by

Diwakar Sharma
Presentation Topics
Introduction
Objective
Methodology
Analysis –SPSS, XL
Results and Discussions
Conclusions & Recommendations
Introduction
2 mins
Introduction
Aircraft Industry worldwide are embracing lean
manufacturing for improving Quality of Work life by

 creating, maintaining and continuously improving the

environment in and around the work place

 A serene environment and workable work

exponentially increases
the productivity,
quality of output,
employee satisfaction,
and helps in improving the brand image of the
companies among the customers and
stakeholders.
Introduction
Aircraft Industry worldwide are embracing lean
manufacturing for improving Quality of Work life by

 creating, maintaining and continuously improving the

environment in and around the work place

 A serene environment and workable work

exponentially increases
the productivity,
quality of output,
employee satisfaction,
and helps in improving the brand image of the
companies among the customers and
stakeholders.
Introduction
To keep itself in pace with world class Aircraft
Industries, HAL’s Lean journey started with

the visit of Top leadership to Boeing, Israel Aircraft

Industries, and to Rolls Royce.
learnt about Lean Initiatives taken by these aircraft
majors to bring down drastically cycle times, lead
times, inventory and cost
a lean consultant, who has been also assisting IAI was
invited to HAL in December 2003 to make a
presentation to the Top Management Team.
embarked on lean journey from December 2003
full time “Lean Resource Teams” led by Senior
Executives formed since December 2003 at all the
divisions.
Introduction
Lean Management was introduced in Avionics
Division, Hyderabad with

the formation of the Steering Committee and Lean

Resource Team 18th Jan 2004.
kick-start of lean initiatives with the visit of Mr.
Crispin Brown, consultant on 20th January 2004.

Since then Hyderabad has come along way. Their

production increases are excellent and the progress
made in production leveling is impressive and
deserves praise.
 1175

909

472

254

9
 160

140

120

100
2 0 0-05 6
2 0 0-06 7
80
2 0 0-07 8
2 0 0-08 9
60
NO
.UITSPRDCE

40

20

0
APR M AY JUN JUL AU G SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB M AR
M ON TH

10
10
Introduction
On the eve of completion of five years of lean
Journey, Chairman (HAL) in a message to directors
and divisional head has emphasized on the
necessity of alignment of leadership at all the level
around the purpose and importance of successful
implementation of this change initiative.

Keeping in view the progress made by Hyderabad

division and the importance of the requirement of
visionary leadership at all the levels it was decided
to carry out research on
Perception of division’s employees on progress of
lean initiatives and
on the topic “Impact of Leadership on
Systematic Organizational Change through
Lean Initiatives” from the perspective of HAL
Hyderabad division.
Objective
 Understanding the current status of lean initiatives at HAL,
Hyderabad
 Testing of Hypothesis “There is a positive correlation
between “top” level management leadership and the
successful outcomes of a “lean” change initiative.”
 Capturing employee’s perception about the current status
of lean initiatives at HAL, Hyderabad in order to gauges
the gap between the perceptions of the management
and the employees of the Avionics division, Hyderabad
about the progress of lean initiatives
 Development of framework for successful
implementation of lean at division level
Methodology
 In depth review of literature
 Survey questionnaire
 Section A – General Information
 Section B – Implementation
 Section C – Outcomes
 D- Status of Lean implementation at
Hyderabad division/SLRDC
 Interaction with senior officials
 Review of various documents related to lean
consultant
Visionary Leadership
Visionary Leadership Formula (f(x)) *

f(x) = [(w)(Shared Purpose) + (w)(Empowerment) +

(w)(Appropriate Organizational Changes) + (w)
(Strategic Thinking)]

Where:
(w) = weight factor
Shared Purpose = Vision + Communication

*Adopted from Nanus’ Visionary Leadership, 1992, p-156

Productivity Outcomes
 Productivity Outcomes Formula (f(y)) *
f(y) = [(w)(External Outcomes) + (w)(Internal Outcomes)]
Where:
(w) = weight factor

