The machine that changed the world, GA Noyes III

Tags: operation, Project Team Leader, Development, Product Development, Team Groups, Phillip Crosby, Development Multifunctional Teams, Team Leader Advancement, Production Processes & Workers Production Experienced Design Teams, Statistical Process Control, Eli Goldratt, Advanced Quality System, Excess Capacity, MODERATE INCREASE, Theory of Constraints, Bottlenecks, LEAN DESIGN ELEMENTS, Worker Quality Grid, SUPPLY CHAIN, Production Principles, MASS DISTRIBUTION, Contract Suppliers, Components Suppliers, Quality Targets, Design Process, Inventory Cost, Market Price Minus, Past Relationships, DESIGN ELEMENTS, Cost Estimating, Parts, Assembler, Design and Build, LEAN SUPPLY CHAIN
Content: The Machine That Changed the World George A. Noyes III
OUTLINE
Background Parallels to the Auto Industry Craft Manufacturing Mass Production Ford's Contributions Sloan's Innovations United Auto Workers Line of technical efficiency Taiichi Ohno
LEAN vs. Mass Design IPT Maturity Model Producibility LEAN vs. Mass Production LEAN vs. Mass Supply LEAN vs. Mass Distribution Lean Aerospace Initiative Next Steps
Line of Technical Efficiency
LOW VOLUME
PROCESS STRUCTURE JUMBLED FLOW (JOB SHOP)
1.
DISCONNECTED LINE FLOW (BATCH)
CONNECTED LINE FLOW (ASSEMBLY)
CONTINUOUS FLOW
PRODUCT STRUCTURE
HIGH VOLUME 3. C O S T S 2.
Line of Technical Efficiency
LOW VOLUME
PRODUCT STRUCTURE
HIGH VOLUME
PROCESS STRUCTURE JUMBLED FLOW (JOB SHOP)
1.
With low volume production you get a high degree of 3. flexibility as you are not using large, complex and expensive machines. You are probably relying more on a craftsman to make the part...but the problem is that while your flexible is low, you cannot produce a lot of the items you need and they are expensive to make.
C
DISCONNECTED
O
LINE FLOW
S
(BATCH)
· HIGH
T
FLEXIBILITY
S
CONNECTED
· HIGH COST
LINE FLOW
· LOW VOLUME
(ASSEMBLY)
CONTINUOUS
FLOW
2.
Line of Technical Efficiency
LOW VOLUME
PRODUCT STRUCTURE
HIGH VOLUME
1. PROCESS STRUCTURE JUMBLED
3.
FLOW
(JOB SHOP)
C
DISCONNECTED LINE FLOW
· LOW
O
FLEXIBILITY
S
(BATCH)
· LOW COST
T
CONNECTED
· HIGH VOLUME S
LINE FLOW
(ASSEMBLY)
With high volume production you get lower cost as you are
mass producing the item, but you do that using large
CONTINUOUS FLOW
expensive machines that require set-up time. Thus you are not very flexible.
2.
Line of Technical Efficiency
LOW VOLUME
PRODUCT STRUCTURE
HIGH VOLUME
1. PROCESS STRUCTURE With Lean Production you get the best of both worlds. Your costs are low, your flexibility is high and you can
JUMBLED
produce at any volume efficiently.
3.
FLOW
(JOB SHOP) DISCONNECTED LINE FLOW (BATCH) CONNECTED LINE FLOW
C
LEAN
O
PRODUCTION S
· LOW COST T
· ANY
S
VOLUME)
(ASSEMBLY)
CONTINUOUS
FLOW
2.
BACKGROUND 5-YEAR, $5M STUDY WORLD-WIDE AUTO INDUSTRY Europe, North America and Asia Very Little Change From the Days of Henry Ford Turned into a study of Toyota's Production System 20 year journey (continues today) 5-M's (Manpower, Machines, Methods, Material, Measurement)
The U.S. automotive industry had their significant emotional experience over 10 years ago, including: Rapidly declining market share Overcapacity in capital and labor Lengthening design times They have improved, and their improvement is directly and proportionally traceable to the adoption of "Lean Production Techniques." Today the defense industry is facing very similar "significant emotional events."
