Being an assistant lecturer in a mechatronics based university focused highly in the advancement of shopfloor and its environment has deceive me to understand more about manufacturing strategy and production management. Yet, it is not disadvantage for me, and in fact plenty of unimaginable benefits I obtained during my work there. I learned a lot about managing shopfloor in terms of physical system by utilizing some mechatronics and industrial engineering perspective of shopfloor control (e.g. MES ).

Still, however, the lacks of exploring production and manufacturing environment from the management of Factory side has drawn me far away from Indonesia to Germany. Arriving in Germany was still a big doubt for me. One reason is I choose less famous university than another more famous one. very fortunate after all, that before I came here, I finished reading about the newest Robert Kiyosaki book with the title of Unfair Advantage. I read about choosing university based on who will give you lectures, and what will you obtain from the university a.k.a curriculum rather than only big names. If I had not read it, I might not be here today.

Turns out that Kiyosaki words are pretty powerful. Spend 2 weeks in my senior place while looking for a place to stay in Germany was hard experience but also eye-opening. I interacted with them to get what this program is all about. Asked about the teachers, the subjects, way of teaching, until types of thesis title. That was very relieving for me!

My topik about Lean Manufacturing is explored in this university. a lot!! More over, one of the teachers is very famous for Lean Manufacturing in Germany and even integrating it into his lecture. Additionally, the all time question regarding relating strategic to shopfloor is discussed deeply in one of the subject ( I know this just after I read the book for the course to help one of my senior to face his exam). I really thought that this is the right path, and I’ll continue to strive exploring about Production Management and Lean Manufacturing here.

Go Lean.

For quite a long time I do not posted another post in this blog. As I keep my adventure in the world of manufacturing goes on and on, my curiosity has led me to abyss of manufacturing reflection. I am telling my mind to write right now so I can have a moment of insanity check of myself. Writing and figuring out how far I have reach and is it the right path of learning.

My University has a current research focus in the world of Manufacturing Execution System ( MES ) while on the other hand I personally is an agent of Lean in the production planning and control. My attention in the world of MRP I and II, Theory of Constraints (TOC) in factory and the Lean Manufacturing have never shut down.

Due to the research direction of my University, I have to read lots of papers and several books about MES ( Manufacturing Execution System ) and additionally HMES ( Holonic Manufacturing System – found and developed in KU Leuven). Two of several books about MES that I have read are written by Kletti and Meyer. Both have an essential perspective which are complementary.

The new experience in the world of MES has brought plenty of questions in me. Factory Physics is a fundamental book for me and the the first book that  introduce me to the world of manufacturing management. Lots topics that introduce me to manufacturing I get from it. I have read through all the chapters and additionally seek for other resources to strengthen my understanding regarding factory management.

The MRP II can’t be excluded from the important knowledge of manufacturing. I went to library and found a book written by Khalid Sheik about Manufacturing Resource Planning ( MRP II ). I love this book as it points out little MRP with more comprehensive view than Factory Physics. It is also elaborate many about each fundamental function of MRP II and how they working together to create a manufacturing harmony. Not forgetting the inventor of little MRP ( Joseph Orlicky ) and the genius Oliver Wight that extend the concept into MRP II, he kept mentioning them in his book.

Relating little MRP, MRP II and Lean Manufacturing has been a fun adventure. Besides enhancing my lean knowledge through Toyota books ( Toyota Production System Field book, Toyota Production System – the 14 principles of Management, and the famous The hitch hiker lean), I have found mind blowing  and eye opening books in the field of Lean Manufacturing from Lean.org. From Learning to See, Making the Flow, Continuous Flow, until Creating Level Pull have been a collection of my library.

I have already have understanding about how to relate the concept of Lean Manufacturing to the MRP II framework and combining the world of pull and push ( at least I do understand it more than I understand MES). Moreover, as I recently indirectly introduced to the world of MES, I wonder if MES could be suited with the framework of MRP II and Pull System developed using the concept tough by lean.org.

Paperless Manufacturing seem desirable as MRP is obviously not a green manufacturing. However, I still have great doubt about implementing MES with MRP and pull. I thought that in some point there will be a collision among the systems. I still do not know how much, but there should be many modification. I hope I could understand more and able to integrate the Execution System with the Planning side to complete my curiosity of Manufacturing Planning.

Ok, I think it is enough for now.

I am going to dig deeper.

Go Lean.

 
In April, I accompanied colleagues students of my University to have a field trip to the automotive manufacturer plant which handle the assembly of medium and low trucks. I have had an experience for six months of internship in a quite famous automotive manufacturer overseas in Germany. Therefore, as my country is a developed country, I presumed that the plant that we were going to visit was not possible to have a better management and/or technology than in Germany.

