Hi - Suppose if the takt time is 40 secs and when we remove the waste from the line operations the CT will gets reduced further would that give us lower LBE so how come higher LBE is better
Hi Ajay, good question. Assuming the Takt Time stays constant at 40 seconds and we drive some waste/muda out, it's because we're spreading LESS work content across the SAME number of operators so that...on average, the gap to Takt is bigger. it reflects the fact that driving waste is good of course as long as you can replace it with other value added work or deploy that person elsewhere...otherwise, from an efficiency point of view, you're just spreading more waiting time waste across the same number of people. It's related to Ohno's view that 0.1 of a person is still 1 person until you can reduce the manning in that area and use the person on another line/VA activity
@@the_lean_expert Understood sir so basically we need to use proper combinations and when we reduce waste we should also divide the work equally or appropriately to not consume unusual manpower (Maintaining proper OM)
Hi - it depends what we want to achieve and how the transport is managed. If the aim is to measure and improve the amount of transportation waste between processes - we can do that during the observation of the current line balance to tackle in the rebalance. If the operators themselves are having to transport processed parts elsewhere (rather than just passing to someone stood next to them) we’d include that time in that operators cycle time(as its activity they’re stop having to do). Is that what you meant?
Hi - Suppose if the takt time is 40 secs and when we remove the waste from the line operations the CT will gets reduced further would that give us lower LBE so how come higher LBE is better
Hi Ajay, good question. Assuming the Takt Time stays constant at 40 seconds and we drive some waste/muda out, it's because we're spreading LESS work content across the SAME number of operators so that...on average, the gap to Takt is bigger. it reflects the fact that driving waste is good of course as long as you can replace it with other value added work or deploy that person elsewhere...otherwise, from an efficiency point of view, you're just spreading more waiting time waste across the same number of people. It's related to Ohno's view that 0.1 of a person is still 1 person until you can reduce the manning in that area and use the person on another line/VA activity
@@the_lean_expert Understood sir so basically we need to use proper combinations and when we reduce waste we should also divide the work equally or appropriately to not consume unusual manpower (Maintaining proper OM)
What if we factor in transportation, ?
Hi - it depends what we want to achieve and how the transport is managed. If the aim is to measure and improve the amount of transportation waste between processes - we can do that during the observation of the current line balance to tackle in the rebalance. If the operators themselves are having to transport processed parts elsewhere (rather than just passing to someone stood next to them) we’d include that time in that operators cycle time(as its activity they’re stop having to do). Is that what you meant?