CRAFT Highly Skilled Workers Flexible Machines & Tools Quality = Craftsmanship Decentralized Organizations (Guild System) Low Volume/High Cost Great Amount of Variety 1-1 Customer Relationships Today: Luxury/Image Cars (Aston Martin)
MASS Professionals with Narrow Skills Mfg., Tooling, Inspection, Design, etc. Semi or unskilled workers Variable Cost, Work was Cyclical and Boring Expensive, Single Purpose Machines & Tools Intolerant of Disruption Low Flexibility Economies of Scale Keep Standard Designs a Long Time Low Variety
MASS (Continued) Centralized Organizations Reward Individuals High Volume, Low Cost Quality = AQL
Interchangeable Parts Single Gaging System Simplicity of Design & Ease of Assembly Easy to Maintain 1908 Model T (514/minutes cycle time) 1913 Model T (2.3/min.) Moving Assembly Line Single Task per Assembler (1.19/min.) Vertical Integration Tolerances & Scheduling Lots of Support Workers Tooling, Quality, Foreman, Expediters, etc.
SLOAN 1920-30's 12 Car Companies Managed Separately High Degree of Product Overlap Decentralized 5 Car Companies, One for every pocketbook New Breed of Professionals Finance & Marketing Management By-the-Numbers Stovepiped Top-to-Bottom Standard Mechanical Parts for all Cars Endless Series of Add-On Features Internal Self-Starter, Radio, Heater, Roll-Up Windows, etc.
UNITED AUTO WORKERS 1930's Big "3" Agreement Based on Seniority & Job Rights Attempt to Dampen Impact of Cyclical Layoffs Final Wedge Between Management & Worker Final Stovepiping in Factory Operations Mass Production in it's Final Mature Form
Factories of the Future 1900-1970: Mass production used 150 machine tools to create 10-15 products, with 25% or more of the products requiring rework because of poor quality. 1971-2000: Flexible production uses 30-50 machine tools to create 100-1,000 products, with 0.02% of the products requiring rework because of poor quality. 2001-2020: Mass customization will use only 20-25 machine tools to create an unlimited number of products, with less than 0.0005% or the products requiring rework due to poor quality. SOUREC: Business Week, "21st Century Capitalism" special issue, 1994
Taiichi Ohno Ford's System Rife with Muda (Waste) 20% of Floor Space Dedicated to Rework 25% of Total Hours Involved in Fixing Mistakes Only the Assembly Worker "Adds Value" - Value Stream Workers Given Additional Jobs QC, Housekeeping, Minor Tool Repair, etc. Time Set Aside for Continuous Improvement (Kaizen) No Rework Cord to Stop the Line - Five Why's Poka-Yoke (Foolproofing) Group Works in Teams with a Leader Accomplishes Groups of Tasks Leader is also a Worker
Quality Grid (Phillip Crosby)
RIGHT THINGS
RIGHT THINGS DONE WRONG
WRONG THINGS
WRONG THINGS DONE WRONG DONE WRONG
RIGHT THINGS DONE RIGHT WRONG THINGS DONE RIGHT DONE RIGHT
LEAN DESIGN ELEMENTS Integrated Product/Process Development Multifunctional Teams Well-Defined Development Processes Design for Manufacturing & Assembly Supplier Participation Cycle-Times Reduced Funding Profiles Changes More Designs for the same Development Budget Prototypes with Production Processes & Workers Production Experienced Design Teams
LEAN DESIGN ELEMENTS (Continued) Project Team Leader Carries Great Power and Prestige (Shusa) Assigned for the duration of the Project Teams are Small Tightly Knit Groups Get Report Card from the Team Leader Advancement is Through Performance on the Team Groups Forced to Confront all Difficult TradeOffs Early Team Starts-Off Large and Gradually Shrinks
MASS DESIGN ELEMENTS Classic Design Methodology Throw Over the Wall to Manufacturing No Supplier Participation Design Stays Fixed for a Long Production Run Design Requires Extensive Collaboration, but the Process is Fractured Stovepiping Between Divisions and Functions Designers have no Factory Floor Experience Design Keeps Changing, even through Production The PM is a Coordinator not a Manager PM given a Budget, but no Home PM Changes Several Times before Production
MASS DESIGN ELEMENTS (Continued) Teams are Large and Loosely Connected Assigned for Limited Period of Time May get Report Card from PM, but Future Success is Through Functional Boss Groups Avoid Early Decisions, no Process to Force Decisions Teams Start-Off Small and Grow as Problems Mount Products Developed 1st, then the Processes to Make Them Product Development Cycle Time is High Developing a New Product is Very Expensive Funding Profile Does Not Support Teaming
IPT Maturity Model
TEAMWORK
DENNIS RODMAN
TECHNOLOGIES
PENCIL & ABACUS
COMMUNICATIONS
THREE MONKEYS
SOME TRAINING
STRONG TEAM FOCUS
DRAFTING CATIA TABLES FAC. SIM.
