inventory = muda

I have always thought that it is great to plan ahead and have things stocked just in case. For instance, I always have an extra shampoo, soap, conditioner, toilet paper, etc. in my bathroom closet just so that I am ready when I eventually run out. Oftentimes, I do this in order to ensure that I get an item on sale as well. But, is this really the best method? I am thinking the answer is NO.
Inventory may add some flexibility to life, but with it comes a lot of negatives:
-Cycle counts are MUDA, they add absolutely no value, but must be done if there is inventory.
-Shrinkage, or unaccounted for inventories, are preventable costs that can add up if not careful.
-Who likes pilferage? It seems that inventory thefts lurk everywhere.
-Not to mention the simple costs of storing inventory. Holding costs can be some of the largest costs incurred by businesses because with inventory comes insurance, building, and additional labor.
I like to think of my personal inventory items as safety stock. I am not buying 12 shampoos for the future, therefore, my personal inventory costs are minimal if not 0. As for businesses, I know that a lot, including my old employer, lose a good amount of money by holding inventory. The trick, I believe, is finding suppliers that you can rely on to provide minimal lead time so that you can get more products quick and not have to hold a very large safety stock.

Why Five Why Process?

While the Five Why process does narrow your focus in an attempt to find the root cause of a problem, I can't help but wonder if it works for all issues. I highly doubt that every time you ask five whys, you will happen upon the root cause. I think that it depends on the problem and what type of why questions are being asked. Many problems may require 7 whys to get to the root, while others may only requirse 3, so why does Toyota say 5 is the key?
I think that setting it at five can make people think they are at the root cause when perhaps they need 8 Whys to truely discover the cause. In addition, the five why process will produce different results from every person because everyone does not ask the same why questions.
While good in theory, I think this process has too many flaws for someone to depend on when trying to solve a problem.

finally, a process

Business processes surround us every day. In fact, I am personally involved in some type of business process multiple times a day; whether it be shopping, dining, running errands, or doing chores. This astounds me seeing as when our group needed to decide on a business process to analyze, we had the hardest time thinking of one. We had many ideas, yet, we struggled to find one that we could easily observe and use to complete our project.
I suppose we were able to think of one process fairly quickly, but only discovered that it was already extremely efficient. (damn Starbucks, I knew there was a reason that I didn't like you) This, of course, is a good problem to have, but why could we not think of something else easily? Perhaps it is because when you focus on one idea, it is difficult to step back and refocus on something completely different. I may never know, but what I do know is that I am glad to have finally chosen one that we are all on the same page about.
I guess I'm getting a haircut tomorrow : )

"The Big Y"

Down with averages! Averages definitely mask problems by disguising deviations.

With improvements in process performance and customer satisfaction, Six Sigma organizations seem to be a pretty good concept. But can it be too good to be true? I'm not sure that any business could achieve this status in all departments/processes. If you find one, let me know.

Oh, ya...and why 6?

Eliminate "Muda," Go with the "Flow"

Muda, or an activity that uses resources but creates no value, can be detrimental to a business.
In order to locate Muda, one must decide what value truly is. I never thought that value was too difficult to define, but I now understand how it is oftentimes defined improperly, or often based on old-fashioned standards. I agree, for example, that airlines who want bigger jets and layovers for customers trying to get to certain destinations, should focus their resources on having more direct flights on smaller jets.
In "Lean Thinking," one must make the value steps "flow."
I do not doubt Henry Ford’s production line strategy of efficiency by producing using sequential steps and finishing one product start to finish. However, I think that doing things in batches can also be the most efficient way for accomplishing certain tasks. For example, mailing a letter to 500 people. From personal experience, I believe that it is more efficient to departmentalized each step, rather than to complete one letter at a time. You can get into a rhythm when placing a stamp on an envelope, or folding a piece of paper 500 times. This practice allows you to do the task quicker because you do not have to think of all the steps and reach around for different items.
I do agree that tasks can be completed better with “flow,” but this flow can sometimes be in the form of departments and I don’t think that it is so counter intuitive.

Flowcharts...Who knew?

I never really thought about using flowcharts for anything, but I can see how they may come in useful. It is a great way to organize a process. In addition, it makes it easier to locate a problem and fix it. However, it is extremely important to provide an accurate flowchart so that potential flaws in the system will be noticed and subsequently, solved.