Lean manufacturing begins with lean treatment of workers. The managers of enterprises and their divisions are experiencing serious difficulties because of an abundance of systems, methods and management models that have fallen down in recent years. Among them, for example, general management on the basis of quality, the model of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, balanced scorecard, the concept of "Six Sigma", "Beichmarking", "Lean production" [1-3]. Studies suggest that one of the factors contributing to the decrease in efficiency of resource usage, is the neglect of practice connected with identifying the basic causes of unwanted deviations in processes. Let us confirm this figure, excluding, for reasons of business etiquette their addressness. As an example, drawn attention in recent years figures of ensuring the condition of labor protection of one of the major firms. According to available data in recent years on the measures of labor protection company spends about 1% from the operation of operation spending, which is an impressive sum. This unit costs per employee annually increases by almost 20% compared with the previous period. However, the absolute and relative increase in spending on health and safety is accompanied, oddly enough, by an increase in production injuries and occupational diseases. According to data reported by the enterprises of the company because of the production occupational accidents and diseases every day more than 5% of employees are absent from the workplace. By analyzing the group for 100 employees on average 1,223 days are incapacity per year. Is it much or little? Reply to this question, using the "scale is by Professor Notkin (table used for the evaluation of this aspect of the company [4].
As can be seen, analyzed the company belong to the group with a high degree of severity of occupational diseases, which certainly represents a serious problem. Any problems, including high production injuries, occupational diseases, require solutions that would normally have plans of corrective measures at businesses. It is clear that this document shall have specific, reasonable and measurable steps indicating a time frame for their implementation. However, in practice often they have direct contrast. We give regular analyze of such plans of many companies of a number of industries, ranging from the Soviet period, then period of the "perestroika" tillnowdays’. We can say that in their preparation, a few data have changed in such a long period of time. In particular, a priority plan for improvements in productivity of industrial production injury of 2005, developed in the organization taken for example in this article consists of 21 points. Of these, only five positions can be taken as concrete and targeted, two targeted, but containing a threat of punishment. The remaining 14 are of banner character: "Elaborate ...»," Assurre ...», "Raise ...»," Force... "etc.
In this style of corrective action plans is for finding the guilty, but not for finding basic phenomenon causing production problems. Proof of this can be found in the works | 5, 6].
The vast majority of cases investigated committed violations of regulatory requirements completed statement of deviations arising, the reasons for the surface nature and the persons responsible. The real reasons, which caused an undesirable event, usually remain in the underwater part of the "iceberg". For example, we "cap" the standard form for reporting cases of marriage, is sent to the enterprises of one of the transport sector in the parent organization (see form).
List of columns of the report indicates that the document can not be called analysis, since it holds only a statement of events, places of origin and identification of the perpetrator enterprise. Obviously, the parent organization interested in the outcome of the last - the guilty companies, usually for damages or the imposition of a penalty.
Meanwhile, each of the violations is the underlying cause, and corrective action should be aimed precisely at its elimination. Long-term study of this problem in enterprises like-Siberian region, conducted by us, under confirm the significant superiority in the causes that arise from the illiterate or negligent Menagement. Here is one of many examples that we have. In Irkutsk, June 30, 2005 an explosion occurred due to ignition residue of calcium carbide, regularly sent to a welder in the channel realization hatch. It hit the girl, teaching the burning of poplar down, which led to an explosion.
In TV commentary event explained that the metal degree produced welding has not been installed a special container which is supposed to have to accept special waste in the production of brewing operations. At the same time an official from the administration of the city peremptorily behavior assured TV viewers that "guilty of what happened welder, which will be roughly punished - he was not supposed to dump waste into the hatch."
Meanwhile, the welder it the following alternatives always of waste disposal: a next bush (plantings die, thrown a cigarette butt will lead to fire), into a garbage bin (the same as a real fire hazard) or a channel hatch (this option from among the available seemed welder least dangerous). It is easy to identify in this case, the true cause of events. It does not even need to build a causal governmental figure, just use simple method "Five Why" to clarify the reasons. Besides the real reason it appears already at the second "why" - poor organization of production, expressed in insecure work ¬place which required, moreover, the simplest, equipment.
Since domestic performer, as a rule, has no real right to suspend the process when a violation is sutured in its organization, he is forced to continue working at your own risk. Sometimes - it is a risk of losing life.
Four years ago in one of the Irkutsk constructional enterprises fatal cases occurred. He was followed by a fall of masonry constructively forests, working platform which was higher than previously performed masonry. By law safety flooring forests or substitution must be below the level ktadki at least two of its series.
1. Quality glossary, ASQ, 2004.
2. Tapping D., Luyster Т., Shuker T. Value Stream Management: Eight Steps to Planning, Mapping, and Sustaining Lean Improvements — N.Y., Productivity Press, 2002. — 176 pp.
3. Фомичев С.К., Скрябина Н.И., Уразлина О.Ю. Концепции «Шесть сигм» и «Бережливое управление»: звездный союз // Методы менеджмента качества. — 2004. — № 6. — С. 16-20.
4. Вумек Д., Джонс Д.Т. Бережливое производство: Пер. с англ. — М.: Альпина Бизнес Букс, 2004. — 473 с.
5. George, M.L. Lean Six Sigma for Service. How to Use Lean Speed & Six Sigma Quality to Improve Services and Transactions. - N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Co., 2003. - 300 pp.
6. Levinson W.A., Rerick, R.A. Lean Enterprise: A Synergistic Approach to Minimizing Waste. — ASQ Quality Press, 2002. - 236 pp.
7. Хаммер М., Чамгш Дж. Реинжиниринг корпорации: манифест революции в бизнесе: Пер. с англ. / Под ред. и с предисл. B.C. Катькало. — С.-Петербург: Издательство С.-Петербургского университета, 1997. - 332 с.
8. BS 6143. Guide to the economics of quality. Part 1:1992 «Process cost model».
9. Andersen B. Business process improvement toolbox. — ASQ Quality Press, 1999. — 233 pp.
10. Donald W.B. The Certified Quality Engineer Handbook. — ASQ Quality Press, 2002. — 520 pp