REGULAR STRONG MEETINGS TWO-WAY
BALANCED INDUSTRY BY DESIGN BENCHMARK INTEGRATED INDUSTRY EDI/TDI BENCHMARK VULCAN INDUSTRY MIND MELD BENCHMARK
PROJECT FOCUS ANALYTICAL APPROACH DEPLOYMENT
WHY ARE WE HERE?
FIXING BLAME
FIXING
POSITIVE INDUSTRY
PROBLEMS TEENDS BENCHMARK
MOOD RINGS
EARLY 7 Q TOOLS QFD, DOE, INDUSTRY TOOL USE 7 M TOOLS SPC, ETC BENCHMARK
NEGATIVE SOME
MANY
TRENDS IMPROVE IMPROVE
GREAT TRENDS
INDUSTRY BENCHMARK
CREATIVITY
CLONE
SOME
REWARD LEARNING INDUSTRY
FACTORY NEW IDEAS THINKING
LAB
BENCHMARK
REINFORCEMENT
BEAT AGAIN
SLOGANS
DECISIONS BASED ON VALUES
TIME
CONSTANCY INDUSTRY
OF
BENCHMARK
PURPOSE
KOLBE CONCEPT Individuals have three mental faculties: - Cognitive (intellectual) controls thought - Affective (emotional) controls feelings - Conative (functional) controls actions The conative faculty translates instinct into acts & deeds Individuals have four instincts: - Instinct to Probe - Instinct to Pattern - Instinct to Innovate - Instinct to Demonstrate The Power of the Will propels people to act on their creative instincts
KOLBE BALANCED TEAMS Increase team productivity by identifying and harnessing an individual's natural striving pattern the instinct to Probe deals with detail, complexity and provides the perspective of experience, FACT FINDER Mode the instinct to Pattern deals with structure, order, and provides focus and continuity, FOLLOW THRU Mode the instinct to Innovate deals with originality, risk-taking, and provides intuition & a sense of vision, QUICK START Mode the instinct to Demonstrate deals with physical space and the ability to operate manually, and provides durability and a sense of the tangible, IMPLEMENTOR Mode GOAL: Put the right people into the right jobs, balance the team
EC Continuum
Outsourcing Over The NII Product/Process Data Driven Manufacturing Distributed Collaborative Engineering Technical Data Interchange
virtual enterprises
Integration of EDI & Internal Systems Electronic Data Interchange
Network Enabled Business Practices
Analytical Approach
LEAN (Uses tools to help solve problems) Fix the Problem 7 Quality Tools Cause & Effect Diagrams Structured Brainstorming 5 Whys 7 Management Tools QFD, DOE, SPC Key Characteristics Real Integration
MASS (Limited tool use) Fix the Blame SPC used by QA only
Key Characteristics Features or characteristics whose variability has the greatest impact on fit, performance, or service life Key characteristics provide a focus for product improvement Quality if conformance to nominal on all key characteristics quality improvement comes from reducing variation by: -- Eliminating special causes -- Improving consistency of measurement systems -- Controlling the product by controlling the processes -- Reducing losses and eliminating waste But - How do you identify the features that are the most vital?