 External Outcomes = Customer Satisfaction + Schedule/Delivery

Performance + Quality of Product or Service

 Internal Outcomes = Resource Utilization + Return on Assets +

Cycle Time

*Adopted from (Ulrich, et al., (1999), Results Based Leadership: How Leaders Build the
Business and Improve the Bottom Line and (Kaplan & Norton, 1996), The Balanced
Scorecard
Proposed Correlation
Model
1
f(y)

X Change Initiative
Productivity Outcomes

0 1
Visionary Leadership f (x)

The proposed correlation model of Productivity Outcomes vs Visionary Leadership

Research Methodology
Hypothesis

Existing
Theories
- Leadership
- Productivity

Key Questions
- Leadership Equation
- Productivity
Equation

Survey
Collect data for each
equation variable

Correlation
Model
- Quantify Equations
- Leadership Index
-Productivity Index

Hypothesis
- Reject
- Fail to Reject
Hypothesis
 h1 = Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficient (r) is a positive numeric value.

 Ho: β1 = 0

 H1: β1 ≠ 0

Where:
Ho = Null hypothesis
H1 = Alternate hypothesis
β1 = Slope of trend line
 Analysis
The survey was distributed to approximately
317 people as sources of data and information

The total number of surveys collected was 87,

representing a response rate of 27.4 percent

Out of 87 responses 16 were discarded based

on the answer to questions C3 & D.1.13.
 Demographics of Survey
Sample
Please indicate your Organization
Which of these titles best describes
100
your role in the organization?
70
80
81 60
57
50
60

40

40
30

20 22
20 19

Percent
Percent

19 10

0 0
HAL HYDERABAD SLRDC SENIOR MANAGEMENT SR. TECHNICAL STAFF
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT Technical Workforce
Fig. 8.1 : Organisation

Fig. 8.2 : Role

Inwhichfunctional areaof
theorganizationdoyouwork?
40

37
30

20
Percent

17 17
10
7
0 4 4 4 4 4
D

IT

IM

M
R

in

la
&
e

u
th

a
M
s

T
m

rk
T

n
e
ig

n
u

n
a
r

(P

e
n

in
fa
n

ti
e
ro

n
g
c
R

g
tu
d
e

ri
s
o

n
ti
u

g
o
rc

Fig.8.3: Functional areaof organizationwhererespondent works

n
e

/
s

R
O
H
Leadership

Which of the following statements best characterizes

Which of the following leaders is recognized
the evolution of the lean change initiative's vision?
as the most influential driver
40

of the lean change initiative?

30
30 50
26 46
20 22 40

15
Percent

10 30

26
6 20
0

Percent
M

Su

10
om

om

om
is

ri t

gg
si

te

9
po

po

po
ng

es

7 7
n
se
se

se

t
by

0
ed
d

d
d

LR
by
an

by

by

Missing COP LRT Head ED

T
d

th
LR

LR

in
an

Senior Technical Sta Middle Managers AGMs & DGMs

T,

co

En
no

in
re
un

t
c
v
c

Fig. 8.7 : The leader w ho is recognized as the

Fig. 8.6 : Role of Enterprise Leader
most influential driver of lean initiative
in formulating the initiative’s vision
Shared Purpose

The organization's level of understanding The visibility of the lean initiative's vision
of the lean initiative's vision is best characterized to the organization is best characterized

by which of the following statements? by which of the following statements?

