TWI - The Missing Link to
Lean Manufacturing
Summary:
The following article was written by Donald A. Dinero and was presented
at the IIE Lean Solution Conference, and became the base for his
award winning book, Training
Within Industry: The Foundation of Lean.
In 1984, the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP) was created
at MIT in order to study the techniques used in automobile production
around the world. Although MIT had already been involved with
this type of study, the IMVP was intended to include governments
in order to receive sufficient funding so that the studies could
be extremely thorough. One result of the IMVP was a book entitled
The Machine that Changed the World by James P.Womack, Daniel T.
Jones, and Daniel Roos. While comparing the mass production techniques
of the United States companies (especially General Motors) with
the production techniques of Japanese companies (specifically
Toyota), IMVP researcher John Krafcik commented that the Toyota
system was "lean". That was because, in comparison,
Toyota used:
"half the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing
space, half the investment in tools, half the engineering hours
to develop a new product in half the time. Also, it requires keeping
far less than half the needed inventory on site, results in many
fewer defects, and produces a greater and ever growing variety
of products." 1
This book gives a historical comparison between mass production
and lean production and describes briefly how each of the production
methods got started. Mass production was initiated by Henry Ford
and copied throughout Europe. Taiichi Ohno initiated lean production
at Toyota. Ohno visited Detroit often after World War II in an
effort to copy the "successful" production methods.
He soon came to the conclusion that Detroit's methods wouldn't
work for Toyota because Detroit was making millions of parts while
Toyota would be making only thousands. He recognized that his
production methods must be more flexible so that he could get
the most out of limited resources. In addition:
"Ohno needed both an extremely skilled and a highly motivated
workforce. If workers failed to anticipate problems before they
occurred and didn't take initiative to devise solutions, the work
of the whole factory could easily come to a halt. Holding back
knowledge and effort - repeatedly noted by industrial sociologists
as a salient feature of all mass-production systems - would swiftly
lead to disaster in Ohno's factory." 2
The reader might be led to believe that the creation of this "lean" production
was possible because of the Japanese culture. Actually, its creation
was dependent on many factors, not the least of which was Ohno,
and occurred over an extended period of time. An interesting note,
however, is that characteristics unique to the Japanese culture
were not among these factors. Womack, Jones, and Roos note that
the Japanese relied on teams to accomplish much of this change,
but they don't detail how those teams were formed. However, the
authors do say:
"… in the end, it is the dynamic work team that emerges
as the heart of the lean factory. Building these efficient teams
is not simple. First, workers need to be taught a wide variety
of skills -- in fact, all the jobs in their work group so that
tasks can be rotated and workers can fill in for each other. Workers
then need to acquire many additional skills; simple machine repair,
quality checking, housekeeping, and materials-ordering. Then they
need encouragement to think actively, indeed proactively, so they
can devise solutions before problems become serious." 3
In order to teach workers a "wide variety of skills",
one would need a reliable method of instructing workers so that
they learn a job as effectively as possible. That means the worker
should be at a productive level as quickly as possible and scrap
and damage to equipment and tools should be minimized. Naturally,
this should all be done with a high degree of safety. Job instruction,
therefore, should not be thought of as a "necessary evil",
but rather should be a main component of a supervisor's skill
set. Perhaps what is more difficult, however, is getting employees
to "…think…proactively, so they can devise solutions
before problems become serious." What is needed is a simple
scheme to enable employees to analyze what they do and then quickly
implement any changes they wish to make. If the intention were
to make their own jobs easier, they would have the intrinsic motivation
to use the method and wouldn't have to be prodded to make improvements.
If the method specified that only existing resources be used,
that would make the changes more attainable since funds and personnel
would not have to be requested. Finally, everyone knows that getting
people to work in teams is difficult because of personnel issues
that always arise. How can all supervisors be taught to handle
personnel problems non-emotionally so that they accomplish their
objectives, the problems do not interfere with production and
the employees in question are satisfied?
How did the Japanese become successful in achieving these objectives?
The basis for the Japanese's success in getting many employees
quickly trained in a variety of jobs, getting employees to think
proactively about their jobs, and having supervisors deal positively
with personnel situations can be directly attributed to a system
of training called TWI, which stands for Training Within Industry.
