The goal is set – and that is to increase labor productivity.
It is quite obvious that any modern economy and any enterprise within that economy strives to enhance its competitiveness in a particular industry. Various methods are used for this. The most effective method is to optimize employee work.
There are two main approaches to labor optimization – the Eastern or Japanese approach, and the Western, i.e., European approach.
Eastern, Japanese Approach
The Japanese approach is based on initial optimization: we study the problem, create new instructions, people start working differently, and then we change the labor standards, and based on that – the staffing numbers. The direction of the approach moves from bottom to top – from optimization methods to their goals. This is exactly how Lean production technologies work, which view a company as a system of interconnected processes and combine the concept of eliminating waste, Just-In-Time inventory management, built-in quality, and employee involvement.
All of this is supported by a corporate culture focused on collective problem-solving and the use of tools such as Kaizen (continuous improvement), Kanban (continuous inventory replenishment), Poka-yoke (mistake-proofing), 5S (workplace organization), and creating value stream maps.
Japanese Scenario:
-
Management becomes concerned about labor productivity in a specific department and expresses a desire for the team to “pay attention to it.”
-
The team discusses the situation, conducts a thorough investigation into the causes of the problem, and formulates new work rules.
-
Each team member, driven by a sense of duty (another important concept for the Japanese), begins to follow the new rules.
However, there are downsides to this approach as well. Most managers in Europe surveyed by the Boston Consulting Group during the “Getting More From Lean: Seven Success Factors” study, noted that Lean transformation programs are difficult to implement for various reasons. Some managers refer to resistance from corporate culture, a lack of skills, or a leadership deficit. Others point out that processes in their companies are not fully understood, or that their employees struggle to grasp new strategies and methods.
If an employee of a Japanese organization receives a new instruction, they easily change their actions and work according to the new regulations without much effort from management. Moreover, in such organizations, incredibly detailed instructions are highly favored. For example, in one Japanese company, a process lasting only 4 seconds is divided into 28 stages! Respect for regulations and the highest level of executive discipline in Japanese companies is combined with a tradition of consensus – collective discussion of decisions.
Coordination of actions and teamwork is of great importance to a Japanese worker. And if a new norm or rule is adopted in the team, it is considered shameful to break it. Furthermore, in Japanese companies, it is normal, rather than interference in the internal affairs of neighboring departments or enterprises, to help each other identify and jointly eliminate waste. This is quite difficult to adopt in other countries, especially in those with well-developed traditions of trade unions and strikes.
Western Approach
In contrast to the Japanese approach, the European tradition is characterized by the opposite sequence: “first we determine the maximum achievable goal or result in terms of productivity and quality, and then we implement measures to achieve this result.” The European approach is based on a system of measurement and benchmarking. One of the most common measurement indicators is OEE (overall equipment effectiveness), which shows how effectively the main production assets are being used. This indicator consists of three components:
- Availability, which refers to equipment downtime.
- Performance – the speed at which work is done.
- Quality – the defect rate or the proportion of fully usable products.
Methods such as “workday photography” and time studies are usually used to assess speed and downtime, as well as other measurement methods. After the measurements are made, it is time for benchmarking: companies study the best OEE figures from competitors with similar equipment or model the maximum possible OEE, taking into account the maximum load of their equipment. In this way, companies understand the goals that need to be achieved when optimizing production. Once the goals are set, you can move on to identifying the causes of problems and planning changes.
The causes may include: incorrect equipment placement, excessive or insufficient capacity at one stage of production, incorrect sequence of operations, suboptimal staff numbers or task distribution, and other reasons. Not every manager has the knowledge, experience, or even time to carry out all the necessary measurements.
This is why in the European tradition, more often than in Japan, internal or external consultants are used to investigate the situation – optimizers who are not employees of the department being optimized. This approach is aimed at a different management culture than the Japanese: much more personal (dependent on the decisions of specific individuals), less regulated, directive rather than consensus-based.
European Scenario:
-
Management assigns the task of finding problems to consultants; they take measurements and report to management about the identified productivity reserves.
-
Management involves the managers of the relevant departments in the process of designing and planning changes.
-
Managers implement these plans, leading their subordinates.
By Ruslan Sultanov