50 60

40 50
39 48
37 40
30
30
20
20

Percent
Percent

19 19
10 13 10
11
0 7 7
0
not understood understood by most None of the above some locations throu very visible and all

understood by some understood by all displayed in lobby very visible through

Fig. 8.9 : The visibility of the lean initiative’s

Fig. 8.8 : The organization’s level of understanding
vision to the organization
of the lean change initiative’s vision
Empowerment
What is the extent of employee decision making
applied within your organization?
70

60
59
50

40

30
28
20
Percent

10
9
0
Missing to most employees, a some employee
to all employees, an Significant decision

Fig. 8.10 : The extent of employee decision

making w ithin an organization

Appropriate
Organizational Changes
Which of the following statements best describes Which of the following statements best describes the process
the level of integration between the organization's goal or processes employed to enable integration between

and the lean initiative's vision? the organization's goal and the lean initiative's vision?
50 30

28
40
39
20 22
30 20 20
28
20
10
Percent

Percent
15 9
10
11
7
0 0
Missing integrated but often integrated and all Missing only w ithin dept w ithin & b/w depts w
not integrated confl integrated and most no processes employe w ithin & in mtgs b/w

Fig. 8.11: Level of integration betw een the organization’s Fig. 8.12 : The process employed to enable integration betw een

functional objectives and vision objectives functional and vision objectives

Strategic Thinking
To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough) To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)
have the following strategies been have the following strategies been

implemented during the lean change initiative? implemented during the lean change initiative?
80 70

60
69 59
60
50

40 40

30
Percent

20 28
22
20

Percent
0 10
Missing Too much implementat
0 6
Not enough implement Effectively implemen
Missing Not enough implement Effectively implemen
NA Too much implementat
Fig. 8.13 : Extent of clear goals and objectives

implementation strategy Fig. 8.14 : Extent of strategic alliances implementation strategy

To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough) To what extent (Effectively, Too much, or Not enough)

have the following strategies been have the following strategies been

implemented during the lean change initiative? implemented during the lean change initiative?
70 70

60 60 65
57 50
50
40
40
30
30
20 26
28 Percent
20 10
Percent

10 0
Missing Not enough implement Effectively implemen
0 6 6
NA Too much implementat
Missing Not enough implement Effectively implemen
NA Too much implementat
Fig. 8.16 : Extent of building the organization’s human capital

Fig.8.15 : Extent of committing new resources implementation strategy implementation strategy

Productivity Outcomes
External Value
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, 5 and
Very = 6, 7) have the Schdule / Delivery improved since

the implementation of the lean change initiative?

30

To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, 5 and 28

20 22
Very = 6, 7) have the cust. satisfaction improved since
13
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
10 11 11
9

Percent
40 4
0
Missing NOT AT ALL Somew hat Somew hat
NA NOT AT ALL Somew hat Very

30 31 Fig. 8.18 : Extent of schedule/Delivery performance improvement

20 To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, 5 and

20
Very = 6, 7) have the Quality improved since
10 13
the implementation of the lean change initiative?
Percent

9 9 40
7
6
0 4 35
30
Missing NOT AT ALL Somew hat Somew hat
NA NOT AT ALL Somew hat Very 20

15 15
Fig. 8.17 : Extent of customer satisfaction improvement 10
Percent
11
7
6 6
0 4
Missing NOT AT ALL Somew hat Somew hat Very
NA NOT AT ALL Somew hat Very

Fig. 8.19 : Extent that quality of product or service has improved

Productivity Outcomes
Internal Value
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and
Very = 6, 7) has ROA improved since

the implementation of the lean change initiative?

30

To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and 20

24

Very = 6, 7) has Resource Utilization improved since 17

15
10 11 11
9
the implementation of the lean change initiative?

Percent
7

4
40 0
Missing NOT AT ALL Somew hat Somew hat Very
NA NOT AT ALL Somew hat Very

30 Fig. 8.21 : Extent of return on assets improvement

30

20
20 20 To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and

Very = 6, 7) has Cycle Time improved since

10 13
Percent

the implementation of the lean change initiative?