Transformation Methodology From Customer Requirements to Material & Manufacturing Processes Customer Requirement · Support the SIOP (Be on time is a Key Reqmt)
Subsystem Requirement
Keys = Readability
Clock
& Accuracy
Power Supply Voltage is Key
Display Assembly
Photo LCD Panel
Diode
Lamp
Manufacturing Requirements · Hardware Requirements -- MIL-SPEC Diode -- Good Solder Joints · process requirements -- MIL-STD 2000 -- Wave Solder Machine · Verification Requirements -- DOE to Identify Key Characteristics -- SPC to control key process factors
Quality Function Deployment "The Start of Lean Thinking"
Maturity Models (Deployment)
SCORE
APPROACH/DEPLOYMENT
RESULTS
Failed
Failed to meet SOW requirements Early systematic approach evident to meeting the requirements Major shortcomings in understanding the requirements Early stages of transition from reacting to problems to problem prevention Major gaps in deployment exists
Major shortcomings in execution or understanding No results or poor results in most areas In the early stages of developing trends Some improvements in or good performance in a few areas results are not reported for most areas of importance or for key requirements
Meets Standard
Meets the SOW requirements Have a sound & systematic approach to the primary purpose Uses fact-based improvement process in key areas More emphasis is placed on improvement than on reacting to problems No major gaps exist in deployment
Improvements required in some areas Good performance or improvement trends in many areas There is no pattern of adverse trends or poor performance Some trends or performance levels are benchmarked and show they are areas of strength
Exceeds Standard
Exceeds the requirements in most areas A sound & systematic approach to most purposes Fact-based improvement is a key management tool Clear evidence of the use of improvement cycles & analysis Approach is well deployed in most areas
Clearly above the standard Current performance is good to excellent in most areas Sustained performance levels in some areas Most trends or performance levels are benchmarked and show areas of leadership
Best of Breed
Best of the Breed in some areas A sound & systematic approach to all requirements Very strong fact-based improvement process with excellent analysis Approach is fully deployed with no (even minor) gaps
Clearly above the standard in most areas Best throughout the ECRC system Current performance is excellent in most areas Excellent improvement trends or sustained excellence in most areas Strong evidence of benchmark leadership in most areas
PRODUCIBILITY A design accomplishment resulting from a coordinated effort by all engineering functions to create a functional hardware design that optimizes ease and economy of fabrication, assembly, inspection, test, and acceptance without sacrificing desired function, performance, or quality.
PRODUCIBILITY (Continued)
MAXIMIZE - Modularity - Use of Standard Components - Design of Parts for Multi-use - Design for Ease of Assembly - Design for Ease of Fabrication
MIMIMIZE - Total Number of Parts - Use of Separate Fasteners - Need for Assembly Directions - Handling (Time and Distance)
Producibility Assessments
MANAGEMENT FUNDING .9 FUNDING MATCHES PROJECTED BUDGET .7 FUNDING ADEQUATE, DOES NOT EXCEES 5% OVER .5 FUNDING MINIMAL, OVERRUNS OF 15% LIKELY .3 FUNDING SKETCHY, HIGH OVERRUNS LIKELY .1 FUNDING IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE PRODUCIBILITY .9 PRODUCIBILITY ASSESSMENT DONE BEFORE AWARD .7 PRODUCIBILITY IMPLEMENTED AFTER PDR .5 PRODUCIBILITY IMPLEMENTED AFTER CDR .3 PRODUCIBILITY IMPLEMENTED AFTER EMD .1 PRODUCIBILITY NOT CONSIDERED risk assessment .9 RISK IS MANAGEABLE/PREDICTABLE - PLAN IS IN PLACE .7 RISK IS LOW .5 RISK IS MEDIUM .3 RISK IS HIGH .1 NO RISK PLAN OR POLICY CONSIDERED DATA REQUIREMENTS .9 ALL SPECs/CDRLs ARE ON CONTRACT .7 TAILORING OF ALL SPECs/CDRLs IS ACCOMPLISHED .5 ALL SPEC/CDRL COST DRIVERS IDENTIFIED .3 A FEW SPEC/CDRL COST DRIVERS IDENTIFIED .1 NONE IDENTIFIED
