Lean Manufacturing Argumentative Essay Example

a successful Lean environment in any company becomes challenging due to high employee turnover. Conversely, some companies perceive their employees as a financial burden rather than an asset, which hampers the implementation of a long-term Lean strategy. As a result, employees seek alternative employment, making it crucial for companies to ensure engagement, loyalty, and consistency within their workforce to sustain the long-term lean philosophy (Debusk, 2004). Effective managers function as coaches, while ineffective managers act as dictators. A competent manager embraces the team concept, valuing every team member's opinions and considering them important (Bovarnick, 2007).

A good manager values and respects their employees and understands that the success of the team is crucial for their own success. On the other hand, a poor manager dictates to their employees, causing chaos. Even a high-performing business unit with satisfied employees can quickly deteriorate if a poor manager is in charge. Poor managers typically lack strong leadership skills, including people skills, communication skills, decision-making skills, and delegation skills, which are essential for building and sustaining effective teams (Bovarnick, 2007).

A strong leader must convey and understand that the employees, as a team, are ultimately responsible for implementing the Lean Strategy. Achieving Lean is equivalent to achieving World Class status. When entering a facility with a messy and disorganized work environment, one can immediately recognize that it is not a World Class facility (Bovarnick, 2007). There is no need to evaluate productivity numbers to determine the facility's World Class status. A World Class plant is identifiable as soon as you step through its doors.

A Lean facility is highly organized with clearly defined processes and standards. Production is managed

using Visual Management, and a true World Class facility has the discipline to maintain this level of organization.

According to Debusk ; Rangel (2004), if the work environment is not clean and organized, it can turn off outside auditors, potential customers, and employees. Many companies overlook the simple task of keeping a work area clean and organized. The senior management often makes decisions without fully understanding the issues and processes, leading to consequences later on. Lower-level managers end up implementing ideas and strategies based on politics rather than logic, even if they do not believe in them.

The implementation of Lean Strategies has been problematic, causing multiple challenges. Effective communication is crucial in overcoming these challenges and making decisions throughout the organization. Senior management should not only present their ideas but also welcome questions and suggestions from lower-level managers. By creating a collaborative environment, senior management can better understand issues and communicate effectively with managers at different levels. This teamwork is essential for the company's success. The article mentions the importance of "coordinators" in educating Toyota's workforce about the TPS philosophy (Toyota Production System). However, replicating their effectiveness has proven to be difficult. Unlike other companies that prioritize technology and machines, Toyota reevaluates its fundamental operating strategies and recognizes the significance of its employees in becoming a manufacturing powerhouse over the past 25 years.

During the mid-1980s, the Japanese managers were popularly referred to as coordinators. This launched their impressive global expansion because the individuals responsible for managing the new plants were not high-level executives but rather mid-level workers (Womack ; Jones, 2003). These coordinators were highly knowledgeable in Toyota's Lean-manufacturing philosophies and techniques. As a result, they

were often known as the Toyota Production System, or TPS. These coordinators, typically with over 20 years of experience, usually avoided formal classroom settings.

Thus, the coordinators trained American shop-floor managers and hourly associates by addressing issues directly on the assembly line. The principles of Lean production began to develop over a period of five decades. These efforts initially started in the 1930s with Kiichiro Toyoda, one of the company's founding fathers. Under the leadership of Taiichi Ohno in the 1950s, the Toyota system took its current form (Womack ; Jones, 2003).

Taiichi Ohno, a legendary Toyota engineer, took inspiration from a trip to the U.S. where he observed how a supermarket replenished its shelves with just-in-time delivery. Mr. Ohno identified seven forms of waste, or muda, in any process. As he trained recruits for Toyota's Operations Management Consulting Division, he instructed them to closely observe their work and identify areas for improvement. Trainees would stand for nearly a day until they could provide a satisfactory answer to Mr. Ohno.

Toyota factories experienced significant improvements in efficiency and productivity when Mr. Ohno implemented his production approach on a large scale. This led to Toyota gaining a reputation for reliable products and making quality a top priority, resulting in a major competitive advantage. By the late 1980s, lean production had become deeply ingrained in Toyota's culture and influenced all aspects of its corporate activities. Hajime Oba, an expert in the Toyota Production System (TPS), criticized Detroit's approach to lean production in North America. According to Oba, managers at Detroit's Big Three auto manufacturers simply used lean techniques to reduce inventory, likening it to a religious devotion (Womack, et al.,

1991).