By the time we got there, I verify my assumption with the fact. It turns out at the first sight this plant which located in my country have nothing extra worth to be compared to the technology with what the Germans have. It was a very conventional plant. We gathered together to a short briefing and quickly we were divided into several group and being arranged into route of travel around factory.

We make a start to the first process and go until the latest process in the plant. The tour guide which happens to be the supervisor and a foreman assisting us and generously share their experience about the working procedure, process, and experience. I was astonished after we have come to an end. It was amazing to be there that  day and I felt very fortunate to be there.

I saw that the lean management in the factory. That it the moment when I believe that there is a factory runs smoothly by using no automation and high-tech and rely on the management of lean. They have many of lean concept. Besides of the Japanese auditor from Japan that always came to the factory to maintain the performance, many interesting facts have surprised me.

Previously I am very disappointed with labor from my country. It is because in my view, labor in my country is lazy and unproductive. However, what I saw that day at the factory could really make me realize the power of Lean. Lean could changed people behavior and culture to the desired one. I felt really happy to be there.

He is the father of Scientific Management and The root of Industrial Engineering. The following videos are stories of Taylor. His concepts and his works.

Get Lean.

Following the trail to pursue perfection in managing a system, other scientist with their own area of expertise from diverse background and various ideas come up later with a much more original and imaginative methodology. Henry Ford a man who invented assembly line; Lilian Moler Gilbreth, the first true Industrial/Organizational Psychologist and Frank Bunker Gilbreth, Sr. who was famous for motion study, Those two people who have been labeled by many as the pioneer of Industrial Engineering; The age of Quality started by Deming, Crosby, Juran, and many more “quality guru”. The Japanese adopted it and the genius Toyota’s Taiichi Ohno with Kiichiro Toyoda turning it into JIT with additional methodology and Jim Womack created Lean Manufacturing and the application in various industry and furthermore he established a non-profit organization for learning purpose.  The similar thing among them are all aiming at managing a system. Find a way to manage the system with more efficient, more effective and yet more productive.

Regardless of the ultimate importance of the concepts and methodologies they discovered and how fundamental yet prevalent use of their methods in Industry, There is still a gap to be fulfilled. For decades, the Industrial world have used their methods. However, the scientists I have described above was crafting their concept and methodologies at a different time frame as we are today. This demographic gap could result in advantages or a horrible disaster.

               PAST TODAY FUTURE

From the age of Fredrick Winslow Taylor until the age of Quality guru, it is undeniably that Information System, and Automation is not as Advance as it is today. In addition to a new breed of science rooted from the examination of Artificial Intelligence in 1985, the age of Intelligence soon will be emerge replacing the Information Age. In the old ages, factory or system in general are managed by the use of a rigorous statistical concept and concepts derived from common senses and experiments. However, as the advancement of our humanity, there has to be a new approach on managing a factory.

                 Fredrick Winslow Taylor never touch Java 

The quote “ Fredrick Winslow Taylor never touch Java” put in plain words the gap that exist among ours and them. Therefore, Industrial Engineering as a science today should not only aware of the advancement of Information System and Automation, but also able to translate the methods and statistical analysis from the old ages and incorporating into the current era of Information System and Automation.

With the current trend of Information System and Automation in Industry, There are only two possible likelihood. The advantage gained when we can integrate, translate, and incorporate the old methods of common sense and statistics into new supporting tools namely Information System and Automation, the horrible disaster is when we blindly adopt by only assume that Information System and Automation itself can solve the problem of managing a factory and eliminate the use of already proven, and verified methodology of the gurus.

The disaster take place when we managing a factory by rely on the tools but not the concepts  

Get Lean.

I used to get MRP I subject and Basic conventional Inventory planning subject such as News Vendor, Base Stock, (Q,r), and the famous EOQ model. However, the relations among them seems to be blur in the initial days when I first got around and get acquaintance with the numbers and concepts.

As I help them to reviewed, I read for a chapter about MRP II and also a chapter about Pull Framework. I can now seen a substantial difference among them and how they behave in the production environment. I never though that it would be this interesting when playing with Production Planning and Inventory Control. Additionally, I lend a book from library about MRP II. This book elaborately reveal the framework, methods, and procedure to modify a factory into an MRP II base production planning control.

My personal opinion is cumbersome and almost impossible. However, I created my own framework which I believe would be working hand-in-hand with the current development of MRP. Pull framework which was being developed for the reason of communicating customer demands indirectly with the production environment turns out working quite well to maintain production. Though, with the recent development of e-kanban, the use of MRP I could be mutually beneficial. The idea is to use MRP I side by side with e-kanban.

My 7th semester students have previously gone to local Honda supplier. Their problem was to align the problem of Inventory they will need next month. The problem is there exists plenty of variability that made the material need for every month could deviate from what they have ordered 3 months in advance. This resulted in difficulties of factory supplier to determined the amount they shall produced.

