Using the Tools of Lean and Six Sigma to Facilitate Culture Change

Any company that has tried to implement Lean principles within its organization can attest to the fact that the biggest hurdle is encouraging the culture to sustain Lean long-term behavior.

Discussions about the importance of culture and Lean implementation are so ubiquitous as to almost be cliché. But the reality is that unless key people within the organization start to think and do things differently, most improvement efforts won’t be effective. Or they’ll work in the short term, but won’t be maintained. 

What usually happens is the focus is given solely to the tools and methodologies of Lean and Six Sigma, rather than on developing a self-sustaining Lean culture, where problem solving and continuous improvement is the norm.

While there is no one “best” way to introduce Lean, the following scenarios will demonstrate how the tools of Lean and Six Sigma can be introduced strategically and in a way that can help foster cultural change and increase the likelihood that Lean thinking will take hold and endure.

1. Think Bottom Up Instead of Top Down
When it comes to effectively implementing Lean manufacturing principles and Six Sigma strategies, both management and production floor team members must change how they think and what they do.

Prior to its Lean implementation, one Orchid Orthopedic Solutions facility reflected a typical manufacturing shop. Management, engineering, quality and production departments all came to work and did their specific jobs, all while interacting very little with functions other than their own. As a result, whenever issues arose, the burden of the problem was deflected and solutions were slow to materialize.

If a production-related issue arose, the problem solving was done by management, who then directed the production floor team members on what they needed to do to resolve the issue. For example, in one situation, management created a “tactical scrap team” (made up of managers) to address unsatisfactory levels of scrap in the facility. While this approach helped prevent big blunders from occurring, the amount of scrap remained at the same level.

A Lean team was brought in to help guide the facility in implementing Lean and improving the approach to problem solving. Instead of approaching the issues from a management-driven, top-down model, one of the first initiatives was to meet the production floor team and involve them in mapping the value stream of their production process.

Value-stream mapping is a key tool of Lean manufacturing and serves, among other things, to identify sources of waste. Through the value stream mapping process, the production team was able to see firsthand the different ways in which the customary process produced scrap (waste) and created inefficient productivity. 

Although each manager shared his or her individual perspectives about the problems at the facility and how to fix them, the Lean team understood that a crucial element to successful Lean implementation and long-term improvement is involving the people who are on the front lines of creating value for the customer.

When the production floor team members are entrusted to identify problems and given the tools to define and resolve them, their thinking changes. Subsequently, as their thinking changes, the culture begins to transform into one that embraces problem solving and looks for opportunities to add more value.

Once the production team identified the waste in its process, a new problem-solving group, called the “specification check team,” was established to resolve the specific causes of scrap. Instead of being made up of managers, the spec check team comprised production and quality team members from all three shifts to encourage cross-functional communication and collaboration.
In this bottom-up approach, the role of the manager shifts and develops.

Instead of constantly putting out fires and leading the problem-solving charge, they become teachers, mentors, guides and “servant leaders” who are dedicated to giving team members the space to do what they do best.

2. Start with a Specific, Defined Problem
The value-stream mapping process exposed different sources of waste. To help keep the problem solving manageable, a Pareto analysis was performed (a popular Six Sigma technique) that allowed the spec check team to determine the biggest, thorniest and costliest scrap-related problem.

By examining what was being scrapped, what shifts produced the greatest quantities of scrap, the equipment that the scrap was originating from and the users of the equipment, the Pareto analysis helped the team qualify and define the problem. In this case, the team discovered that one main issue was with the use of plug gages.
However, the plug gage issues were still too broad and varied. The problem needed to be narrowed down in order for the production team to arrive at possible solutions. Keeping the process simple, specific and defined also helps the team see results quickly, builds their confidence, and solidifies their new approach to problem solving.

The spec check team then was instructed on how to conduct a gage repeatability and reproducibility (GR&R) study—an important statistical tool used in Six Sigma methodology that measures the variation produced from both the gage/test equipment (repeatability) and the operators using the measurement device (reproducibility).

