CONFIDENTIAL MMP People Beliefs and Approach Mc KINSEY
CONFIDENTIAL MMP: People, Beliefs, and Approach Mc. KINSEY MANUFACTURING PRACTICE Internal Practice Document Last Update June 2001 This report is solely for the use of client personnel. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside the client organization without prior written approval from Mc. Kinsey & Company. This material was used by Mc. Kinsey & Company during an oral presentation; it is not a complete record of the discussion.
QUESTIONS TO DISCUSS TODAY 1. “Lean manufacturing” – I thought that TOP is our manufacturing improvement methodology? 2. Isn’t lean a rust-belt issue? 3. What does our MMP– Mc. Kinsey Manufacturing Practice – know anyway and how can it help?
Mc. KINSEY MANUFACTURING PRACTICE (MMP) MMP is a specialized and expanding component within the OE Practice Operations Effectiveness MMP • Practice based on the fundamental Purchasing and supply management Eoperations • Operational effectiveness Product development IOM Service operations Manufacturing (MMP) • objective of supporting clients in a holistic transformation to a Lean Production System, across the complete supply chain Currently supported by over 40 specialist located in North America and Europe Active in broad range of industry sectors – Automotive, Assembly – Aerospace – Steel, Aluminum – Medical Device – Electronics – Pulp/Paper – Consumer products – Banking, Financial Services
MMP PEOPLE – WHO WE ARE April 2001 North America leadership North America specialists Europe specialists • Felix Brueck – CL • Michael Denham – TO • John Durrett – AT • Stu Flavin – AT • Melissa Mc. Coy - AT • David O’Halloran – CL • Ignacio Quesada - MX • Ron Ritter – TCA • Bruce Simpson – TO • Jeff Sinclair – CL • Max Allway - CL • David Beaumont - CL • Brandon Carrus – CL • Stephen Chun – CL • David Coleal - CL • Stephen Corbett – CL • Raoul Dubeaclard -TCA • David Fedewa - CH • Mike Ferrell – AT • Tim Fisk – DT • Craig Fowler - CL • Dean Franck - CH • Glenn Hicks – CL • Jeff Holland - TO • Bob Iversen – AT • Maria Lago - TCA • Karen Lord – TO • Lisa Lowie – AT • Elisa Martinez – TCA • Melissa Mc. Coy - AT • Craig Melrose – CL • Ania Mierzejewska – CL • Felix Oliha - AT • Matthew Parkey - AT • Vikram Sharma - CL • Steve Shaw - CL • Andy Sheppard – CL • Art Smalley - CL • Steven Stewart – CL • Pete Winiarski – AT • Daniel Woolson - CL • Eric Yeager – CL • Damon Bland - LN • Andy Bonney – LN • Patrick Browne - PA • Olivier Cazeaux – PA • Javier Del Pozo - LN • John Drew – PA • Philippe Dume - PA • Domenico Emiliozzi - ML • Florent Faust – PA • Andrea Frigo - ML • Giovanni Funel - ML • Jean Guillou - PA • Dave Jacquemont – PA • Gert Jorgensen – LN • Christian Klock – MU • Arne May – MU • Oliver Minsart - LN • Dietmar Mueller – CG • Bertrand Olivar – PA • Jens-Hendrik Pagel – SG • Daniel Peterlin – PA • Raymond Peters - MU • Michael Rasper - DU • Martin Riegger – CG • Jonathan Tilley – LN • Rainer Ulrich – SG • Francois Zattara – PA Europe development group • Robert Berendes - MU • Philippe Bideau – PA • Peter von Hochberg – CG • Rolf Dieter Kempis – DU • Walter Oblin - VI • Stefan Roggenhofer – PA • Vinzenz Schwegmann – BE • Reza Shahrbabaki – ML • Gernot Strube – MU • Ruben Verhoeven – BL • Peter Willats – LN
Mc. KINSEY MANUFACTURING RESOURCES We have a growing team with relevant experience MMP experts/specialists Pre-Mc. Kinsey experience Max Allway Owner of private consulting practice, Sr. Manager at Toyota Industrial Equipment David Beaumont NUMMI Stephen Chun TABC, Inc. David Coleal NUMMI, Caterpillar, Inc. Melissa Mc. Coy Chrysler, Supplier Continuous Improvement, Freudenberg-NOK Mike Ferrell Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corp. Craig Fowler Nissan Supplier Development Bob Iversen GROWTTH Consulting, Alcatel North America Art Smalley Toyota Motor Corp (Aichi Perfecture); RWD Technologies; Donnelly Corporation Elisa Martinez Toyota Supplier Support Center, NUMMI (Toyota-GM joint venture) Arne May Kaizen Institute of Europe Pete Winiarski Wiremold Eric Yeager Toyota Motor Manufacturing, RWD
