Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Over the past two decades, industrial organisations have embraced a wide variety of management programmes that they hope will enhance competitiveness. Currently, two of the
most popular programmes are Six Sigma and Lean management. The Six Sigma approach
is primarily a methodology for improving the capability of business processes by using
statistical methods to identify and decrease or eliminate process variation. Its goal is
reduction of defects and improvements in profits, employee morale and product quality.
Lean management originated at Toyota Motor Corporation in Japan and is an approach
that eliminates waste by reducing costs in the overall production process, in operations
within that process, and in the utilisation of production labour. Inventory waste is also
eliminated by producing to customer order rather than to forecasted requirements.
In more recent times, some businesses have combined the ideas of Six Sigma and Lean
management, to produce a method called Lean Six Sigma (LSS), to emphasise the quality
and service improvement process offered by Six Sigma and the productivity and cost
reduction tools offered by Lean management. Thus LSS improvement is brought out of
manufacturing and into services as much of the world economy is now based on services
rather than manufacturing.
When we surveyed the application of LSS approach locally, we found that most
research usually focuses on the process improvement of manufacturing spots and
Email: fukwun@mail.ntust.edu.tw
.
.
.
Suppliers the entities that provide whatever is worked on in the process. The
supplier may be an outside vendor or another division or a co-worker.
Inputs the information or material provided.
Process the steps used to transfer (both those that add value and those do not add value).
Outputs the product, service or information being sent to the customer (preferably
emphasising critical quality features).
Customers the next step in the process, or the final customers. A core principle of
LSS is that defects can relate to anything that makes a customer unhappy, such as
long lead time, poor quality, or high cost, for instance.
To address any of these problems, the first step is to take a process view of how the
company goes about satisfying a particular customer requirement.
In the measure phase, the performance standard of the process is verified and established to obtain a baseline for future improvements. One of the major advances of LSS
is its demand for data-driven management. Most other problem-solving methodologies
tended to dive from identifying a project into the improve phrase without sufficient data
to really understand the underlying causes of the problem. A service that is trying to
improve the process will spend a great deal of its time dealing with data problems.
There are a lot of measure tools that includes everything from data collection to brainstorming methods and prioritising tools. Some of the most common tools are process
description tools (value stream maps, process cycle efficiency, and time value analysis),
focus/prioritisation tools (FMEA (failure mode and effects analysis), Pareto), data collection, and quantifying and describing variation (control charts).
The purpose of the analyse phase is to make sense of all information and data collection in
the measure phase, and to use that data to confirm the source of delays, waste and poor quality.
The most common tools used in the analyse phase are those used to map out and explore cause
and effect relationships such as 5 Whys analysis, cause and effect diagrams, scatter plots,
etc. One of the major themes of LSS is that slow processes are expensive processes. Value
stream mapping analysis is also a key tool for a team to identify the hidden time traps, and
to find out the root causes to achieve a substantial increase in value-added time in process.
The purpose of the improve phase is to make changes in a process that will eliminate
the defects, waste, costs, etc. Common tools are those such as solution matrices that link
brainstormed solution alternatives to customer needs and the project purpose. Many of
the Lean tools play their most important role in the improve phase, for instance the pull
system, set-up reduction, queuing methods for reducing congestion and delays, and 5s
(structurise, systemise, sanitise, standardise and self-discipline). As regards the service
industry, in particular the banking service, the above-mentioned tools for the improve
phase would be insufficient to solve the problem. Here we introduce TRIZ methodology
to substitute the tools. TRIZ provides people with a dialectic way of thinking, which
guides us to understand the problem as a system, to visualise the ideal solution first and to
promote the performance of products by solving contradictions. Except for the areas of
science and technology, TRIZ also has been applied to non-technical problems.
The purpose of the control phase is to make sure that any gains made will be preserved
until new knowledge and data show that there is an even better way to operate the process.
