseguir tu último ó actual empleo?                                                                ( )1) Tener título de  licenciatura2) Aprobar los exámenes de selección3) Dominio de otro idioma  y/o4) Manejo de tecnología5) Experiencia6) Otro (especifica)    __________________________________

VIII. ¿El puesto que ocupas u ocupaste, es ó era?                    (   )

1) Ejecutivo de mandos medios2) Empleado u operativo profesional3) Profesional  independiente4) Auxiliar5) Empleado no profesional6) Otro (especifica)    __________________________________

IX. ¿El tamaño de la empresa en la que te empleaste, es ó era?:         (   )1) Micro    (hasta 15 empleados)2) Pequeña  (entre 16 y 100 empleados)3) Mediana  (entre 101 y 250 empleados)4) Grande   (más de 251 empleados)

X. Tipo de empresa donde te empleaste:                            (   )1) Pública2) Privada

XI. ¿Qué tipo de contratación tienes ó tuviste?                  (   )1) Temporal2) Permanente3) Otro (especifica)    __________________________________

XII. Tu jornada laboral es ó fue de:                                     (   )1) 4 horas2) 6 horas3) 8 horas4) 12 horas

XIII. Indica el rango de tu ingreso mensual neto en tu actual ó último empleo:                                                                ( )1) $   2,000  a  $   5;0002) $   5,001  a  $   9,0003) $   9,001  a  $  12,0004) $  12,001  ó  más

XIV. En el orden académico.¿Cuál fue la principal limitante para obtener trabajo?                                                                 (   )1) Falta de conocimiento teórico2) Falta de habilidades y destrezas en la práctica3) Integración de la teoría a la práctica4) Otro (especifica)    __________________________________

XV. ¿En qué porcentaje, lo aprendido en tus estudios ha coincidido con las actividades de tu trabajo?                                           (   )1) Menos de 25%2) De 26% a 50%3) De 51% a 75%4) De 76% a 100%

XVI. ¿Cuál fue la habilidad que más desarrollaste en tu formación académica?                                                               (   )

1) Análisis y síntesis2) Comprensión y redacción3) Dominio de otro(s) idioma(s)4) Manejo de tecnología5) Comunicación6) Trabajo en equipo

XVII. Ordena los siguientes contenidos del plan de estudios, de acuerdo a la importancia que les da tu escuela:(   ) Enseñanza teórica(   ) Enseñanza metodológica(   ) Prácticas: En empresas, de laboratorio, de campo, en talleres, clínicas,     etc.

XVIII. De los siguientes contenidos del plan de estudios de tu carrera.         ¿Cuál ampliarías (1), mantendrías (2), ó reducirías (3)?(   ) Enseñanza teórica(   ) Enseñanza metodológica(   ) Prácticas: En empresas, de laboratorio, de campo, en talleres, clínicas,     etc.

Nota: Si es tu primer empleo ?GRACIAS POR TU COLABORACIÓN?.     Si tuviste más de un empleo continúa con las últimas preguntas

XIX. Si comparas tu puesto actual ó último con el primero, en cuanto a tu desarrollo profesional,  consideras que:

     Mejoró                 Empeoró             Está igualMenos de 25%  (   ) Menos de 20%  (   )   (   )De 26% a 50%  (   )         De 26% a 50%  (   )De 51% a 75%  (   ) De 51% a 75%  (   )De 76% a 100% (   ) De 76% a 100% (   )

XX. Si comparas tu nivel de ingresos actual o último con el del primer empleo que tuviste después de tu egreso, consideras que:

     Mejoró                 Empeoró             Está igualMenos de 25%  (   ) Menos de 20%  (   )   (   )De 26% a 50%  (   )         De 26% a 50%  (   )De 51% a 75%  (   ) De 51% a 75%  (   )De 76% a 100% (   ) De 76% a 100% (   )

                                                ?GRACIAS POR TU COLABORACIÓN?