TWI consists of three training modules: Job Instruction, Job Methods,
and Job Relations. Job Instruction trains a person to perform
a task as quickly as they are capable of doing it and the result
is that scrap, rework, equipment and tool damage, and injury to
the worker are all minimized. Job Methods training is a simple
technique which instructs employees how to improve whatever they
do using the existing resources available. Job Relations Training
involves solving personnel problems in an analytical, non-emotional
way so that one focuses on a stated objective. The ironic footnote
to this is that TWI Training originated in the United States.
In the late 1930's, the US government recognized that there was
going to be a large-scale war. Even if the US were not directly
involved, we would be supplying our allies with a significant
amount of war material. In order to do that, the productivity
of our manufacturing establishment would have to be increased;
it would have to occur across the country in all industries, and
it would have to be done quickly. The Training Within Industries
Service (TWI) "was one of the first emergency services established
by the U.S. Government after the fall of France on June 22, 1940." 4
Although the Service considered several approaches, it settled
on training first line supervisors in three areas. It was reasoned
that first line supervisors had the most influence on production
and productivity since they were in direct contact with the people
who were actually making the products. The three areas of training
were Job Instruction (JI), Job Methods (JM), and Job Relations
(JR). JI is important because even if a person were skilled in
a technique such as welding that did not mean the person knew
how to teach someone how to weld. JM is important because the
workers could determine the best way to do a job if they had the
skill to analyze that job from a productivity viewpoint. Finally,
JR is important because supervisors must have a skill in dealing
with personnel problems so that they can maximize productivity.
These three modules were thoroughly tested and documentation shows
that they were extremely successful until the end of WW II in
1945. At that time the Service was disbanded. Although there is
no documented reason for this, it has been speculated that the
Service was created for the war effort and thus it should be disbanded
once the war was over. In addition, its purpose was to increase
productivity. Since there was no competition for the US industries,
there was little concern about increasing productivity. The training
continued on a private level in the United States, but the companies
offering TWI training received greater acceptance in Europe than
they did at home. Moreover, when General Douglas MacArthur brought
TWI to Japan, that country embraced it more enthusiastically than
any European country did.
Anyone who has received both TWI and Lean training can easily
see how one was created from the other. For those who have not
received TWI training, the following excerpts from research papers
may prove enlightening.
John Shook, who started at Toyota in 1983 and co-authored Learning
to See writes:
"I discovered them (TWI materials) in a round about way
in the process of "adapting" some Toyota training materials
to make them appropriate for NUMMI. When I found myself struggling
with some of the concepts of a certain training program, my Japanese
colleague fetched from a back-room file a yellowed, dog-eared,
coffee-stained copy of the English language original training
manual, just as they received it (minus the coffee stains I trust)
some 30 years before. To my amazement, the program Toyota was
going to great expense to "transfer" to NUMMI was exactly
that which the Americans had taught the Japanese decades before." 5
The Idea Book, a Japanese book about kaisen, states that:
"The forerunner of the modern Japanese-style suggestion
system undoubtedly originated in the West…TWI (Training
Within Industries), introduced to Japanese industry in 1949 by
the US occupation forces, had a major effect in expanding the
suggestion system to involve all workers rather than just a handful
of the elite. Job modification constituted a part of TWI and as
foreman and supervisors taught workers how to perform job modification,
they learned how to make changes and suggestions. Many Japanese
companies introduced suggestion systems to follow up on the job
modification movement begun by TWI." 6
Lean Manufacturing is based on proper training which can be attributed
to JI and continual improvement which can be attributed to JM.
Most importantly, however, is the contribution made by JR, which
enables a democratic culture to exist and grow.
"In an August 1951 interview conducted as part of a survey
of the effects of TWI on Japanese management by International
Economic Services Ltd., a Tokyo consulting firm, Mr. Takei of
the Mitsui Mining Co., the largest coal mining company in Japan
at the time, said that he felt the "concept of humanism in
industry" was one of the most appreciated ideas transmitted
into Japan by TWI." 7
The TWI modules give companies two major benefits. First, each
one teaches employees a four-step method for the technique in
question. By learning a specific method, the participant leaves
the training with a skill that can be used on the job immediately.
