Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Karlstad Lean Factory: An “instructional factory” for game-
based Lean Production training
Professor Leo J De Vin, Karlstad University, Sweden
Lasse Jacobsson, JanErik Odhe, Anders Wickberg
1
Karlstad Lean Factory:Impression of the environment
2
Outline• Theory and challenges of game-based Lean Production training• Functional specs & Implementation of Karlstad Lean Factory• Experiences from training sessions, industry survey• Research challenges and hypotheses • Conclusions, Q&A
Herbert Schofield (V-C Loughborough University, UK) coined the expression
«Instructional Factory» in 1916
3
Game-based Lean Production training • Validity of a (simulation) model depends on its INTENDED
PURPOSE
• Suitability of a training environment depends on its INTENDED PURPOSE as well as on the PARTICIPANT GROUP
Models are ”always wrong”, but in particular when built/selected with care, still useful. See also Rosenblueth & Wiener (1943). 4
Game-based Lean Production training • Validity of a (simulation) model depends on its INTENDED
PURPOSE
• Suitability of a training environment depends on its INTENDED PURPOSE as well as on the PARTICIPANT GROUP
Models are ”always wrong”, but in particular when built/selected with care, still useful. See also Rosenblueth & Wiener (1943). 5
Training Transfer and simulator fidelity • Realistic simulators usually give more training transfer• Game difficulty must be appropriate• For industrial workers, table-top games are often too abstract
• Hard for them to «understand» the game• What looks «easy» to us (Lean educators) they find difficult• «Going through the motions», limited training transfer
6
Realism, Abstraction, FlexibilityItem Properties
Factory The real thing
Teaching Factory- uses industrial machine tools & equipment
Part of the real thing or similar to part of the real thing, much detail. Risk for equipment specific ”tricks”. Orientedtowards a specific production type (Tisch et al, 2013).
Full-scale simulators Looks conceptually like a real factory, behaves like one. Flexible, exhibits realistic behaviour.
Desktop game «LEGO» Fairly abstract representation of something that couldlook like a factory.
Paper based game Very flexible but abstract; often not suitable for leangame novices. For instance use of dices to simulatevariability is often not well understood.
Computer based game Abstract, often ”black box” representation of somethingthat could look like a factory.
7
Functional requirements (selection) for Karlstad Lean FactoryFrom discussions with companies, lean educators a.o.:
• «Full size» workstations• Realistic «look and feel»• Layout change effort realistic
• Simulation of materials processing as well as assembly• Realistic features including:
• Adjustable processing times• Adjustable reliablity parameters (MTBF, MTTR)• Simulation of changeovers (SMED)
• Mobility to enable on-site training• Possibility to change product to resemble a company’s own
8
Equipment and current “product”
Modified to enable disassembly
9
Examples of training sessions
10
Example of start layout in simple game scenario
Examples of training sessions
11
Example of final layout in simple game scenario
Examples of training sessions
12
Example of improvement session documentation.
Model for Lean Production training Intuitive, and transferable to continuous improvement at work
Similar to, but easier to understand for shop floor workers than Deming’sPDCA/PDSA/PDLA more training transfer 13
Model for Lean Production training Intuitive, and transferable to continuous improvement at work
Similar to, but easier to understand for shop floor workers than Deming’sPDCA/PDSA/PDLA more training transfer 14
Simulations, game scenarios Range of scenarios:• From basic scenarios to supply chain perspective• From single product to mixed model with special orders• Mix of single item processing, batch stations, and kitting
Example of a session • Introduction and theory• 3 game rounds, each with evaluation and improvement steps• Mid session with deeper reflection, link back to theory• 3 game rounds• In-depth debriefing, including discussion «what would be next
level»
15
Experiences from training sessions (1)University students:• Moderate differences between groups• Certain risk for negative training• Competition between teams; can create non-sustainable work
situation balance productivity/person vs work environment
Non-engineering academics:• Analytical approach, «overall picture»• More «flow thinking» than we expected
16
Experiences from training sessions (2)Companies / Industrial workers:• Differences between companies/groups• Differences within groups• Demonstrating limited effect of shorter cycle times an eye-opener• Role of instructor/facilitator particularly important
• Learning particpants anew to «observe» - this is also easier in a lab with «new» equipment
• As a coach to guide improvement proposals «Kata»• To ensure all participants have their say
• Weaving in theory at right time & level not always trivial• Upfront dialogue with companies («what, who, why») useful
• For our own preparation• Stimulates companies’ awareness of their needs & goals
• Exit polls provide feedback but also stimulate training transfer17
Survey results (26 manuf. & paper/pulp)Focus (what they would like to achieve through Lean Production)Now – resource efficiency1 year – resource efficiency + competitiveness5 year – competitiveness + resource efficiency + innovative capacity
Lean competence development50% Part of long term competence development plan23% Own personnel should develop into lean coach/coord.40% Modest training efforts to begin with, possibly more later
Preferred location of Lean Production trainingOn-site 50%, at University 20%, Mixed locations 30%One SME replied «at and with our customers»
18
Hypotheses: workers vs. studentsHypotheses regarding training of university students versus industrial workers
Probably beyond the scope of a single research group 19
Research challenges & directions How to measure (in industry):• Short to medium term:
• Absorption of lean training• Sustained effects of lean training• Penetration of lean philosopy & practice from training
• Long term effects such as• Organic learning• Innovative capacity & innovation networks
• Effects of employing graduates trained in Karlstad Lean Factory• Side effects (e.g., inclusiveness, gender equality)
Most evidence in literature is anecdotal, or are case descriptions
Concerted efforts required to advance lean education theory20
Conclusions Karlstad Lean Factory:• An industrially relevant Lean Production training environment• Full-scale plus mobility a positive factor• Adaptable w.r.t. products and scenarios
Future:• Measurement of training transfer a challenge• Measurement of short/long term effects on companies and
company networks a challenge• Test potential combination with e.g. VCF or table-top games• Concerted research efforts required to advance lean education
theory & practice, and to study/improve its impact
Contact: [email protected]