CLASSIC LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEM • Operational effectiveness is based on waste elimination through – Stable manual processes and reliable machines – Demand-driven production schedules – Built in quality/defect elimination – Synchronized flow of material – Substantive involvement of the work force • Success comes from a total system transformation that takes years to complete • The basic philosophy of the Lean “end state” is based on the Toyota Production System (TPS) • From origins in high-volume assembly, Lean has wide application in other sectors (e. g. , transportation, service, continuous operations) and significant implications for PSM, Product Development, Supply Chain Management, and the total Business Strategy (Lean Enterprise) • The path to success in our client engagements is dependent on substantial knowledge transfer and is centered on the shop floor – the place where true value is added
LEAN THINKING AS A SYSTEM “This is the manufacturing system developed by Toyota which pursues optimum streamlining throughout the entire system through the thorough elimination of Muda (waste), and aims to build quality in at the manufacturing process while recognizing the principle of cost reduction. It also includes all the accompanying technology necessary to accomplish those aims” Taichii Ohno MIT researchers coined the term “lean manufacturing” in this 1990 book to describe the Toyota Production System
8 KINDS OF WASTE Overproduction Producing too much, or producing too soon Intellect Any failure to fully utilize the time and talents of people Conveyance Any nonessential transport is waste Motion Any motion that does not add value Inventory Any more than the minimum to get the job done Correction Any repair Processing Overprocessing Source: Mc. Kinsey Waiting on parts, waiting for a machine to finish cycle
CLASSIC LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEM Customer service Quality Cost Lead time Just-in-time Jidoka • Pull system • 1 -piece flow • TAKT time • Leveled • Andon • Poka Yoke • Standardized Continuous improvement work production Employee satisfaction Stability (process, people) Mutual trust between employees and management
EXAMPLE “PRODUCTION SYSTEM” Involved employee/ staff management Health and safety Mission, values, guiding principles Modern operation concept Reward, recognition People Employee development Ergonomics Dynamic control planning (DCP) 5 S Bench 5 Whys mark Reliability, maintenance Quality process Production system(QPS) Added value Concept of zero Total productive maintenance (TPM) Dynamic control planning (DCP) System Plant layout Modern material handling Throughput Main pillar and components Just-In-Time Kanban Quick change- Visual factory over Continuous improvement Value to the Eliminate waste customer Schedule stability Target of concept
VALUE OF LEAN PRODUCTION SYSTEM Dimensions Operational benefit(s) Inventory/asset • Decrease financial “charge” of carrying cost • Liberate scarce cash intensity • Decrease expense on storage, handling administration, maintenance Overall con • Operating breakeven point is low trollable costs • Stop investing labor, energy, material in nonvalueadded activities • Faster delivery to customers Lead time • Stop investing time in wait • Build to order vs. forecast • Can produce higher diversity of products without Flexibility extra investments • Volume flexibility to track market demand • Capitalize on expertise of all employees Worker value • Channel creative energy towards operational success Quality defects • Stop making, remaking, and destroying good material(s) • Remove unpredictability of output • Meet delivery expectations Customer • Remove urge to artificially buffer for failure service (i. e. , phantom orders) reliability Business benefits • Higher productivity • Increased competitive advantage • Increased market share
