If we were to simply increase the amount of work without
removing waste, the workers would have a very good reason
to complain. Such a change would be nothing more than
intensifying their labor.
We need to make a large and important distinction between
the intensity and the density of labor. Intensifying labor without
removing waste aims solely to increase production output.
For instance, we can require the workers to work faster, which
would raise the production output. This is what intensified
labor alone means.
This is not the right way to go about improving things.
We need to take a very different approach—improving labor
density. We start by finding and removing waste from within
work processes. More specifically, this waste elimination
stage includes:
◾ Understanding the entire work process.
◾ Quickly recognizing the actual value-adding function of
the process.
Work
Work
Work
Work
Waste
Work
Waste
Operations
Removing waste
HIGHER LABOR DENSITY (improved efficiency)
LABOR INTENSIFICATION
Waste
Waste
Work
“working”
Waste
“moving”
Waste
Work
Figure 2.19 Improvement of Labor Intensity and Labor Density.
86 ◾ JIT Implementation Manual: Volume 1
◾ Applying the concepts of “motion” and “work” to study
the work process.
◾ Distinguishing clearly between wasteful “motion” and
value-adding “work.”
◾ Immediately doing whatever is possible to remove wasteful
“motion” from the work process.
Let us consider an example. A certain press worker’s work
process starts with fetching a workpiece from a site about
eight feet away and pressing it. The first improvement is to
have the workpieces set close enough so that the worker
does not need to take any steps to reach them. That one
improvement removes 16 feet (round trip) of “walking waste”
or about six seconds of “time waste.”
Now, what shall the worker do with these six seconds of
freed-up time? Ideally, they should be used for value-adding
actions. If this can be done, we can “naturally” (that is, without
strain) translate that much more labor time into higher
production output. In other words, we can increase the production
output without intensifying labor. The worker will
work at the same speed as before, but will “naturally” have
greater output.
The more we can increase the ratio of “work” to “motion”
within a work process, the greater the density of labor
becomes. By definition, higher labor density means more
value is added to the product per unit of labor cost.
Now you can see why we call removing waste the very
basis of JIT improvement. The thing that JIT improvement
team members need to be most careful in checking is whether
or not their improvements actually remove waste.
In view of the above, it is fair to say that JIT improvement
does not in any way require intensification of labor.
Any worker in any factory should be able to confirm this
for him or herself. If the worker feels that an improvement
has sped up the work or has made it more difficult, it can
only be a sign of errors in the improvement.
Destroying Factory Myths ◾ 87
Lesson 13. Removing Waste Means Turning
Wasteful Motions into Productive Work
Approach to Inventory and Lead-Time:
Inventory and Lead-Time
Everyone—the manufacturers and their clients—face a highly
competitive business environment. In the economic jungle—
as in the real jungle—you either eat or are eaten. This harsh
business environment has led to rising client demands for
lower costs and shorter delivery deadlines. For their part,
factories seek “compressed delivery deadlines.”
Imagine some company managers who, faced with tough
market competition, come to you for advice on how to shorten
delivery deadline periods by as much as 50 percent. Let us
also assume that the factory managers have already tried
installing new equipment and implementing a TQC program,
but without the expected results. They are getting desperate
for answers.
Now imagine how surprised they would be if you were to
simply suggest, “That’s easy enough, just reduce your current
inventory 50 percent.” No doubt, they would probably appear
mystified and wonder how the subject of conversation got
switched from delivery deadlines to inventory. Again, you
need only explain, “What’s the mystery? It’s really very simple.
Just cut the current production lot sizes in half.”
Now watch what happens. Their minds, already bewildered
by your connection of delivery deadlines and less inventory,
collapse into total confusion as they consider yet a third
apparently unrelated factor: lot size.
Maybe someone will seek to clarify things by asking, “Let
me get this straight. We cut delivery deadlines in half by cutting
inventory in half, which means cutting lot sizes in half.
But doesn’t that mean we’ll also be cutting our production
output in half?”
Now they are getting somewhere. You can continue by
adding, “Cut output in half? Yes, I suppose it does. But you