EMD DESIGN .9 EXISTING/SIMPLE DESIGN .7 MINOR REDESIGN OR INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY .5 MAJOR REDESIGN OR MODERATE INCREASE .3 COMPLEX REDESIGN OR MAJOR INCREASE .1 STATE OF THE ART RESEARCH REQUIRED PROCESS/METHOD .9 PROVEN PROCESSES & TECHNOLOGIES .7 PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH PROCESSES .5 PROCESS EXPERIENCE IS AVAILABLE .3 PORCESS AVAILABLE BUT NOT PROVEN .1 NO EXPERIENCE, PROCESS NEEDS R&D MATERIALS .9 READILYAVAILABLY .7 1-3 MONTH LEAD TIMES .5 3-9 MONTH LEAD TIMES .3 9-18 MONTH LEAD TIMES .1 18= MONTH LEAD TIMES OR NEEDS R&D DESIGN TO COST .9 BUDGET NOT EXCEEDED .7 EXCEEDS BUDGET BY LESS THAN 5% .5 EXCEEDS BUDGET BY 5-20% .3 EXCEEDS BUDGET BY 20-50% .1 EXCEEDS BUDGET BY MORE THAN 50%
DFMA Design for Manufacturing/Assembly A part is a candidate for redesign if you can answer no to the following three questions: During operation, does this part move relative to the part to which it is attached? Does this part need to be made of a different material that the part to which it is attached? Does this part need to be removable? * Source: Boothroyd & Doohurst
Producers Rank Other Producers "Manufacturability of Products in Assembly Plant"
Toyota Honda Mazda Fiat Nissan Ford Volkswagen Mitsubishi Suzuki General Motors Chrysler Jaguar
RANK 2.2 3.9 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.6 6.4 6.6 8.7 10.2 13.5 18.6
SOURCE: 1990 IMVP MANUFACTURABILITY SURVEY
""Contributions to Quality Improvement at Toyota"
Taguchi - 50%
QFD
FTA/RFTA - 35%
SPC
FMEA
- 15%
QFD helps to identify what is important Taguchi, FTA/RFTA and FMEA are used to make the continuous improvements (breakthroughs) SPC is used to hold the gains and monitor the process FTA = Fault Tree Analysis RFTA = Reverse Fault Tree Analysis FMEA = Failure Mode and Effect Analysis
TAGUCHI
Statistical Process Control
LEAN PRODUCTION Transfers Maximum Number of Tasks and Responsibilities to the Worker Only Workers Add Value Indirect Specialists Go Away or Reduce in Numbers Develops and Advanced Quality System Root Cause Corrective Action (5-Whys) Workers have Multiple Stills Invest Heavily in Training (TI, Motorola) Use Highly Flexible Machines Produce a Great Variety of Products
MASS PRODUCTION Work Arranged for the Worker Only a Few Well Defined Tasks, Requiring Little Training Work Brought to the Worker Relentlessly Disciplined by the Pace of the Line Many Indirect Specialists Industrial & Mfg. Eng.., QA, Housekeeping, Tooling, etc. Equipment Very Accurate, Specialized & Expensive Designed for High Volume (Set-Up Times Minimized) Limited Number of Products (High Volume) Buffers Between Production Steps Excess Capacity, Excess People, and Large WIPs
Theory of Constraints "Eli Goldratt" Inventory is the Root of All Evil (Ohno and Goldratt) The action you are proposing: Will it increase throughput? Will it decrease inventory? Will it decrease operating expenses? (Where is Muda in all this?) Conventional cost accounting systems make machine & employee utilization a key performance measure and treat inventory as an asset!
Theory of Constraints (Continued) Making Product does not equal Making Money People Working does not equal Making Money Manufacturing Goals (Simultaneously): Throughput (Sales) Inventory & WIP Operating Expense Net Profit ROI Cash Flow
Theory of Constraints (Bottlenecks Pace the Plant) The output of upstream operations control the output of downstream operations Cycle times of all work centers vary - this variability spreads throughout all downstream operations The maximum deviation of a preceding operation will become the starting point of the next operation, therefore: Work centers with excess capacity cannot work on parts they cannot get Bottlenecks cannot work on additional parts when they are at 100% capacity Fluctuations in bottleneck operations only make things worse
Theory of Constraints (Continued) Sum of the Local Optimums =/Global Optimum Balance Flow not Capacity Bottlenecks Govern Both Throughput & Inventory An Hour Lost at a Bottleneck is an Hour Lost for the Entire System An Hour Saved at a non-Bottleneck is is Mirage (The potential of a non-bottleneck is not determined by itself but by the bottleneck) If You Don't Need a Part Don't Make It It is OK to let a non-bottleneck sit idle It's Never OK to let Bottlenecks sit idle
Theory of Constraints (Continued) Drum - Buffer - Rope Drum: Paces the Plant (Bottleneck) (Takt Time) Buffer: Inventory to Protect the Bottleneck (ensures there are no work stoppages) Rope: Ties Everything Together: material releases and assembly schedules (Kanban) (reflects the bottleneck constraints)