TRANSLATED BENEFITS OF LEAN PRODUCTION Production capability Expanding range of cost effective product options Relentless elimination of waste towards Lean production aspirations Growth Creating capacity inside existing assets Product launch Launch speed and efficiency with integrated product development Supplier development Solving cost, quality delivery and inventory problems in supplier operations Scalable production to redefine the global network Distribution Shop floor • Manufacturing cost • Manufacturing assets • Improve efficiency in lead time and delivery reliability • Reduce costs in size and complexity of distribution system and inventory assets
LEVELED PRODUCTION — SMALL LOT SIZES WAYS TO MANAGE DEMAND FOR 360, 000 UNITS (PRODUCTS A, B, C) IN 1 MONTH Volume Thousands 120, 000 per lot 12 Volume Thousands 12 A B 4, 000 per lot 40, 000 per lot 12 C C A B C B A 0 Days 10 Traditional large lot 20 30 0 Days 10 Increasing frequency of smaller production lots Benefits • Lower inventory • Real-time quality feedback • Faster customer response • Even utilization of specialized machinery and people 20 30 Leveled production with small lot size
PULL SCHEDULING* Production process flow A A. Raw materials A. Purchased components Information flow 4 B C B. WIP store 3 Customer delivery C. WIP store 2 1 Customer order • Operator A's • Operator B's • Operator C's • Customer order pull from raw pull from B pull from C signals Operator and purchased stores signals C to pull material goods stores A to pull from B to pull from C stores and signals supraw material B stores to produce (signal pliers to proand produce and may also be sent duce and purchased replenish C to suppliers for replenish (may goods stores long lead-time already be to produce material or signaled by and replenish components) customer order B stores for long leadtime items) * In this simplified example an empty WIP storage area serves as the signal (Kanban) for each workstation to product
BASIC KANBAN TO CONTROL MATERIAL FLOW KANBAN ORDER CARD Name of Company and address R 8 LH - BASIC CONTAINER PART NUMBER 18371 QUANTITY QTY 100 DELIVERY TO CONTAINER W. I. P RETURN RULE WHEN EMPTY SUPPLIER K 15 PACKAGING HOPPER THIS CARD MUST BE DELIVERED WITH THE CORRECT PARTS AND EXACT QUANTITES - DO NOT DESTROY CARD NO. 2 OF 6
POLICY DEPLOYMENT – HOSHIN KANRI ILLUSTRATIVE Manufacturing Department • On-Time-Delivery • Inventory Department targets • Rework & Scrap • $/man hour Process #1 Line targets INVENTORY REWORK O-T-D PRODUCTIVITY Target control sheets BREAKDOWNS ACTIVITIES WHAT? WHO? WHEN? CHANGEOVER TIMES ACTIVITIES WHAT? WHO? WHEN? Process #2 Process #3 INVENTORY REWORK O-T-D PRODUCTIVITY AVG. LEAD TIME ACTIVITIES WHAT? WHO? WHEN? MAN HOURS/UNIT ACTIVITIES WHAT? WHO? WHEN? REWORK $/UNIT ACTIVITIES WHAT? WHO? WHEN?
Lean Supply Base Lean Enterprise u at Model Cell M er d a Le Physical Change 4 dimensions of change • Organization change • Physical change • Leadership maturation • Supply base integration at io n ip h s te Sup gr p at ly io B n as & e M at ur Lean Plant Model Product Line n io t ra In Vision Organizational Change HOLISTIC CHANGE APPROACH
GENERIC MMP PROGRAM APPROACH OVERVIEW Diagnostic Phases/ steps Performance assessment and systems visioning Transformation Business level case establishment System design and target setting Implementation and rollout Stability Level production End products • Basic Clearly identified systems targets, road map, vision and program • Quantification organization of specific opportunities, e. g. , lead time, yield 1 -4 weeks • Buy-in to opportunity Source: Mc. Kinsey Re-layout line and further reduce waste Phase 1: Stabilize and simplify flow Line 2 Continuous improvement Pull Standardized work Improved, stable production and running “improvement engine” 6 -9 months Flow Synchronized, efficient production with foundation for self-sustaining CI 6 -9 months Time to consolidate and stabilize limited Mc. Kinsey support Actual approach is tailored to specific client situation Ongoing