6 6 30
0 4
28
Missing NOT AT ALL Somew hat Very
NOT AT ALL Somew hat Somew hat Very 20 22

Fig. 8.20 : Extent of resource utilization improvement 15

Percent 10 11

7
6
4 4 4
0
Missing NOT AT ALL Somew hat Somew hat Very
NA NOT AT ALL Somew hat Very

Fig. 8.22 : Extent of Cycle Time improvement

Overall Outcomes
To what extent (Not at all = 1, 2, Somewhat = 3, 4, and
Very = 6, 7) do you believe the lean change initiative

was successful
30

28 28

20 22

10 11
Percent

4
0
NOT AT ALL Somew hat Somew hat
NOT AT ALL Somew hat Very

Fig. 8.23 : Extent that lean initiative w as successful

Correlation Model

1.00
 y = 1.7328x – 0.8458
 r = 0.6883 Where:
y = y coordinate on graph
x = x coordinate on graph
r = Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient
Hypothesis Testing of
the Model
 Ho: β1 = 0 , i.e., the sample population’s trend line slope is zero
 H1: β1 ≠ 0
 “significance of F” column is the probability that the population
SUMMARY OUTPUT sample’s slope is 0 Normal Probability Plot

 With a numerical value for “significance of0.9F”1

equaling 2.70206 E-
Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.67147728
10 0.8
0.7

R Square 0.45088174  this means that it is highly unlikely that the0.5 population of this
0.6

0.2
Adjusted R Square 0.44268595 sample’s slope is zero and it is highly unlikely
0.4
0.3
that there is no
Standard Error 0.15435539 prediction due to regression from this model 0.2
0.1
given the sample
Observations 69
statistics obtained 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

ANOVA
 Hence, it is highly likely that this regression model adds Sample Percentile

df SS significant
MS F predictability
Significance F of the dependent variable.
Regression 1 1.310735767 1.31073577 55.01379 2.70206E-10

Residual 67 1.596314233 0.02382559

Total 68 2.90705

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%

Intercept -0.8084165 0.190794091 -4.2371149 7.08E-05 -1.189243199 -0.427589788 -1.1892432 -0.427589788

0.675 1.69009979 0.227864445 7.41712817 2.7E-10 1.235280331 2.144919253 1.235280331 2.144919253

Null hypothesis is rejected

Scenario One – Avionics
division, Hyderabad vs
SLRDC, Hyderabad
HAL, HYDvs SLRDC
y=1.9426x - 0.9962
R2 =0.5553
1.00

0.90

0.80
PRODUCTIVITY INDEX

0.70

0.60 y=1.6817x - 0.8025

R2 = 0.4572 HALHYDERABAD
SLRDC
0.50
Linear (HALHYDERABAD)
Linear (SLRDC)
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
LEADERSHIPINDEX

 For Avionics Division, Hyderabad:

 y = 1.6817 x - 0.8025
 r = 0.6762
 For the SLRDC, Hyderabad:
 y = 1.9426 x -0.9962
 r = 0.7452
Scenario Two – Comparison of
Different Leadership Roles
within the Sample
Functional Scenario- LeadershipvsProductivityIndices

1.00
y=1.2414x- 0.3513
R2 =0.3701
0.90
y=1.7567x- 0.9254
R2 =0.4891
Productivity Index

0.80

y=1.2998x- 0.4864
0.70
R2 =0.341

0.60 SENIORMANAGEMENT
MIDDLEMANAGEMENT
ENGINEERS
0.50
Linear (SENIORMANAGEMENT)
Linear (MIDDLEMANAGEMENT)
0.40 Linear (ENGINEERS)

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
LeadershipIndex

 For the Sr.  For the Middle  For the Engineer

Management Management Segment:
Segment: Segment:  y = 1.2998x - 0.4864
 y = 1.2414x - 0.3513  y = 1.7567x - 0.9254  r = 0.5839
 r = 0.6084  r = 0.6994
 Status of Lean
Implementation at
HAL, Hyderabad
Results on perception of
respondents about success of
implementation of lean
initiatives at Hyderabad Division
/ SLRDC
 Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