The spec check team members learned that, by plugging in numerical data (gathered from all three shifts) into the GR&R measurement system, they could quantify where the plug gage errors were originating (e.g., the actual plug gage, the operator, the machine, etc.). They also were shown how to evaluate the results so that they could decipher their meaning.

This hands-on process revealed that people on different shifts applied disparate methods for using the plug gages. Some people were using a “light” touch and some used a “heavy” touch when checking a gage against its allowed tolerances. For example, if an operator used a heavier touch by twisting or forcing the gage into the part, the part ultimately wouldn’t meet the required specification and would wind up as scrap.

3. Encourage Experimentation
Armed with this quantifiable data, the spec check team was encouraged to experiment in order to try and improve the GR&R. One of the first things the group did was to engage the other production floor team members from all shifts in conversations about the plug gage issues. This also opened up discussions about proper use of plug gages and why consistency is important to scrap reduction.

These conversations served to break down barriers between shifts and encourage collaborative critical thinking about possible solutions and ideas for experimentation. For example, one suggestion was to use a bore gage to measure in order to collect variable data. The rationale was that since it’s a higher-precision tool, using a bore gage could serve to help operators obtain repeatable results and become more skilled at quantifying the quality level of a part.

The spec check team also revised their gage training to help reduce variation and improve reproducibility among users. This included creating short, entertaining videos that served as reminders for how to correctly perform measurements using a plug gage and a bore gage.

As a result of strategically teaching the production team how to use the tools and experiment with different solutions, scrap amounts began to fall. Within a few months, it had dropped by 50 percent, with another 50 percent subsequently expected.

4. Recognize the Results and Look Favorably on the Failures
In far too many organizations, people are reprimanded when they try something new and it doesn’t work. As a result, team members are hesitant to think outside the box or approach their job in a different way. But without failure, there is no growth.

Companies that effectively have implemented Lean and sustained their progress realize that it takes courage to take risks.
Therefore, they commend team members for trying when their problem-solving experiments fail. It’s understood that failures mean gaining clarity about what didn’t work; learning from it; and getting closer to a solution that will be successful.

Just as failures tend to be lambasted, successes often are overlooked, which is a sure way to derail any progress that’s been made. For a company to experience lasting improvement, it’s also vital to appropriately acknowledge team members for their work. People who feel appreciated are more positive about themselves and their ability to contribute.

There are many ways positive recognition (for both successes and failures) can be achieved. From a Lean manufacturing perspective, the most effective way is for management to “go to the gemba,” the place where the core value-creating work gets done in the organization—i.e., the production floor.

By taking “gemba walks,” management not only goes to the shop floor to see the actual process, understand the value stream, ask questions, and learn, but to also encourage, support, and recognize the value that the production team members create. 

Remember the Four Ss: Start at the Source, Show (Don’t Tell), Support and Sustain Start at the Source: When the people at the forefront of creating value for the customer are given the authority and responsibility to identify problems and come up with their own solutions (as opposed to being told what to do by management), they start to think differently about their work. Show: Through hands-on interaction with Lean and Six Sigma tools, production-floor team members gain the ability to “think Lean” and come up with creative and effective ways for taking waste out of the value stream, reducing lead times and improving delivery of products to the customer. Support: In addition, a management culture that praises their team member’s critical thinking and empowers them throughout their problem-solving process promotes an efficient and effective manufacturing environment. Sustain: Over time, new habits develop, which eventually evolve into traditions that help sustain a culture of continuous improvement.

---

Eric Noack is a Lean leader with Holt, Mich.-based Orchid Orthopedic Solution’s division in Milford, Conn., which makes bone screw technology. Noack received his bachelor of science in mechanical engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Orchid is a medical device contract design and manufacturing company that offers design, forging, casting, machining, plastics technologies and implant bone in-growth coatings as well as quality and regulatory consulting.