Furthermore, the training is concerned only with what is within
the authority of the participant. That means that the participant
can use the training without getting permission or waiting for
others to be trained. In addition, because these skills are basic,
they are easily transferred to any other job. Although all three
modules are important, JM may be the module which most directly
drives change. In the JM Method, Step One defines and breaks down
the job and Step Two "Questions Every Detail" of the
job. Step Two may very well be where Ohno got his "Five Why's" method.
Step Three develops a new method and Step Four applies the new
method. Applying the method means communicating it to everyone,
documenting the new method in a way that it will be accepted,
and putting the method to use. This is a strong reason many Japanese
companies have such a high number of improvements (not just suggestions)
suggested by their employees. The JR training teaches an analytical
approach to solving personnel problems. In addition, however,
it emphasis concepts on how to get results through people. It
emphasizes treating people as individuals, making the best use
of each person's ability and telling people in advance about changes
that will affect them. Using these concepts results in a highly
motivated workforce that Ohno believed he required.
The second benefit of TWI is that the sessions drive a culture
change from one of a Mass Production culture to one of a Lean
Production culture. Each of these courses teaches and encourages
employees to think, question and take appropriate action. If successfully
taught, employees leave each session knowing how to improve their
work and are also encouraged to do so. Again, the training they
receive is limited to their scope of responsibility so that they
can take initiative immediately, which initiates and encourages
the change in culture.
As mentioned, TWI forms the basis of a democratic management
system because it treats people as individuals, accepts that everyone
has something to offer and attempts to make the best use of each
employee's abilities. One reason MacArthur's staff brought it
to Japan is that their objective was to rebuild Japan as a democratic
(not a communist) state. The Toyota Production System, and hence
Lean Manufacturing, which grew from TWI has many democratic features
in it. As a result, it has been said that implementing Lean Manufacturing
requires a "different' kind of thinking or a culture change
in order for it to be successful. This culture change can be characterized
as going from one of a "command and control" management
to one of "stewardship" 8. There is a paradox here in
that while Lean Manufacturing involves a very democratic form
of management, many people attempt to implement Lean Manufacturing
using autocratic methods. Attempts to force people to use Lean
techniques will result in their ineffective use at best. Therefore,
just teaching what people should do in a "lean" environment
will not necessarily result in their accepting those changes.
They must also have a firm understanding of why they are making
these changes. For many people, learning why they must do something
requires that they do it by themselves and, perhaps more importantly,
for themselves.
TWI was one of the basic components of the Japanese production
systems, but knowing the contents of TWI Training does not explain
how they work to change an organization's culture. The key is
that although TWI does not create inquisitiveness in employees,
it does do much to awaken it. Historically, Americans have had
a great entrepreneurial spirit. Names like Edison, Bell, Goodyear,
and Eastman quickly come to mind, but there have been thousands
of other lesser-known entrepreneurs who have contributed significant
amounts to our nation. During the bulk of our history, most organizations,
except those in the government, were very small. It was natural
for employees to think, question and make suggestions. Once corporations
started getting larger, they created bureaucracies and started
dividing employees into "working" and "thinking" groups.
This structure "strangled the human spirit, wilted faith
and hope among the population and created helplessness." 9
Conversely, before the advent of TWI, Japanese business culture
was hierarchical, with deference being given to senior employees.
As Mr. Takei alluded in the above quotation, TWI was responsible
for getting people to treat employees as individuals and to make
the best use of each person's abilities. Therefore, TWI created
a culture change in Japanese organizations from a hierarchical,
central control management to a more democratic management. Japanese
industry can now be seen as a culture that is questioning and
creative.
Although there is not enough information here to determine the
relationship between a business culture and its society, it is
likely that individuals are questioning and creative, not because
of the society in which they live, but rather because of how they
are treated in that society. As our world gets figuratively smaller,
we now realize that all societies face similar challenges because
all societies consist of people
For example, it is now recognized that successful companies will
be those which are characterized as "Learning Organizations".