There are some areas of control that are critical in service environments, such as making sure
the improved process is documented, turning results into dollars, ensuring that maintenance
of gains is verified down the road, ensuring that an automatic monitoring system is installed
which will identify any out of control situation, piloting the implementation, and developing a control plan. A control chart is one of the key control tools; mistake prevention and
mistake proofing are two other very helpful closely related concepts in the control phase.
Case study
We proposed a new approach that integrated TRIZ into the improve phase of the LSS
approach to demonstrate performance improvement in banking services. The case study
Input
Process
Output
Customer
Customers
Staff
Customers
Staff
Officer
ID card
ID sheet
Seal
Contract form
Signature
Confirmed document
ID card
Contract
Application form
Account document
Bankbook
Band card
actual time is about 16 minutes for a customer while the target time is 12 minutes compared to the benchmark. For in-scope, the project team defines more than 12 minutes
for an opening new account activity as one defect in this case, and the successful indicator
is determined to reduce 70% cycle time of this activity.
Measure phase
In the measure phase, the performance standard of the process is verified and established to
obtain a baseline for future improvements. Two steps are given as follows:
Step 1
Data collection plan in order to understand the process capability before improvement, a
data collection plan is deployed to gather sample data from actual time collection.
Figure 1. The value stream map with project scope before improvement.
Analyse phase
In the analyse phase, the performance objective is defined and the key sources of variations
are identified. Three steps are given as follows:
Step 1
Identify root causes the root causes of the problem of variation and waste between target
time and actual time are identified by using a cause and effect matrix and Pareto diagram
(see Figure 3). The cause and effect matrix is a method that uses the relationship between
input factors and output variables to identify the priority of causes, and the Pareto diagram
illustrates 80% problems are from 20% root causes as in Figure 3.
Step 2
Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) the use of FMEA is to identify in advance the
factors that may cause function failure in the key process and allocate a risk priority
number (RPN). Factors with a high RPN, usually defined as greater than 125, will be
selected and corrective actions will be recommended (see Table 2).
Step 3
Identify vital few initial variables in the Pareto diagram and FMEA as depicted in Figure
3 and Table 3. The project team concludes that the main problems in this project are: filling
in all new account forms; the procedure of applying a new account; and checking procedures of supervisors. The vital few initial variables are (1) too much of the file needs
to be filled in; (2) the file that needs to be filled in is unclear; (3) no notice customers;
(4) no standard operational procedure for supervisor to check the documents; (5) no
consistent operational standard for staff.
Improve phase
In the improve phase, we use TRIZ methodology to improve the process performance.
Four steps are given:
Step 1
Develop solutions based on the findings of the significant causes in the analyse phase,
the improvement activities using TRIZ methodology are proposed. TRIZ analyses problems through the unique perspective of contradiction. In technical areas, contradictions
are relatively more tangible and easier to appreciate. Although services are different
from physical products, contradictions are also often found in services. Service contradictions may seem more intangible and abstract than those found in technical areas. To extend
the TRIZ application and progress the project of implementing TRIZ in the service
Supervisor
check and
acceptance
Potential failure
modes
Potential effects of
failures
3
6
Current
process
controls
Risk
priority no.
Detection
(RPN)
Recommended
corrective actions
No
10
210
10
No
10
600
No consistent
operational
standard
No
10
240
No standard
operational
procedure
No
10
240
Error proofing
mechanism
Potential causes
Severity
of failure
Occurrence
Speed
Loss of time
27
Ease of use
33
Extent of
automation
21
29
32
Weight of
stationary
object
10, 20
26, 5
6, 13
1, 25
28, 27
Reliability
Adaptability /
versatility
Productivity
15, 10, 26
35, 28
15, 34
1, 16
1, 35
15, 3
10, 38
28, 37
1, 8, 35
On the other hand, in the process redesigns, the risk will be increased when the new
process is released, and the operation becomes complex. Add to these the difficulties
encountered and we now come up with the worsening situations occurring in the new operation. Hence, we consider the following contradiction matrix as the ones which became
worse:
.
2 Weight of stationary object (shorten the waiting time, the voice of customer will be
ignored).
