Lean-for-FMCGs-AuditThis blog is part of an editorial series written by Jeremy Praud, Head of UK & Europe.

This is now my fourth blog in the ‘Lean Audits for FMCGs’ series.  If you’d like to start at the beginning, click here.

Otherwise, lets look at two key tools that are missing from the ‘Classic Lean’ Toolkit that would deliver significant value to FMCGs, an area of focus that doesn’t belong, and one of the greatest benefits of the M&S Lean Audit Framework.

 

Debottlenecking is missing – yet has fastest impact on your bottom line
The major tool missing from Classic Lean that is of tremendous value within FMCG is debottlenecking theory – sometimes called the Theory of Constraints (TOC).  Pioneered by Eli Goldratt in the book “The Goal”, debottlenecking methodologies can be used to optimise line performance, and give a clear set of tactics to deliver improvement.

The average FMCG manufacturing line has approximately 9 processes.  This is many fewer than a car line – and this difference is the key reason why constraint theory doesn’t appear in the classic Lean Toolkit.  However, as a tool used to optimise speed, line control, and accumulation, it has one of the fastest impacts to the bottom line you can hope to achieve.

 

Improvement Systems is missing –  yet critical to sustain improvement
Good leadership and management processes are of course common across industries.  The M&S audit does a good job on most of these.  If there’s one thing the audit is light on though, it’s ensuring the right reporting is delivered easily from the right kind of measurement systems.  KPI’s are taken for granted within the audit – but all too often FMCG factories struggle with the accuracy of information.  Ensuring your measurement system is telling you to work on the right things, not the wrong things, is of critical importance and should be high on your priority list.

 

Supplier Relationships – not relevant for most FMCGs
Lean Audits often prioritise focus on Supplier Relationships.  For FMCG manufacturers, this requires leverage of the buyer on the supplier – and whilst this holds true in some supplier relationships, there are many where it does not.

The large enterprises have identified this, and in many instances are already trying to mimic the tactics used on them for so many years by the retailers. Whether the relationships being mimicked could be called compatible with “Lean” however is a different question.

The purpose of the Lean Audit framework should be to help you achieve a better cost to manufacture. If you are not a large enterprise, move Supplier Relations lower on list of priorities than other activity.

 

Improvement Champions – the real win for FMCGs
Finally, one of the greatest benefits the M&S Lean Framework will bring is the focus on having an improvement champion/manager.  The legacy of a half a century of quality audits is that the requirement for a quality department is no longer questioned. The real win will be if Lean Audits help businesses to understand that whilst continuous improvement, like quality, is everyone’s responsibility –  Improvement Champions are the key to  ensuring the processes are working, running CI workshops, and offering training and support With Improvement Champions in place, we can look forward to a continual improvement in manufacturing efficiencies, reduction in waste, and ever improving manufacturing cost per unit.

 

Next time I’ll be looking at how to make Lean work in FMCG. And to hear more on this subject from us, retailer M&S, and supplier Greencore – register for this Food Manufacture webinar.

< NEXT BLOG  PREVIOUS BLOG >

Written by Jason Gledhill, Head of Reliable Maintenance, LI Europe 

Whilst recently creating an Improvement Project Roadmap for a new client I was reminded of the need to update my satnav following last years holiday…

After 2 weeks of relaxation and sun in southern France it was time to drive back to Montpellier airport. We decided to leave plenty of time for the 90 minute journey and rather than take the motorway, we would see some of France via the minor roads. Six hours prior to check-in we were on our way.

The issue started when we reached our first round-a-bout. From the three possible exits, two would lead us to our destination, but which direction should we take? No need to worry, we had plenty of time, so we decided to take the first exit. Numerous kilometres and round-a-bouts later we realised that we were a third of the way into our journey time and we weren’t getting any closer to our destination. We had better consult the map!

Unfortunately our road map, which was kindly supplied by the care hire company, didn’t have the level of detail that would show our exact location. We knew where we wanted to be but not exactly how to get there.

The gentle sightseeing trip, with plenty of time for a relaxing lunch soon turned into a mad panic, with terse conversations and clenched jaws. Check in time was getting closer would we make it in time? What would we do if we missed the plane?