Arie De Gues, the head of planning for Royal/Dutch Shell, said
"The ability to learn faster than your competitors may
be the only sustainable competitive advantage." 8
Finally, Peter Block has written:
"Success in the future will depend on people who have a
passion for the business, who generate new ideas, ways of doing
things that result in new knowledge and that results in innovative
and unique products in the marketplace." 9
Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE reflects this thought when he
gives what amounts to a definition of a "learning organization."
"Our behavior is driven by a core fundamental belief: The
desire, and the ability of an organization to continuously learn
from any source -- and to rapidly convert this learning into action
-- is the ultimate competitive advantage." 10
Although much has been written about learning organizations,
motivating employees, and team building, a missing link may be
the tool or skill that is required for the thinking process that
is used in all three of these concepts. Even professionals who
have been taught to question often restrict their questions to
their technical expertise. Many successful processes such as GE's "Work
Out" program and Lean Manufacturing techniques usually focus
on what to do but do not include details on how to do it or what
basic skills are required before such a program can be successful.
Consequently, organizations will attempt to duplicate the "Work
Out" program or will attempt to implement Lean techniques,
such as 5S, e.g., and meet with only a modicum of success. The
reaction then is that the program in question is "not as
good as advertised." They know how to reproduce what to do,
but they don't know why they're doing it.
How, then, do we change an organization's culture from one where
everyone is dong what they are "supposed to be doing" to
one where they question the best way to do something? The three
components of TWI provide the answer. Although it will vary from
company to company, the following is a brief scenario of how a
culture might change.
Often, employees have many good ideas that would improve productivity,
but they do not know how to implement them. When they attempt
to make a suggestion, the procedure in place is cumbersome or
ineffective for sustaining changes. Job Methods Training offers
a simple four step analytical method for an employee to take action
to make a change which makes his/her job easier. The changes are
to be within the realm of the employee's responsibilities and
with existing, available resources.
Once small improvements have been made on a continual basis and
productivity is seen to be increasing, employees will start to
cross department lines and begin working on larger problems using
the same technique. Again, the employees will initiate this because
they will see that it is to their benefit. Employees will begin
to realize that they have control over some parts of their jobs.
This happens not because they are told they are empowered, but
rather because they actually are. Management does not interfere
because little, if any, cost is involved and savings are very
apparent. It does not take a long time for the organization's
culture to change from accepting everything as is to one where
employees are working together making changes for the better.
The culture change has thus been started and continues because
of the success created.
Job Instruction deals with the skill of communicating directions
in the most efficient manner so that time, material, equipment
and injury are minimized. Most people recognize that knowing how
to do a task does not mean a person can teach that same task to
another. Although they could be left to their own devices, employees
will be performing at a competent level faster if they are trained
with the JI Training Method. As a result, there will be less scrap
with less damage to tools and equipment and the operations will
be done more safely. Because JI is a reliable way to get employees
up to productivity standards as quickly as they are able, each
employee can be taught more jobs and cross-training becomes a
way of life instead of a goal. Thus, as methods change through
the efforts of JM and people change positions and duties, they
become productive in an efficient manner. Changes are implemented
more smoothly and more successfully. Although instruction may
seem peripheral to the establishment of a culture, it actually
determines how employees think about their jobs. Part of the JI
method requires the instructor to inform the employee about the
job so that the employee views it with a conscientious attitude.
The mindset established here is that every job is important and
critical to the company's success. Improved quality is the natural
by-product.
Job Relations is important when personnel situations arise that
effect production. The proper handling of such situations effects
not only the individual(s) directly involved in the situation,
but usually it will effect others in the organization also. Job
Relations Training offers an analytical and non-emotional method
to address personnel problems. Again, the JR method is simple
and straightforward, but it includes concepts such as defining
the objective, getting all the facts, and weighing the information
before making a decision. When personnel situations become emotional,
a problem may be eliminated, but the actual objective may not
be accomplished. Often the failure of many teams or work groups
is due to personnel problems that interfere with the objectives
of the group. JR Training deals with not only how to handle personnel
problems but also how to learn to anticipate problems before they
begin to interfere with production.
