Fast Cycle Production

This article discusses the dynamics of management in a facility using Fast Cycle Production as a management philosophy of choice. The elements of this Values Based Management Philosophy are as follows:

1. TAKT Management - How to use TAKT and its power to establish and maintain a continuous improvement environment and mentality

2. WIP management - How to control WIP levels and keep them under control

3. Resource management - Establishing and maintaining a consistent, fair and predictable management style in a Fast Cycle Production environment.

TAKT Management

TAKT Management is by far the most powerful productivity tool that exists today. When used effectively, and with the proper value set, it can help a company to realize improvements well beyond normal expectations. Once it takes hold, it works fast, and its improvements are always significant. Once it is completely accepted and subscribed to by all levels of management, it will continue to pay huge dividends indefinitely.

In order to maximize the use of TAKT, the entries made on the charts must be absolutely accurate. The first line manager (supervisor) is the front line of defense against invalid entries on the TAKT Charts. They must spend an appropriate amount of time on the floor doing audits on their TAKT charts and inquiring about the nature or reason for the detractors or enhancers being entered on the charts. The time that they spend on the floor has more benefits than may be believed. People like attention from their supervisor when it is applied properly.

At times, operators will make entries on their charts that reflect perceptions, rather than reality. Most operators do not like to do setups because in the past, doing a setup meant that they would not make their “numbers”. They don’t like small lots either, because small lots mean more setups, and again, lower numbers. So, when they are told that lot sizes are going to get smaller, they automatically translate that scenario to lower numbers. They don’t trust setup reduction to be their savior because they know that it has been done before, and look what it did for them. If you tell them you are going to show them how to improve their output, they think that you have a low opinion of their skills.

With TAKT Charts, they have a way of lobbying for larger lot sizes, which to them mean better numbers. They don’t believe in the probability of setup avoidance happening. They can only go with what they know. They know that detractors and enhancers get attention when they are repeated often enough. So how can we break these arguments down, and at the same time teach them to trust in the system, and even use it in a positive way to make things easier for them?

First, we must face the fact that small lot sizes really do affect output, and very small lot sizes affect output a lot, when there are a lot of small lots to deal with. As you reduce the lot size, you reduce the output. The loss is not significant up to a certain point, called the knee of the curve, and then it becomes exponentially smaller. The idea is to reduce the setup as much as possible, find the smallest lot size that is optimal for your factory, without going over the knee, and making that lot size standard for your factory. If for some reason you are able to reduce lot size further without suffering, by all means, do so. If you do, you will reduce cycle time, which is the right thing to do.

The real answer is to help them to seek out the real truth. We must convince them that the lot size is not the detractor, the setup is. Help them to understand that sensibly small lot sizes are actually good for them and the company. Teach them to enter the real detractors, long setups. Have them enter the amount of setups they did, and the time it took to do them. This will expose the true demon, but in a way that allows us to look at the situation and deal with it. They learn to get help on reducing setup times, not justifying larger lot sizes.

Whenever the supervisors do an audit of the charts in their area, and the results are less than desirable, they should not automatically treat the discrepancies as a people problem. They should, however, assume that there is good reason for some training. I am not a believer in mid-level manager audits because I feel that they adversely affect the supervisor’s authority with their people. I do believe that the middle managers should be a fairly common sight at the TAKT charts, looking at them and asking questions when the entries are confusing. But that is not the same thing as an audit. An audit says that things are right, or they are not, and sets a corrective action procedure in place. The results become common knowledge when they are published. It might be as simple as saying, “Stop doing it this way, and start doing it that way,” but an audit has impact not only on the one being audited, but others that read the results.