The students solved the problem well. However, I though combining MRP I and e-kanban would be the best result. For the crucial raw materials, a combination of MRP I and e-kanban could enhance communication and miss production by additional transparency it support. For a normal parts, the used of MRP I alone has always been satisfying. On the other hand, e-kanban provide support not only by making material consumption visible, but additional module of material consumption forecasting  could be made to make supplier can easily predict how much material their buyer will need.

Get Lean.

This is about  how a company’s perception regarding the mainstream of its operations. I have read a book about Operations Management and has recently able to finished reading it. while reading the books, many argumentation and discussion were happening among me and several others lecturers in the university. The topic which is being discussed was maintenance and the implications to our research department of our university.

inasmuch as we talked about maintenance while I was also reading the book about Operations Management, there is a spark of thought that brought me into another session of debate to my own selves. Operations Management brings out the focus of designing and operating the system with the output form of either service and goods. On the other side, me and my colleague were discussing about maintenance and its related applications. Thus, I questioned myself “ What is maintenance and quality in the service oriented company ? What is the difference between product oriented and service oriented company in looking at maintenance and quality ? what if they are not service or product oriented, but a combination of both ? How they see maintenance and quality ?”

I have a strong belief that Maintenance which is coming from the word “maintain” has a true meaning of preserve, sustain, or taking care of something whereas Quality which is essentially translating the “customer’s perceptions” and later be translated into product specification is based on making a product accordingly and exactly the same specifications to the customers’ needs.

Drawing further into the realm of Operations Management distinction between service and goods production. The distinction among those two products are clear. When a company produce goods, it literally explaining that the production has to run and complete before the customer can taste or wear the resulting goods. The goods are in most cases produce in a separate area as the customer taste or use it.  A great difference with the most service industry. In service, the production is performed in the exact same time as the customer is actually enjoying or experiencing the benefits or resulting service.

The question is “does the position of maintenance and quality in a system stays the same in all types of production ?”

In answering this question, I believe that everyone has their arguments. However, the argument that is logically right and is visible according to my opinion is that in all type of production despite of its orientation and classification as service or goods, they all has something to “maintain” and has a “customer needs” that has to be fulfilled in the exact same specifications. However, I seriously belief that each of the production type ( service, goods, or combination ) has different kind of Quality and therefore has a different kind of Maintenance requirement.

The next question is “ What are the difference between service oriented, goods oriented, or combination of those two in utilizing the Quality and Maintenance ?”

Before we are going to answer that question, it is very important to really understand the philosophical meaning of Quality and Maintenance through the use of an example.

We hear a lot of the evolution words and the science behind the magical explanation of how it could happen. Scientists such as Darwin and many others have devoted their whole life to uncover the true phenomenon of evolution. The evolution thus seen as a very captivating ideas involving lifecycle of humanity and its surrounding environment. An evolution brings a great magnificent impact to the world and with unknown outcome of either better or worse.

This time, I will approach the evolution of Industrial Engineering by incorporating the evolution of Information Technology. I have been doing my own small research of the evolution of Industrial Engineering since I was enrolled as a student of Industrial Engineering. However, recently my university where i work decided to held a small seminar limited to university students and staffs. The topic has been chosen to be “ The Future of Industrial Engineering”. It was then when my colleagues who comes up with the idea of doing the seminar asked my opinion about the concept of the seminar that I started to run a search about Information technology.

The founding of my small research is so stunning. It opened my eyes that actually Information Technology really brings a huge impact to the world and especially the world of Industrial Engineering. It shifted the paradigm of a conventional Industrial Engineering into a brand new modern usage of conception. Below is the drawing of evolution of Information Technology and Industrial Engineering in a simple visual diagram which is the outcome of my research.

The diagram is very helpful in visualizing the relations of Information Technology evolution and the relation with the Industrial Engineering evolution. Information has been there since the age of Stone Age, and so does Industry. However, the portion is so small until people may not even realize of its existence. For instance, information in Stone Age has been used by human to verbally communicate their expressions and industry in Stone Age has been obviously known by the making of Stone tools using a very conventional Craft Manufacturing System. Thus, along the evolution of human to a better form and to a better civilization, unconsciously the Information Technology and Industrial System also experiencing an evolution.

In the graph, it depicts the exact time of both the evolution of Information Technology and Industrial Engineering as it happens. The evolution of Information Technology exploded 4 century sooner than Industrial Evolution. However, soon when the time almost reach the 19th century, the Industrial Evolution has beginning to come up and exploded in 19th century. As in the red graph that shows the explosion of Industrial Evolution brings a new kind of Manufacturing System which at that time is called Mass Production System.

