Q4 - Kevin Kohls

Q4. What were some of the critical success factors in getting TOC into GM?

Well, over the years, Eli has spent a lot of time with GM management, trying to get them to understand the basics. That helped. We also had a lot of top executives, like Gary Cowger, Tom LaSorda, Don Hackworth and Larry Burns, who got it, and supported it. And we had C-Thru (which later became C-More) for finding bottlenecks. Methods described in The Goal for finding bottlenecks didn’t apply well to automobile manufacturing. You couldn’t just look for inventory, since SUV’s took up a lot of space. Inventory on the production line is minimal, especially after lean methods like kanban had been installed. GM Research’s development of this tool was a big factor. 

Of course, training was a big part of the solution. To overcome logical objections to TIP, we used developed a lot of simulation games. Having a “flight simulator” to validate concepts and work through examples was very valuable, and added an element of fun to the class. The using simulation (and C-More) for trying out fixes ahead of time was valuable – it allowed middle mangers to focus on the problems and solutions that had the most impact.

Finally, we try to make sure we talked in terms of dollar impact. Gaining a half a job an hour might not seem to be a big deal. But taking the Throughput Dollars (Selling Price – Total Variable Cost) times the number of hours works in a year, ending up being a lot of money, even when divided in half. That number was a shocker for many when they first got involved with TIP.

Being successful in increasing profitability allow us to create quite a team as well. People in my group spend a lot of time and effort making it successful. They, at least, knew they were doing the right thing, but they all faced adversity and conflict. None of us thought we had the easiest job in GM, but a few of us thought we had the best. I consider myself fortunate to have led such a great team.

Comments

[David C]

Any chance we could hear more about C-Thru / C-More?

[Kevin Kohls]

C-More, as it now called, is a GM internal product, and will probably never see the light of day outside of the corporation. Its strength is speed and focus - its really designed for the auto industry and the types of systems they run. Because it is performing a set of calculations (vs. a simulation, which tries to discretely describe every event) it's very fast. But it cannot be used for all manufacturing situations, and its not programmable by the user.

However, it doesn't mean its the only tool out to identify bottlenecks. Using simulation software, like Simul8, is another option, although slower. For basic systems, C-More will predict the bottleneck in seconds, and a simulation in minutes. If you have a small plant, that may not be a big deal. But for an auto plant, with hundreds of workstations, that can mean the difference between looking at the results today (with C-More) or tomorrow (with simulation).

Finally, its important to point out that we rarely started with C-More at GM, nor do I start with simulation in consulting. Usually the traditional method of looking for buffer accumulation is the best way to start. You can also start data collection at that time. Over time, the system becomes more "balanced", and bottlenecks will be harder to identify. With data collection now in place, having a bottleneck analysis tool is worthwhile.

For anyone who is interested in seeing how simulation is used to find bottlenecks, I am presenting a webinar through PMC (www.pmcorp.com) on the topic on June 18, 2008, at 11 AM EST. You can register by contacting Claudia Gdowski on 313-441-4460, Ext 1131. Be sure to tell her you found out about the webinar on TOCThinkers.

Kevin Kohls