21 Reliability (simplify the checking process, the performance will be worse).
We examine the contradiction matrix to denote the numbers of the inventive principles
in which the rows contain the features that have been worsened as a result of improving the features in the column; the partial contradiction matrix with suggested inventive principles is shown in Table 3. The principles will be used in the project as
follows.
The denoted numbers by the frequencies in the matrix will be ranked the order as
follows: no. 35 (occurred nine times), no. 1 (occurred six times), no. 10 (occurred five
times), nos. 15, 26, 28 (occurred four times), no. 27 (occurred three times), nos. 2, 8, 18
(occurred two times), and the rest occurred only once. A rule will be suggested that we
use those non-technical inventive principles occurring at least three times as our targeted
reference principles to start with. These are the following:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Step 2
Implement improvement plan the project team iteratively analysed each of the inventive
principles and met with the professional staff and managers from related departments to
generate the improvement action according to the problems (see Table 4).
Step 3
Redesign the value stream map and identify the new process capability after the improvement plan has progressed for approximately six months, the project team collects the latest
60 samples to calculate the new process capability in order to observe the improvement.
After implementing improvement action from Table 5, there is significant improvement
for the waiting time of opening an account, and the operational cost and internal failure
cost are reduced as well. A new process has been designed as per Figure 4 and the
process capability after improvement as per Figure 5. The results of analysis show that
the average waiting time is reduced dramatically from 14.83 minutes to 9.96 minutes for
each operation. Furthermore, the process capability of Ppk and Cpk are enhanced from
0.57 and 0.86 to 1.51 and 2.04, respectively.
Control phase
In the control phase, a robust control plan of risk management to prevent system failure is
proposed, together with use of a control chart. The project team uses possibility points and
Problems needed to be
improved
Improvement action
Possibility
Influence
Risk score
20
18
Prevention actions
Establish a standard operational
procedures guide
Building a mistake-proofing
mechanism in key-in system
influence points, which rank from 1 to 9 points individually, to determine the final risk
score, which is formed by possibility multiplying influence. The representative example
is demonstrated as Table 5 and the control chart is as Figure 6.
After the adaptation of the LSS approach, the waiting time is reduced from 14.83
minutes to 9.96 minutes for each operation, and the cost saving during 12 months will
be about US$828,000.
Figure 4. The value stream map with project scope after improvement.
Figure 6. Control chart for waiting time of opening new account operation.
Conclusion
The majority of applications of the LSS approach are usually focused on the improvement
of the manufacturing spots instead of the service industry, especially in banking service.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the improvement effectiveness of utilising the
LSS approach with TRIZ methodology in the service industry, to reduce waste and cost in
a savings bank company. Basically, for LSS to work smoothly, managers at all levels must
commit to invest the resources to initiate, promote, actualise and support the programme.
In other words, providing employees with training, resources, knowledge and authority to
solve problems is crucial for the success of the LSS project.
By execution of DMAIC TRIZ, the case study company, company-T, successfully
eliminates waste of waiting time for opening an account, modifies business cultures and
creates the infrastructure to initiate and sustain greater performance and profitability.
The concrete performance of utilising LSS in company-T shows the cost saving of
US$828,000 and obvious enhancement of short-term and long-term process capability
from 0.86 and 0.57 to 2.04 and 1.51. The results prove that the application of the LSS
approach combined with TRIZ methodology effects successful improvement of service
activities as well as the improvement of manufacturing spots.
References
Altshuller, G. (2000). The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation and technical creativity. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center, Inc.
Arnheiter, E.D., & Maleyeff, J. (2005). Research and concepts: The integration of lean management
and Six Sigma. The TQM Magazine, 17, 518.
Domb, E., & Dettmer, H.W. (1999). Breakthrough innovation in conflict resolution: Marrying TRIZ
and the thinking process. In Proceedings of APICS Constraint Management Special Interest
Group, TRIZ Journal, March, 117.
Furterer, S., & Elshennawy, A.K. (2005). Implementation of TQM and Lean Six Sigma tools in local
government: A framework and a case study. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 16, 11791191.
Copyright of Total Quality Management & Business Excellence is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.