(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) The Lean Changeover e-letter
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) Published monthly by Changeover.com
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) Written by John R Henry, CPP
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) OCTOBER 2008
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) Replies, inquires and feedback to
<mailto:john%40changeover.com>john@...
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)

============================================================

This newsletter is a free service of Changeover.com. Visit our website at
<http://www.changeover.com>http://www.changeover.com or contact me at
<mailto:john%40changeover.com>john@...

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be
interested

To subscribe send a blank e-mail to:
<mailto:quickchangeover-subscribe%40yahoogroups.com>quickchangeover-subscribe@ya\
hoogroups.com

To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to:
<mailto:quickchangeover-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>quickchangeover-unsubscrib\
e@yahoogroups.com

=============================================================

SOME THOUGHTS ON...
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OR SEQUENTIAL PROJECTS?

Should changeover improvement be a continuous, ongoing program or a
series of programs with fixed goals and timelines? Or, put another
way, should it be a process or a project?

Both approaches have their merits and demerits.

Many programs such as TQM stress the need for "continuous
improvement". That is, once we started, they can never stop. In
theory, I concur 100%. It is only by continuously striving to improve
our processes that we can keep ahead of our competitors.

On the other hand, I have been around long enough to see a number of
these programs implemented. (Anyone remember "quality circles" from
the 70's?) Each one seems to be introduced as the solution to all
ills and as the last new program to be introduced. "This will solve
all of our problems and we will live by it forever."

Until next year.

Then a new program comes along and the whole cycle begins again.
There is even an acronym for this phenomena, "TYNT" for "This Year's
New Thing". Needless to say, as people go through several of these
programs their level of skepticism increases and enthusiasm wanes.

Another problem is that, even in the best of programs, people who
were very interested and motivated at their inception get bored and
stale or develop other priorities and the program just sort of peters out.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Do you want to learn how to make your changeovers ESEE?

My Changeover Made ESEE workshop, presented in your plant will teach
your team how. The workshop combines theory, a changeover simulator
as well as practice. For detailed information e-mail
john@... or call me at 787-550-9650 during eastern US
business hours.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When they work, and they sometimes do, continuous improvement
programs are great. Too often they fail, in part due to the reasons I
mentioned above.

There is an alternative approach. That is to look at changeover
improvement as a series of discrete projects. Prior to initiating the
project, specific goals, team members, responsibilities and a
timeline are established. In most plants a reasonable goal is 6/50.
That is, in 6 months changeover time will be reduced by 50%. The goal
should go beyond time savings. It will need to be converted to dollar
savings so everyone can see the impact. This dollar/hour number needs
to come from accounting so that it will be universally accepted. Many
will be surprised by the magnitude of the savings. Five thousand
dollars an hour is a fairly low cost for packaging line downtime.
Save five minutes ($416) per day and this adds up to $100,000/yr.

There are a couple of advantages to this approach:

People respond better when they can see a fixed and measurable goal.
If 50% reduction has been established at the goal, it is easy to see
if it has been met. Further, it is fairly easy to see, on a week by
week basis, progress toward meeting the goal.

Once the goal has been set, it is possible to determine what
resources will be required to meet it. In a continuous program, with
no specific goal, it may hard to justify the diversion of resources.
The team winds up simply trying to do the best they can with the
resources they can come up with.

In different phases of changeover improvement, different people may
need to be involved. For example, the first time this is done this,
there will be a lot of relatively easy and simple opportunities.
These will include such things as eliminating tools, simplifying
adjustments, developing or improving procedures etc. In other words,
things that can be done primarily by the people on the line.

Once the easy things have been done, the team needs to move on to
other areas. For example, machinery design might be an issue. This
might involve modifying or replacing equipment. This would require a
higher level focus, probably at the engineering department level. Or
perhaps the product design presents opportunities for improvement. In
this case the marketing or package engineering department might play
the primary role.

At the conclusion of the project, the team responsible can be
positively rewarded for their contributions toward meeting the goal.
This might take the form of a dinner, reward or or even just a brief
article in the company newsletter. Recognition is always most
effective whan it is tied to some *specific* performance or event.

The project approach does not mean that at the end of six months the
50% improvement is cheered and forgotten. That is the way to lose any
gains. Changeover times must be continuously monitored to prevent backsliding.

On conclusion of one project, another must be immediately
implemented. The new project may have a different team and even a
different focus. Like the first, it needs to specific goals and
timetables. Staying with the same 6/50 goal is probably a good idea.
People now have some experience how to reduce changeover. They will
have also, by participating in a successful campaign, have developed
some self-confidence. And of course, the second 50% reduction is
really only a 25% reduction from the original starting point.

I do not disagree with the supporters of "continuous improvement".
All plants MUST engage in it. I think the sequential project model I
discussed above achieves very similar results. The difference is more
in organization and implementation than in underlying philosophy.

TIP OF THE MONTH...
ROBOTIC TOOL CHANGERS

Some systems, such as palletizers or assembly machines, use robots
with grippers that must be changed for various products. Changing
these grippers can be time consuming with a number of fasteners,
electrical and pneumatic connections to be made up. ATI Industrial
Automation ( www.ati-ia.com ) makes an interesting device that does
away with all of this. It consists of two sections, male and female.
The male section is permanently mounted on the robotic arm. Female
sections are permanently mounted on each gripper. The male section
connects with the female via ball locks and locating pins so that it
securely locks into position. As the two sections mate, pneumatic and
electrical connections are also made. There are no tools and, if the
grippers with the female sections are staged appropriately, the robot
can be programmed to change them without any human intervention.






Best,

John R Henry CPP

www.changeover.com
787-550-9650

"All progress is made by a lazy person looking for an easier way." -
Lazarus Long