After some frantic driving and more by luck than design we managed to reach the airport, take a deep breath, and check in on time. Not a great end to an enjoyable vacation.

When starting any journey, be it travel or an Improvement Programmes, it is imperative that detailed planning is undertaken prior to taking the first steps.

As with my journey in France, the first round-a-bout or decision taken, if not correctly thought through can have undesireable consequences. The full understanding of these consequences is often not realised until it is too late and numerous other decisions have been taken based on this first poorly thought through judgement.

The more detailed the plan the more likely the journey or project will stay on track with regards to outputs and timings. As the old idiom says” le diable est dans le detail” or “the devil is in the detail”.

Regular progress reviews against these plans need to be undertaken and position against plan revised to ensure an enjoyable journey doesn’t become a mad panic.

If you are in the process of creating a Manufacturing Improvement Project Roadmap and would like it sense checked, then get in touch.

< NEXT BLOG  PREVIOUS BLOG >

Written by Nathanial Marshall, Senior Consultant at LI Europe.

You really can get something for nothing…

Ever been frustrated by the struggle to increase the efficiency on your line? Then why not think about increasing the speed of your bottleneck process?

When we suggest this, we often hear in reply “but it just leads to more waste – we get more output by running slower”. However, it doesn’t have to be like that.

Every factory we go into, we are typically able to increase the speed of the bottleneck process by at least 10% without compromising the safety or quality of the product and the people producing it. In addition, we don’t even have to problem solve.

How?  We adjust a little and watch a lot.

We find machines running below their target speed due to a perception of problems if the speed is raised. Often, the problems that occurred at those high speeds have been solved and the machine speed was never raised back to its previous standard.

In comes, free speed.

By turning up the speed of your machine an increment at a time and studying the effect of that increase for a period of time you will almost certainly find no further issues. Just one positive result – an increase in throughput.

Adjust a little and watch a lot.

You will get more output with no more waste, no more downtime and no more physical work. It costs nothing; it really is free speed.

A 10% increase in speed gives you 10% more output.

Eventually, there will come a point where one more increase does give you an issue. This is when we recommend using the ‘Problem Cause Solution’ method to problem solve.

If you’d like us to watch your lines to see where you could make manufacturing improvements, then get in touch.

< NEXT BLOG  PREVIOUS BLOG >

Written by Jason Gledhill

The phrases “Can you just…” or “When you get a minute…” are well recognised by Maintenance Engineers the world over. These phrases typically lead to a member of the maintenance team performing a minor task that may not be truly value adding.

Managing these requests is a must for any maintenance department that wants to be seen to be adding true value to an organisation.

Have you considered implementing a Work Request System?

A Work Request System enables maintenance managers to actively manage the engineering workload:

  • Prioritise requests into either high or low ensures key requests are responded to in a timely fashion.
  • Track outputs for each team member ensures that workloads are spread equally throughout the department.
  • Implement component codes to create a forum for analysing repairs and understanding if the department needs to lend focus to bearing, shafts, chains, sprockets, electrical components, etc.
  • Track the number of requests open versus closed
  • Measure Mean Time to Repair and Mean Time to Close requests to establish baselines and use them as departmental KPI’s to drive performance.

If you’d like to find out more about how to implement a Work Request System that’s right for your business, get in touch.

Work Request System

 

< NEXT BLOG   PREVIOUS BLOG >

Why do machines fail? Deterioration, stress and weakness are the main factors in machine failure.

When we buy a brand new car we invariably read the manual to get an understanding of the basic maintenance requirements. The car will be washed on a regular basis, tyres and oil checked, etc. When we drive the car, we don’t travel at 90mph in second gear, we drive the car within its capabilities. We’ve spent a large amount of money on the new car, so it would be foolish not to look after it, wouldn’t it? So why don’t we look after the machinery in our work place like this?

Invariably we see key pieces of plant within our factories in a poorly maintained condition, constantly breaking down or causing quality defects with operators who know very little about the machine. To replace the machinery will cost a considerable sum of money and unless we change the way we look after the machinery it will probably need replacing again within 7 to 10 years. A never ending cycle of abuse and cost, that needs to be broken.