In the beginning of 21st Century, the Information and Industry has evolved and they create a new relationship among them. The questions is how this phenomenon could be useful by Industrial Engineering and to be able to take advantage of this evolution. The Information Technology evolution brings Information faster to travel and easier to get, whereas the Industrial Engineering evolution has an impact of improving system not only in the manufacturing physical system and the plant area, but also can be applied throughout the organization and has an impact of company wide. Methods such as Quality ( TQM, SPC, Six Sigma) , Lean, Theory of Constraint, Business Process Reengineering and others which several years ago has considered to be a method which originated from the shop-floor has been translated and improved to be able to used in a larger area.

The challenge today is to find an opportunity and area of expertise in a wide possible area of improvement.

Happy Learning.

I found this interesting talks when I am surfing on the internet. It is a youtube video recorded in the event under Google Tech Talks. It is really interesting to relate leadership through times. Below is the Abstract that I take from Google.

Google Tech Talks
May 6, 2008
ABSTRACT
When you look around, there are a lot of leaders recommended for software development. We have the functional manager and the project manager, the scrum master and the black belt, the product owner and the customer-on-site, the technical leader and the architect, the product manager and the chief engineer.
Clearly that’s too many leaders. So how many leaders should there be, what should they do, what shouldn’t they do, and what skills do they need?
This will be a presentation and discussion of leadership roles in software development — what works, what doesn’t and why.

Speaker: Mary Poppendieck
Mary Poppendieck started her career as a process control programmer, moved on to manage the IT department of a manufacturing plant, and then ended up in product development, where she was both a product champion and department manager.

Mary considered retirement 1998, but instead found herself managing a government software project where she first encountered the word “waterfall.” When Mary compared her experience in successful software and product development to the prevailing opinions about how to manage software projects, she decided the time had come for a new paradigm. She wrote the award-winning book Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit in 2003 to explain how the lean principles from manufacturing offer a better approach to software development.

Over the past six years, Mary has found retirement elusive as she lectures and teaches classes with her husband Tom. Based on their on-going learning, they wrote a second book, Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash in 2006. A popular writer and speaker, Mary continues to bring fresh perspectives to the world of software development.

Speaker: Tom Poppendieck
Tom Poppendieck has 25 years of experience in computing including eight years of work with object technology. His modeling and mentoring skills are rooted in his experience as a physics professor. His early work was in IT infrastructure, product development, and manufacturing support, and evolved to consulting project assignments in healthcare, logistics, mortgage banking, and travel services.

Tom led the development of a world-class product data management practice for a major commercial avionics manufacturer that reduced design to production transition efforts from 6 months to 6 weeks. He also led the technical architecture team for very large national and international Baan and SAP implementations.

Tom Poppendieck is an enterprise analyst and architect, and an agile process mentor. He focuses on identifying real business value and enabling product teams to realize that value. Tom specializes in understanding customer processes and in effective collaboration of customer, development and support specialists to maximize development efficiency, system flexibility, and business value.

Tom is co-author of the book Lean Software Development: An Agile Toolkit, published in 2003, and its sequel, Implementing Lean Software Development: From Concept to Cash, published in 2006.

Everyone knows the basic equation which is written below.  

It is obvious that from the equation, to generate profit, an organization or a company has to consider revenue and cost. The definition of revenue according to Investor World is

For a company, this is the total amount of money received by the company for goods sold or services provided during a certain time period. It also includes all net sales, exchange of assets; interest and any other increase in owner’s equity and is calculated before any expenses are subtracted. Net income can be calculated by subtracting expenses from revenue. In terms of reporting revenue in a company’s financial statements, different companies consider revenue to be received, or “recognized”, different ways. For example, revenue could be recognized when a deal is signed, when the money is received, when the services are provided, or at other times. There are rules specifying when revenue should be recognized in different situations for companies using different accounting methods, such as cash basis and accrual basis.
Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/4254/revenue.html#ixzz10eF2Hhig

Then, the definition of Expense according to Investor World is

Any cost of doing business resulting from revenue-generating activities.
Read more: http://www.investorwords.com/1842/expense.html#ixzz10eFUArF4

Thus, a company will gain profit by either increasing revenue or decreasing cost.

The Important Issue now is, how see the world of profit, interpret it, and apply it into the world of Industrial Engineering. Recently, there is many buzz words coming around us. Stuffs like Lean, Six sigma, TQC ( TQM&SQC), Theory of Constraint, Factory Physics and others has come to existence and often  puzzled and confused us. It is really important to be able to relate those improvement terms into the world of Profit = Revenue – Cost. It is a logical thinking, if you want to use the tools you better know what tools are you using and how those tools can contribute to the improvement of the whole system.

In the next post, I will elaborate what is the relationship between those buzz words and the high management language of profit.

Happy Learning.