Theory of Constraints (The Process) Identify the bottlenecks (capacity constraints) Protect the bottlenecks Use non-bottlenecks only to keep pace with bottleneck flows Only improve capacity & variability at existing bottlenecks & capacity constrained resources Reduce: Set-up Times Cycle Times & its Variability Vendor Variability (Quality, Quantity & Times)
LEAN supply chain Designing the Parts: Fewer Suppliers Suppliers Selected on Basis of Past Relationships vice Cost Suppliers Design and Build Entire Components Suppliers Work with Assemblers Early in the PD Cycle Assemblers Work with Suppliers and Provide Help There is a Framework and Process for Exchanging Information
LEAN SUPPLY CHAIN (Continued) Supplying the Parts: System for Establishing Price & Cost (Market Price Minus vs. Supplier Cost Plus) Continually Reduce Cost while Improving Quality Quality: Work with the Suppliers Share Proprietary Information Heijunka - Production Smoothing (Assembler & Supplier Daily (52%) and Hourly (31%) Deliveries Use of VE and Kaizen
MASS SUPPLY CHAIN Designing the Parts: Design Process is Sequential, One-Step at at Time Suppliers Given Drawings and Asked for Bids Given Quality Targets and Delivery Schedule Contract Key Elements (Price, Quality, Reliability, and Contract Length) Supplier Buys-In and Makes Up on the Next Contract Suppliers Have No Contract with One Another
MASS SUPPLY CHAIN (Continued) Supplying the Parts: Purchasing Worries About Cost not Production Many Suppliers Debugging Process After Production (Running Changes) Often Don't Meet Quality Targets (Ignore or Cancel) Fluctuating Markets (Keep Buffers) Cost Estimating Difficult Effort to Keep Supplier Profits Low Cost Continue to Rise
LEAN DISTRIBUTION Distribution Channels for Specific Models Established Link Between Customer and Assembler Use of Fully Trained Teams Sell Door-to-Door Daily Meetings to Solve Problems and Improve Custom Orders with Delivery within 10 Days Very Accurate Build Schedule Closer Handle on Trends with Flexibility to Change Production Smoothing Done by Aggressive Selling Success: Market Share Don't Ever Loose a Customer
MASS DISTRIBUTION Geared to the Needs of Production The Customer Comes Last Established Barriers Between Customer, Dealer and Assembler Little Feedback on Design from the Customer Dealer Used to Buffer Production Large Inventories and Inventory Cost Models Customers do not Want Goal: Outwit the Customer Salespeople Have Limited Focus They Don't Know Cars, Just Know How to Close a Deal Success = Number of Sales per Month per Salesman
LEAN AIRCRAFT INITIATIVE 3-Year Research at MIT Based on "The Machine That Changed The World" Uses Lean Production Principles as a Starting Point Aimed at Substantial Improvements in Industrial Performance Sponsored by 21 Companies and ASC All Aircraft industry sectors (Airframe, Engine, Avionics and Equipment)
STRUCTURE and PROCESS
EXECUTIVE BOARD
Service Acquisition Execs, ASC/CC, WL/MT, DARPA 18 Industry Executives 2 Union Officials
WORKING GROUP
A B C
Workshops
D E focus group
research projects Research Teams Research Reports
TIME
Development Process Factory Operations Supplier relations human resources Policy and External Environment
LEAN THINKING "Value Stream" Value is defined by the Customer - Start with the Customer's Key Characteristics Value is created by the Producer - Often hears "the Voice of the Engineer"not the customer Value Stream : the set of all actions required to bring a product through three critical management tasks: - Problem Solving: - Information Management: - Physical Transformation:
LEAN THINKING (Five Principles) Organizations accurately specify value The entire value stream is identified Make value creating steps flow continuously Let customers pull value from the enterprise Perfection....becomes possible (Hoshin Planning)
Hoshin Planning Tools
STEPS
1
2
3
4
QC Tools
Aim Plan Do Do Do
Fishbone
Pareto
Line
Flow
Check Sheet
Histogram
Control
Mgmt Tools
KJ
ID
Tree
Matrix
PDPC
Arrow
Alignment Tools
Flag
Target/Means
Cascading
T/M Tree
QFD
5
6
Check/Act Check/Act
NEXT STEPS

GA Noyes III

File: the-machine-that-changed-the-world.pdf
Title: Lean - The Machine That Changed the World
Author: GA Noyes III
Author: Geoge A. Noyes III
Published: Wed Mar 6 12:18:25 2013
Pages: 58
File size: 0.68 Mb


Send in the Clowns, 2 pages, 0.06 Mb

, pages, 0 Mb
Copyright © 2018 doc.uments.com