MMP ENGAGEMENT CRITERIA Success factors Warning flags • Dedicated diagnostic phase leading to • Focus on “ideas” with systems clear “vision” and specific operational objectives • Program driven by operational objectives versus training quotas • Right combination with existing client programs and integrated change program, e. g. , PSM, supply chain • Clear, high-intensity involvement by client at all levels - taking responsibility and leadership • Client aspirations for holistic transformation • Understanding of time required to embed process and cultural changes transformation • Over-focus on immediate bottom line versus process and capability building • Lack of understanding and commitment by CST • Lack of specialist • Concept of Lean as another Mc. Kinsey “framework”
MCKINSEY’S RECENT MANUFACTURING EXPERIENCE North American manufacturing engagements – 1998 through 2000 100% = 845 OS&E engagements PSM IOM Manufacturing PD SO OS&E Manufacturing clients • • • • • Power generation Light/Heavy Railcar Commercial aircraft Sheet metal and aluminum Specialty steel Consumer electronics Glass casting and device fabrication Automotive OEM and tier suppliers Medical device – consumable and capital equipment Office products Furniture (domestic and office) Pulp and paper mill Pharmaceuticals (base intermediate and end product) Consumer luxury goods Food preparation (commercial service and wholesale) Financial institution and hospital service operations Media/entertainment
LEAN THINKING BEYOND AUTOMOTIVE Industry Applications Airlines* Relentless focus on “adding value, ” product flow (flight) led team to perfect the rapid aircraft turnaround (15 minutes) Banking/ financial services Midwest regional financial center Applied lean thinking and process mapping to loan application department. Significantly streamlined process, focusing on value added activities and speed. Book publishing* Small start-up develops in-bookstore print/binding of low volume titles, totally by-passing massively inefficient supply chain using 1 -piece production and JIT principles Specialty Steel • Old line producer of 10, 000 lb specialty steel coils completed 6 -month Lean pilot • Resulted in shortening lead times by 50%, substandard products less from 15 to 5% and delivery performance gains from 40 to 100% Turbine engines • Global producer of industrial turbines faced with inventory buildup, ramping volumes and noncompetitive lead times completed 16 -week line transformation – Assembly time reduced 42 -16 days – machine uptime 50 -70% – Lead time reduced from 46 -29 weeks – $18 M in WIP inventory reduced Medical devices • Manufacturer of Class 3 surgical devices faced with cost pressure and need to meet 24 -hour lead • • time without huge inventory system Embarked on lean transformation of lines in 2 areas Results (8 months) – Productivity units/man-hour 1. 0 -1. 5, 7. 8 -14. 3 – Yield 88 -93%, 86 -92% – WIP 8, 527 units to 2, 200 units – Lead time 153 hours-30 – Space 5, 000 ft 2 -2, 700
AEROSPACE CLIENT A – IMPACT SUMMARY 2000 -2001 Machine shop Quality Defects/month (indexed) 100 -20% Capacity utilization Milling machine downtime (indexed) 100 80 Delivery % of schedule adherence -24% 90 76 2 May ‘ 00 Feb ‘ 01 Main assembly Quality Defects per unit set (indexed) 100 -20% Cycle time Days per unit set (indexed) 100 80 Delivery % of schedule adherence -20% 90 80 2 May ‘ 00 Feb ‘ 01
AEROSPACE CLIENT B – IMPACT SUMMARY 1998 Turbine assembly Productivity Assembly time (days) 42 -62% Capacity utilization* Uptime % +40% 70 Delivery Lead time weeks 46 -37% 29 50 16 Jan July Work-in-process inventory $ Millions 50 -36% Jan Unit cost Dollar 58 July *Backlog, sold out business -36% 37 32 Jan July
PC ASSEMBLER CLIENT Throughput time Hours 37 -78% Production reliability Percent* -110% 84 Productivity Index of labor hours/unit 100 40 -52% 48 8 Before After Performance potential was demonstrated in pilot cells and has been even better after full rollout Before After Quality Percent 20 Before After Manufacturing space Square meters -95% 2, 300 -38% 1, 430 1 Before *Actual completion date vs. planned completion Source: Mc. Kinsey Operation Strategy & Effectiveness Practice After Before After