5 “S”
"Your department is consistently maintaining and improving 5S rating"

w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC

60

50
50

40

Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

30
"Most of the employees of the division are fully aw are about 5S" w rt
20
19
success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC 17

Percent
10
60
7 7
0
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree
50 Disagree Agree
48
Improvement in 5S rating
40
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"w ork areas w ithin organization focus on sustaining their basic 5S"
30
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
28 50
20
40
39
Percent

10 13
33
7 30
0 4
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree 24
20
Disagree Agree

10

Awareness about 5S
Percent

0 4
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor d Agree

Sustaining 5S
 Kaizen Events
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Most of the employees are f ully aw are about the aim of KEs" "Most of the w ork areas are sustaining the improvements through KEs"

w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
50 50

40 43 40
41

30 30 31
30

20 22
20
20

Percent 10
10
Percent

7
0 4
0 Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor d Agree Disagree Agree

Awareness about kaizen events Sustaining improvements through kaizen events

A3 Plan
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Departments are extensively using A3 Plan for their day-to-day w ork"

w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC

60

50
50

40

30

20
20
17
Percent

10
9

0 4
Missing Disagree Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d

Use of A3 plan
TPM
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"TPMs have enhanced the confidence of shop floor operators"

w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC

50

40
41

30 31

20

10
Percent

9
7
6 6
0
Missing Disagree Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree

Effect of TPM
 PDM Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"People in your department are fully aw are about PDM metrics"

PDM metrics Awareness

"People in your department are fully aw are about division's PDM"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC 50
70

PDM awareness
40 43
60
57
50
30

40
24
20
30

20 10 13
11

Percent
17
Percent

10 13 6
0 4
0 6 6
Missing Disagree Agree
Missing Disagree Agree Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
"Integration of PDM's Measure w ith measurable quality objectives"
"PDM's Measure and Action is fully integrated w ith functional objective"
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC
w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC 30
40
28
26
24
30 31 20

20 22
13
17 10
15
10 11
Percent 7
Percent

4 0 2
0
Missing Disagree Agree
Missing Disagree Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree

PDM metrics integration with functional objectives PDM metrics integration with measurable quality objectives
LDMS
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"LDMS is practiced by most of the functional areas"

w rt success of implementation of lean initiatives at Avionics divn/SLRDC

40

37

30

28

20

17

13
10
Percent

6
0
Missing Disagree Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d

Practice of LDMS
Outcomes of Lean
Implementation at
HAL, Hyderabad
Results on perception of
respondents about outcomes of
implementation of lean
initiatives at Hyderabad Division
/ SLRDC
Capacity Enhancement
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Capacity Enhancement has empow ered the functioning of A&T Shops"

show ing visible change initiatives in the Division

60

56
50

40

30

20

17
15
Percent

10
11

0
Missing Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree
Disagree Agree

Positive effects of capacity enhancement

Production Leveling
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"Excellent production increase and impressive production leveling "

show ing visible change initiatives in the Division

60

50 52

40

30

20 22

15
Percent

10
7
0 4
Missing Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree
Disagree Agree

Production increase and Production leveling

 Reduction in the
production problems
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"reduction in the production problems due to design issues "

show ing visible change initiatives in the Division

40
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement
37
"reduction in the production problems due to material issues "
30
show ing visible change initiatives in the Division
28
60

20
50

15 48
10 40
9
Percent

6 6
30
0
Missing Disagree Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree 20 22

Reduction in the production problems

Percent

10
11
9
due to design issues 0
6 4
Missing Disagree Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree

Reduction in the production problems

due to material issues
functioning with process
view
Kindly indicate level of your agreement/disagreement w ith the statement

"functioning of the functional areas is becoming process focused "

show ing visible change initiatives in the Division

60

50
48

40

30

24
20
Percent

10 13
9

0 4
Missing Disagree Agree
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree nor d Strongly Agree

The functioning of the functional areas is becoming process focused

Conclusions &
Recommendations
2 mins
Conclusion
Major contributions
Recommendations- There are 8 key
Recommendations
BACK UP SLIDES
What is Lean?
A broad collection of principles and practices
aim is to refashion the production process in a
manner that includes
 the elimination of waste,
 the removal of inventory buffers,
 a focus on quality and
 continuous improvement as a lean enterprise.
Lean production is about expanding capacity by
reducing costs and shortening cycle times
between order and ship date
Lean is about understanding what is important to
the customer
LEAN: An Attitude that drives
Action
Zero Tolerance for Waste

Leadership, managers, supervisors….