Hajime Oba compares this situation to creating a Buddha image but forgetting to infuse it with a soul. Toyota has recognized that its corporate values have been diluted over time (Womack, et all., 1991). This is evident in Toyota's expansion of operations globally and the hiring of employees who lack a direct connection to Mr. Ohno. As a result, the Georgetown factory became the first plant Toyota constructed in the U.S.

From the ground up, Georgetown has consistently dominated J.D. Power & Associates' widely respected quality survey for cars sold in the U.S. However, after being ranked as North America's second-best plant in 2001 below Toyota's Canadian plant in Cambridge, Ontario (Womack ; Jones, 2003), Georgetown has experienced a decline. The main issue Georgetown has faced is language; the Toyota-production-system masters mainly speak Japanese fluently, while their American counterparts only speak English. This language barrier has made lean production at Toyota nearly impossible and has caused other problems due to cultural and linguistic differences.

As the sales of Toyota vehicles in the North American market soared, a new issue regarding time arose (Womack ; Jones, 2003). The Georgetown plant had to quickly increase production to meet demand, leading them to promote American shop-floor managers and hourly associates. This contradicted the lean approach, which focused on gradually nurturing employees in the Toyota manufacturing way and deepening their skills before advancing them to managerial positions (Womack ; Jones, 2003). An old saying, "Haste makes waste," applies to the situation at the Georgetown plant. Toyota has taken notice of this issue and is implementing measures to address it. The problem at Georgetown arises when some hourly assemblers disregard standardized work

processes, which greatly impacts the accuracy and consistency of manufacturing within Toyota plants.

The loss of lean-production experts in Georgetown can be attributed to their aging and competition (Womack, et all., 1991). One such expert, Kazumi Nakada, who was a master of Toyota Production System (TPS), left Toyota in 1995 to join GM alongside Mr. Cho (Shirouzu ; Moffett, 2004). GM justified this move as an effort to enhance their vehicle quality and replicate Toyota's manufacturing methods (Shirouzu & Moffett, 2004). In order to reduce their reliance on Japanese TPS coordinators, Georgetown's mastery of Lean production initiated an emergency 18-month project in 2000 (Womack, et all., 1991).

This paragraph describes the level at which the plant could operate, with the top management circles gradually supporting the core of front-line managers. This led to the establishment of a formal Organization Development Group. When Mr. Convis recruited Mr. Oba, the TPS guru, to assist with the Georgetown project, there were numerous issues to address.

When analyzing the situation at Toyota, it became evident that many shop-floor leaders were spending excessive amounts of time in their offices rather than actively leading and coaching kaizen projects with assembly workers on the factory floor. However, this changed when approximately 70 midlevel managers were assigned to various Toyota parts suppliers to engage in "real life" kaizen projects. The purpose of this was to enhance their understanding of TPS (Toyota Production System) by being directly involved in these projects. In a specific case, Georgetown plant faced a significant setback in terms of quality in 2002 when they commenced production of a new Camry sedan in the fall of 2001. Buyers began filing complaints about the

cup holders that obstructed the shift lever when tall travel mugs were placed in them. Furthermore, there were grievances about the car's spongy brakes.

The lack of testing led to the peeling off of the long skinny plastic strips that covered up weld marks on the car's roof. This demonstrates the idea that rushing can lead to mistakes (Womack ; Jones, 2003). These problems resulted in an increase in customer complaints about the quality of the new Camry in the annual initial quality survey by J.D. Power, despite the Camry being America's top vehicle in that segment just two years earlier (Womack ; Jones, 2003). This shows that Toyota's lean approach had failed due to the hurried methods of running the company. For example, in 2002, the car had 117 problems per 100 vehicles. Even though the number of customer complaints decreased, the Camry's initial quality ranking continued to decline. For instance, in 2003 it was No.

In 2004, the car ranked 7th and No. 8, which was significantly lower than its competitors (Womack & Jones, 2003). Toyota is now working vigorously to elevate Lean production to a higher level, even though some competitors are narrowing the gap in terms of quality and efficiency.