MEDICAL DEVICES CLIENT A – IMPACT SUMMARY 1999 Labor Productivity Units/man-hour +83% 14. 3 WIP Units (indexed) 100 7. 8 Jan Aug Space Square feet (indexed) -80% 100 Aug -50% 50 30 Jan +6% 89 95 Jan Aug 26 Lead time Hours 153 -74% Yield % good parts Jan Aug
MEDICAL DEVICES CLIENT B – IMPACT SUMMARY First pass yield Percent total units +12% 66 Labor Productivity Hours per unit 37 59 Dec ‘ 98 Jun ‘ 99 -58% Dec ‘ 98 Jun ‘ 99 Schedule attainment Percent on time vs. promise -21% 75 62 11 Dec ‘ 98 64 Jun ‘ 99 Dec ‘ 98 Jun ‘ 99 -19% 52 33 Process lead time Days 26 -11% Finished goods inventory Days Dec ‘ 98 Jun ‘ 99
AUTOMOTIVE OEM CLIENT – IMPACT SUMMARY Labor productivity Man-hours/car (indexed) 100 Sep 1999 +10% 90 Feb 2000 Space reduction Square feet (indexed) 100 -25% Quality per vehicle Defects (indexed) 100 -33% Trackside inventory Inventory ($) (indexed) 100 85 67 Sep 1999 Feb 2000 Part travel to point-of-fit Feet (indexed) 100 -90% -15% Sep 1999 Feb 2000 Line capacity Cars/day (indexed) +43% 143 100 75 10 Sep 1999 Feb 2000
CASE EXAMPLE – INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS MANUFACTURER (36 WEEKS) Knowledge transfer • • • Visual management Standardized work Performance metrics Daily Performance meetings Pull System Kanban Signals Lean shop floor 5 S Improvement activities/ teams Operational impact Scrap Percent 50% reduction 0. 6 4. 5 Overall lead time Days 75% 16 reduction 4 78% decrease 0. 3 1 1997 average Lean Production System Foundation Building Work in Progress Days 1998 achieved Before After Before Labor - Overtime Costs Hours 86% Reduction 37 Before 5 After
CASE EXAMPLE – HEAVY EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER (16 WEEKS) Knowledge transfer Operational impact • Visual management • Standardized work • Trigger mechanisms • Performance metrics • Clean & check • Quick changeover • Cell design • Lean shop floor • 5 S • Uptime analysis Assembly efficiency Days Lean Production System Foundation Building * Based on 29 week lead time and 1997 load. Actual load 1998 less than 1997 42 Machine uptime Percent 70 50% 62% reduction 40% increase 16 1997 1998 average achieved Financial impact - WIP $ Millions $50 $32 1997 Achieved average to date* Overall lead time Weeks 46 37% reduction 29 1997 1998 average achieved
CASE EXAMPLE – MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURER ( 26 WEEKS) Knowledge transfer Operational impact • Visual management • Standardized work • Performance metrics • Line Balancing • Continuous Flow • Lean shop floor • 5 S • Quality Systems • Training • Focused Factory First Pass Yield Percent Team Lean Production System Foundation Building 80% increase On Time Delivery Percent 90 66% 100 % Overall lead time Weeks 16 4 44% increase 40 Before After Financial impact - Inventory $ Thousands $4, 700 Improvement Before After 75% reduction
MACHINE TOOL UTILIZATION DISGUISED CLIENT EXAMPLE Percent of machining hours At a machine intensive client, major opportunity was found in uptime. Less than 45% of machine tool process was actual cutting time Breaks Cutting time Machine A Machine B Setup time 25 Machine down Unknown time 100% = ? 130 hours ? Machine C Total machining 200 hours 25 6 2 2 250 hours 580 hours
CASE EXAMPLE 2 – MEDICAL DEVICE MAUFACTURING =
LEAD TIME ANALYSIS Days Waste Value added and currently necessary activities 25. 2 days average lead time Rework WIP Assembly Test (run-in) Total
SAMPLE CYCLE TIMES VS. ACTUAL DEMAND (TT)* Minutes 150 44 minute TT 10 Units/Day 40 29 minute TT 15 Units/Day 50 49 45 35 32 40 32 29 25 20 20 15 15 15 10 Assy Air Adj. Assy Sta 1 Sta 3 Leak Test & 2 & 4 Test & EST Sta 1 Assy MAG Assy Test Clean Assy Test Assy Sta 1 Sta 2 Pre Run Assy In
VALUE-ADDED POTENTIAL Seconds/piece Operators are often in a position of spending much of their time on nonvalue-added activity “Value added” 100% = 78 413 Heatbond/ % check bond/ clean glue Line up parts 216 % Check paperwork 1. 9 Glue % Load onto tray Dry parts Glue sits Clean Unload Run tester Walk to get glue and walk back Layout parts 3. 6 NVA (%): 45. 0% Check outer diameter 90. 8% Load 10 pieces Check paperwork Pull off pins 69. 0%