Everyone just won’t tolerate waste
Waste of all kinds:
Time, effort, money, materials, opportunities
Everything

Relentless pursuit of Waste

Everyone
Seeking out waste
Identifying where it is
Eliminating it
Everywhere
TPS or Lean is successively
overcoming all the obstacles to
linking every step into a continuous
FLOW sequence, precisely
*synchronized with the demand of
the end customer.

( * TAKT TIME
 Lay the work out The work cannot
Make the
in the minimum help but move
work flow
space fast!
 in a Nutshell

GOALS
Reduction in cycle time
Quality Improvement
Reduction in Inventory
To become World Class Enterprise
Lean is solidly supported by two pillars of :
 Continuous Improvement
 Respect for People

Such an environment can only be

created where there is “Development of
People” through knowledge
management & learning organization.
 Removing obstacles,
engage the minds of people
to support &
contribute their ideas
to the organization
 Eliminating Waste is just one-third of the
equation for making lean successful.

 Eliminating unevenness in the production

schedule and Eliminating overburden to
people and equipment are just as important.

 Make an ongoing effort to teach individuals

how to work together as teams toward
common goals
Lean Philosophy

WASTE
 Quickly

Value Waste

Continuously
 ( To Tackle Unevenness in Production
)

 Process mapping.
 Identify the Value Stream.
 Eliminate non-value added
activity
 VALUE STREAM MAPPING:-
 i) Current state.
 ii) Future state. ( Repeat Above
( To Achieve
Teamwork )
The relentless effort for Waste elimination and
continuous improvement is effected by the
following TPS tools, which is application of know
solutions to known problems.
* Policy Deployment Matrix
* Policy Deployment Progress Review
* Lean Daily Management System
* Visual Control
1 Piece flow
Kan Ban
Cellular layout
SMED
Kaizen event ( VSM, TPM, Poka Yoke, 6 σ
etc.,)
 You You
You commit Own
agree To these these
With these

MEASURES & GAPS

RESOURCES
SPECIFIC
ACTIONS
GOALS

POLICY
DEPLOYMENT MATRIX

“LOCATIONS”
You are
“given”
You
These
provide
these
 Looks at variant, Initiate necessary actions
Measures Status Planed May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
And targets Baseline
 PDPR: Policy Deployment
Progress Review
Policy Deployment Matrix Plan

Act
Goals Measures Do
Results Check
Commitments
Measurement
Policy
Deployment Actions
Corrective
Action Progress
Review
Measurement
Gaps
Target
Results Achievement
Measure Follow-up
Worksheets
sheets
Information is displayed in an interesting and exciting
way to inform and stimulate employees and visitors.

Notice Boards
Performance Boards
Photographs
Coloured Floor Paint
Signs
Lean Daily Management
System
(LDMS)
 LDMS: Lean Daily
Management System
The results are
measured daily any To-Do list is used
gaps to target to detail clock
performance reviewed chart problems
and corrective actions and to collect any
• Focal Point for daily management identified issues needing
action
• Very reactive
•Stand-up morning meetings (or
more frequent)
• Focus on what we need to do to
ist
achieve the daily “plan” To-Do L
DPR”
Daily “P
• The “standard work” (when
it exists)
• Combination of leading and trailing
indicators plan
Work
• Clock chart gives “leading”
t
potential problems that must be lo ck” Char
“C
solved to stay on “plan”
• Daily “PDPR” give recent results Clock chart
provide a visual
• To-Do list provides “instant” PDPR/b indication that all
that is needed to
• Action items to ensure that the complete the plan
The daily work is available or not
plan can be recovered plan or standard
A simple mechanical
• Everyone contributes their Andon provide a
work is the
“anchor” to see if
views on potential problems visual control visible
from a distance
any gaps exist
that must be
• Can use mechanical Andons to give corrected

