Comments on: Value Stream Mapping Font

By: Mark Graban

Mark Graban — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:13:25 +0000

I agree, Phil, that data is helpful (quoting Ohno gratuitously, “facts are better”).

Value stream maps should include data. I’m not advocating that data be turned into complex simulations and “what-if” modeling, etc. These are different issues altogether.

By: Harish

Harish — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:39:23 +0000

I wish Taiichi Ohno was alive today. He would have had a hearty laugh over all the pain that companies take in creating the so called value stream maps.

Using the same terminologies of lean, what is the value adding part in value stream mapping?

-Harish

By: Phil Coy

Phil Coy — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:28:08 +0000

I agree with Mark that the purpose of value stream mapping is to understand the wastes in the current state well enough to design a future state that eliminates as much waste as possible.

I believe that lean should be quantitative. I’m not sure Mark disagrees except perhaps in the extent of being quantitative in healthcare vs. in manufacturing.

Data is a huge issue for the companies I’ve worked in – either with their enterprise systems or in a lean initiative. In my context of HMLV value streams with lots of change, getting quantitative means having to deal with a lot of data, generally too much to manage effectively on spreadsheets.

I’m all for using the simplest tool possible that’s effective in the situation. That’s not always whiteboards and spreadsheets, sometimes software is a needed assist.

Phil

By: Mark Graban

Mark Graban — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:58:20 +0000

I’ll believe “simple” and dynamic “what-if” when I see it.

Value Stream methodology isn’t about real time, quantitative, decision support blah blah. It’s about identifying waste and creating vision for a new future state to implement. You can have your fancy software.

By: Jamie Flinchbaugh

Jamie Flinchbaugh — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:25:57 +0000

That’s a good advertisement. I don’t disagree that you need tools to do analytical work on your processes. However, those are not “downsides” of value stream mapping, those are “limitations.” There is a very big difference. A value stream map cannot do everything for you. And good analytics can’t either. Good analytics will rarely give you a good strategic view of where you need to go, although it will really help you probe for leverage points and test the what-if scenarios. It’s not an either or question as you seem to frame it. It is really about using the right tool for the right purpose. They all have their place, if used for the right purpose.

Jamie

By: Phil Coy

Phil Coy — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:53:03 +0000

Think outside the box for a completely different perspective on a value stream map. The downside of a value stream map:
1 – static
2 – doesn’t support complexity (HMLV with hundreds of products, hundreds of flow paths)
3 – doesn’t reflect variation (in cycle times, demand, etc)

As a result, the map gets used for opportunity identification only and then is ignored – often for months at at time – only to have to be done over again from scratch. Capturing it in an electronic tool only makes communication easier – doesn’t address any of these issues.

What if the value stream map was dynamic? That allows the value stream map to be a quantitative model of the business. It must be easily updated as demand/mix change, as process improvements are made, etc. But then the model allows you to stay current on takt time, interval, line balance, kanban/supermarket sizing, etc. Add a simple what-if facility into it and you have a basis for solid, quantitative decision-making at the value stream level. For an example of what I mean, see http://www.futurestatesolutions.com

Phil

By: Jamie Flinchbaugh

Jamie Flinchbaugh — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:58:13 +0000

Since I’m getting some questions on it this morning, we offer a course called Lean Value Stream Improvement which starts November 9th. Check it out here: http://www.leanlearningcenter.com/education_services/curriculum__lean_value_stream_improvement.cfm

Jamie

By: Jamie Flinchbaugh

Jamie Flinchbaugh — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:32:19 +0000

I used to resist any kind of electronic documentation but with as many teams that are globally distributed as there are, I have come around on that point. Electronic is valuable for preservation and communication. But it is a barrier when used for creation.

Thanks for the comments.

Jamie

By: Shawne Van Deusen-Jeffries

Shawne Van Deusen-Jeffries — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:20:12 +0000

Jaime,
You are correct that value stream mapping should be a real time tool to get the improvement conversation moving, however as a follow-up step to aid communication with management or with future teams an electronic version of the value stream map can be very useful.
Shawne

By: Frode Odegard

Frode Odegard — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:59:32 +0000

You are so right – people think Lean is all about the analytical aspects, and it’s really more of a social change in the organization which spurs broad conversation and learning TOGETHER. Only in that posture are the analytical tools useful.