LI Europe has a four step approach to Asset Care using a combined operator and maintenance strategy. Through working with engineers on an Asset Care project operators increase their mechanical ability and start to take ownership for their machines. They are able to perform simple maintenance tasks such as changing wear parts and basic lubrication.  The engineering team are then freed up to perform pro-active rather than reactive duties. At the same time operators learn more about the detail of the way machines work from the maintenance team enabling them to start to spot the early stages of problems, that if not properly dealt with would become a major problem in the future.

 

Asset Care

 

Read more about LI Europe’s Reliable Maintenance Solution or contact us to discuss how we can help you care for your assets.

 

< NEXT BLOG  PREVIOUS BLOG >

Written by Jason Gledhill, Head of Asset Care, Senior Consultant at LI Europe.

At the beginning of a new year, we often look at the regimes in our life to decide whether they need a shake up – and it’s often a good time to examine the practices we have in place at work as well…

Most Maintenance Managers will say that they have a maintenance regime that covers the majority of their assets and keeps them in the best possible condition.  When we talk maintenance however, we don’t ask what a factory’s Planned Preventative Maintenance (PPM) regime covers, we ask how the assets are prioritised, and which are the business critical machines within the plant.

From our experience in the FMCG sector, businesses prioritise maintenance based on the following:

1. New kit – When new machinery is purchased, PPM’s are often created in line with the manufacturers recommendations. Although this can be an effective method it can also be a lengthy process to implement a regime that incorporates the entire factory.  After all, how often do you purchase new items of machinery?

2. Production line or unit – Having purchased new kit recently or not, the majority of businesses will have a proverbial cash cow, the production line that delivers the most amount of profit. The maintenance department will often focus on maintaining these machines at all costs. This focus can frequently change as the business priorities shift, adding pressure on the maintenance department to do the ‘right thing at the right time’

3. Breakdown and Outages – Then there’s the PPMs that are put in place following major breakdowns (AKA the knee jerk method). These are often implemented quickly without a true understanding of the root cause outage and can often result in a number of ineffectual routines that involve a check and inspect type PPM that exhausts valuable maintenance time.

4. Business Pressure – The other approach we see a lot of is to place emphasis on the department that shouts the loudest and longest. But pressure to ensure a regime is in place can result in the wrong focus for the wrong reason and doesn’t necessarily utilise maintenance time for the optimum benefit or true value to the business.

5. Criticality Factors – Thankfully a more sustainable method exists that ensures that right maintenance is carried out at the right time for the right reasons. At LI Europe we advocate prioritising assets with a subjective view, incorporating business needs and maintenance response as criticality influencers. Within these influencers are a number of factors that need to be considered:

  • The business will be concerned with customer service levels. If a process fails with loss of output, will it affect customer service? What quantity of quality defects will be generated should a failure occur and what is the value of these quality defects?
  • Waste and rework can add substantial hidden costs to a product that eats away at the profit margin. Finally, is there a risk to food safety and employee safety? Can your business afford a product recall or lengthy litigation because a member of your team has sustained an injury?
  • The maintenance team will also have their prioritisation process. Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) will be factored into the equation. An asset that takes 8 hours to repair will take priority over an asset that takes less than one hour to repair. Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) will then come into play. Equipment that has a higher failure rate will require more planned maintenance than others with lower failure rates.
  • Cost to repair major outages will also have a huge bearing on the prioritisation process. Maintenance budgets are stretched at the best of times and consequently unplanned expenditure on maintenance events needs to be avoided.

Scoring all these factors will result in machines receiving a grade ranging from AA (could interrupt manufacturing throughout the factory, typically assigned to 5% of factories’ assets) through to C rated machines that will have little effect on business outputs. The maintenance team is then enabled to create a planned PPM regime focusing initially on the AA ranked business critical assets, through the rest of the grades until all assets have a comprehensive maintenance regime.

Asset prioritisation is the first step; we now know which machines have maintenance priority. So how do we create a value adding PPM routine?  I’ll be sharing my insights in this blog over the coming months…

< NEXT BLOG  PREVIOUS BLOG >