even faster reactivity

 LDMS – CLOCK CHART

LDMS - CLOCK CHART

DAYS

31 1
30 2
29 A 3
28 B 4
SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION C
27 5
D
A SAFETY
26 E 6
B STANDARD WORK IN PROGRESS F
C QUALITY
25 G 7
D HOUSE KEEPING
E EQUIPMENT/TOOLING
24 8
F TAKT TIME
G ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE 23 9

22 10

21 11
BLUE NO ACTION
20 12
RED ACTION REQUIRED
19 13
18 14
17 16 15
 Clock Chart  The Criteria for
selecting potential
problems depends on
CLOCK CHART FOR DSG-01 VALVE ASSEMBLY the individual
29 30 01 02 machine/cell/line
28 A
B
03  While selecting the
27 C
D
04 criteria, make a list of
26 E 05 A IS TESTRIG RUNNING OK? potential problems
F
 Discuss with the
B TESTER AVAILABLE ?

25 G
06 C
SKILLED ASSEMBLY

Operators/Supervisor
H PERSON AVAILABLE ?

I BIN PARTS AVAILABLE

24 D
07
s, they will explain
J AT WORKSTATION ?
E HAND TOOLS AVAILABLE ?

23 08
F ENSURE HEIJ UNKA
BOX IS FULL ? what problems they
face daily
IS SPOOL AVAILABLE
G
AS PER SCHEDULE ?

22 09 H
IS COIL KEPT
AS PER STANDARD ?
IS IRON CORE AVAILABLE
I
AS PER STANDARD ?
21 10 J
COMPRESSED AIR
AVAILABLE ?

20 11
19 12
18 13
17
16 15 14
Daily Plan
The daily plan is defined and
displayed
It explains the expectations
from the cell / machine for the
day or shift.
Daily PDPR
 The Daily “PDPR” gives the details of the PCDQS
targets for the machine / cell and the actual
results for the previous day.
 If the clock chart is fully green, the targets are
expected to be achieved.
 Any failure results in an entry into the TO-DO list
to facilitate immediate corrective action.
To Do List
LEAN INITIATIVE
LDMS -TO DO LIST

WASTE TIME/DATE
NAME PROBLEM/ OF
REF. NO. DATE WHO OPPORTU AGREED RESPONSI COMPLETI PROGRESS
AND DATE RAISED RAISED NITY ACTION BILITY ON INDICATOR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Layup Layup
sequence sequence
sheet not sheet will be 1.08.04
1, 1.08.2004 01.08.04 Govind Raj available supplied K.Suresh 0930hrs
Sealant
Soma tape not Sealant tape 02.08.04
2, 02.08.2004 02.08.2004 sekhar available will be giiven MN Suresh 1000 hrs
 LDMS: Process tree
At start of working time
(shift|) the team leader
ensures that yesterday’s
results and today’s plans
are updated on board

Team
gathers each Group agrees
morning Group writes up
actions to be
about 15 the problems/root
implemented and Rapid Implementation
mins after causes on the to-
completes to-do
start of do list
list
work for
stand-up To-Do list 5) To-Do list
meeting
No!
No! No!

Yes!
Did we Did we Do we have
achieve complete Yes! everything
Yes! Off
yesterd all the to- Group reviews we need to
ay’s do list to-day’s plan complete to
targets actions as to-day’s work
? per plan? plan?

1) PDPR-chart 2) To-Do list 3) Daily Plan 4) Clock chart