Although some people view JM as the driving force and the most
important component of TWI, the three modules are equally important
and exhibit a symbiotic relationship. Job Methods may drive change,
but Job Instruction and Job Relations are required to sustain
and accelerate it.
The training is successful because of the following eight characteristics:
First: The purpose of the training can be seen as a method to
make the employee's job easier. It provides an intrinsic motivation
to the employee, which means the employee is self-motivated to
make the change. S/he does not have to be "told" to
do something. They want to do it because it makes their job easier.
Second: The employees can use these methods by themselves. For
JM, small, achievable changes using existing resources are targeted.
For JI, the employee does the instruction. For JR, the employee
handles the personnel problem and seeks additional help only if
they believe the action is beyond their responsibility. As a result,
successes can quickly accumulate and this has a tendency to sustain
the activity.
Third: For JM, the initiator of the change must communicate the
change to anyone even remotely connected with it. This improves
both communication and teamwork across department lines. In JR,
supervisors are taught how to confront situations, which not only
leads to a faster resolution of the problem, but also enhances
communication.
Fourth: The method learned in each module is a simple four-step
technique. This means is can be easily learned and remembered.
Fifth: The employee breaks down each situation and the method
gives him/her a way to think through all possibilities and encourages
questions. Answers to these questions often give the employee
a better understanding of how the organization runs and may trigger
additional ideas for change.
Sixth: The skill training involves "learning by doing," which
has two advantages. There is no question that the participant's
have learned the method because they demonstrate its use on an
example of their choosing. Also, the participants receive immediate
gratification by doing something that will make their job easier.
The success achieved in training motivates the employee to continue
making improvements after the training.
Seventh: The sessions are given in five two-hour periods. This
allows for the participants to reflect on what they have seen
that day and to ask questions the following day. This characteristic
results in better learning. In addition, it is easier to break
away from work for two hours at a time than it is for eight hours
at a time. Thus, there is less disruption to production.
Eighth: The training encourages thinking because only a process
is taught. Specific answers are not given. It remains for the
employees to use the process and arrive at their own solutions.
This is something of which most employees are capable but are
not able to accomplish without the analytical tools given by the
training.
There are many good training programs available, but the key
concept to remember is that whomever receives training should
be prepared for it. Don't teach calculus before the person knows
algebra and don't teach algebra until the person understands basic
arithmetic. Training such as '5S' can be valuable, but if the
employees have not developed questioning attitudes and a way to
solve problems, the program could dissolve within six months or
a year. People want to be productive and want to have control
over their jobs. The characteristics in TWI training enable employees
to accomplish both of those goals. Job Methods Training forms
a basis for methods improvements and Job Instruction and Job Relations
Training help maintain the momentum created by Job Methods Training.
Finally, if a democratic form of management is to be introduced,
don't use autocratic methods to introduce it. Employees know the
difference and if they hear one thing and see the other, they
will be confused as to what is really required. If you are starting
a Lean initiative, make sure your employees have developed and
are using a questioning attitude about their work. Once this happens,
they may ask you for 5S training. Given the proper tools, most
employees are smart enough to solve their own problems and that
is the basis for a learning organization - the ultimate competitive
advantage.
References:
1 Womack, James P, Jones, Daniel T. & Roos,
Daniel. (1990) The Machine That Changed The World. New York.
Harper Perennial;
p 13.
2 Womack. p 53.
3 Womack, p99.
4 Robinson, Alan G. & Schroeder, Dean M. (Winter
1993) Training, Continuous Improvement, and Human Relations:
The U.S. TWI Programs
and the Japanese Management Style; California Management Review,
Reprint Series; CMR, Volume 35, Number 2, p 37.
5 Huntzinger, Jim. (Second Quarter 2002) The
Roots of Lean Training Within Industry: The Origin of Kaizen . p15. The Tribune. The
Society of Manufacturing Excellence.
6 Robinson. p 51.
7 Robinson. p 52.
8. Senge, Peter…[et al], (1999) The Dance
of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in Learning
Organizations. New
York. Currency Doubleday. P 22.
9 Block, Peter, Stewardship, New York, Berrett-Koehler, 1993.
10. Senge, p.22.
Back to Top
|