CURRENT STATE PROCESS FLOW SUPPLIER Ware House IM MOD PACKAGING IM MOD PSOL MAG ASSY EX VALVE O V E N T E S T CHILD CONFIG TEST GUI POST RUN IN BPS PS EX MOD PARENT CONFIG BDU SV ASSY TEST PRE RUN IN Warehouse Ware House CLEAN QA MACHINE SHOP RUN IN LEAK TEST (7200) PCB TEST
MANUFACTURING LINE PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT ROADMAP Performance indicator Feb ‘ 99 Mar ‘ 99 Apr ‘ 99 target 74 * *75 55 75 90 46 40 * 35 45 31 28 64 60 62 67* 65 64 45 30 Days 26 22 16 * 18 17 18 7 Build Schedule Attainment Percent 62 74 77 * 80 71 80 95 Ship Schedule Attainment Percent 62 59 51 * 78 67 80 95 Unit of measure Nov ‘ 98 Dec ‘ 98 Jan ‘ 99 First Pass Yield (Pre. Run In) % of Total Units 59 75 Productivity Labor Hours/Unit 37 Inventory Days Process Lead Time End state goal Results
FUTURE STATE LAYOUT Reduced WIP by 1 M Lead time from 25 to 10 days Streamlined Material Flow Reduced travel distances
5 S AND WORKPLACE ORGANIZATION
VISUAL MANAGEMENT
FUTURE DIRECTIONS – STAY TUNED Expansion beyond high-volume discrete, shop floor • Continuous process industries – Chemicals, Metals & Mining, Pulp & Paper • Expanded hi-tech focus • Supplier management and development More integrated MMP teams • Generalist opportunity to join teams and step up to EM role with appropriate commitment • Generalist integration and training programs • Expanded overall capacity to serve
MMP USER’S GUIDE We should talk if. . . How to engage • Client pulls for Lean capability or • Contact MMP leadership group solutions • Suspected operational opportunity that requires clarity • Specific, known problem confronting existing CST, e. g. , machine uptime or capacity • Client planning to spend large CAPEX • Assess situation against initial criteria: – Appropriate engagement aspirations – CST leadership – Future support potential • Complete diagnostic and Lean Vision
APPENDIX
TOP, BREAKTHROUGH, AND MMP – ALTERNATIVE “DELIVERY VEHICLES” Objectives Top Breakthrough MMP • Generate, document and • Target specific • Vision of production end evaluate specific list of ideas yielding 40% cost improvement case Approach • “Frontal assault” on all aspects of operations • Area client team with generalist Mc. Kinsey support • 3 -month waves • “Idea form” (2 B) is end product • Highly structured process + Potential strengths • Failsafe approach • Large, clear cost results • Builds client analytics - Potential weaknesses • Not based on or leading towards a cohesive production system, e. g. , Lean/TPS • No implementation (“Paper $”) • CI in rare cases opportunities with small, x-functional, highly empowered teams • “Rifle shot” action teams • X-functional client team with generalist Mc. Kinsey support • Highly fluid, no mandate but successful implementation in 6 -8 weeks state • Transform entire operation to a new Lean System • Modules based on Lean Production components • Management working with operators • Mc. Kinsey Lean specialist as coach and consultants • Shop floor-based • Implementation focused • Proven, just-do-it approach • Deep understanding of Lean • Implementation focused System drives changes • Low bureaucracy, high • Operator involvement impact culture change • Immediate change • Builds client skill and culture • No “content” or direction, • Dependent on specialist totally dependent on client knowledge • Isolated effects availability • Demands client commitment to Lean • $ savings potentially obscure
TOP, BREAKTHROUGH, AND MMP - ALTERNATIVE “DELIVERY VEHICLES” (CONTINUED) Mc. Kinsey value Top Breakthrough MMP • Process • Analytics • Lean knowledge • Shop floor skills • Corporate transformation skills Staffing Generalist • Specialist with Generalist support Current utility • Manufacturing • Some service • Any operations • PSM sourcing teams • Primary Focus Relevanc e to Lean • Potential foundation • Potentially strong model • Builds the production for analytically based suggestion system for “Kaizen” teams – Discrete parts • Next Focus: – Continuous production • Future – All operations – Supplier development – Product development – Enterprise-wide system
- Slides: 45