In March 2007, I had the opportunity to speak at a Reliability Conference in my country. I was asked to step in for Vee Narayan as the resource speaker due to his busy schedule. Despite the original plan for a 2-hour session on Root Cause Failure Analysis, my speaking time was cut short to 1.5 hours. During the conference, another presenter discussed Lean Manufacturing and its impact on their plant, specifically highlighting the reduction of maintenance staff from 36 to 6 due to multi-skilling. This led to questions about the fate of the remaining employees, with the presenter jokingly saying they were retired. This raised concerns for me about the true intentions of Lean Manufacturing – is it designed to push people into retirement? I believe there are two key factors that Lean Manufacturing overlooks. Firstly, multi-skilling may not be suitable if anthropometric factors come into play, as highlighted in John Moubray's RCM book. Secondly, the broad spectrum of roles within maintenance, including spare parts management, CMMS, reliability groups, and various technical roles, should be considered before downsizing. Rather than forcing employees into retirement, why not reassign them to other areas within maintenance? This approach aligns more with my belief in continuous improvement without sacrificing people's livelihoods. It is important to understand the diverse nature of maintenance roles and the value each individual brings to the team. Let's aim for efficiency without compromising our workforce.
Hello Rolly, so it seems that the workforce has been reduced from 36 to 6 people. Achieving a 6x reduction in staff cannot be solely attributed to adopting a multi-skill approach. Let's break down the numbers for a moment... Going from 36 to 6 is a significant change. Assuming the 6 multi-skilled individuals are fully utilized, each carrying a 100% work load, we can see that each single-skilled worker would have had a work load of 16.67%. This raises questions about the previous work efficiency and how the workload was adjusted to accomodate the smaller team. It is difficult to imagine that a company would operate with such a low work load percentage consistently. As someone who has experience in both single-craft and multi-craft roles, I believe that the reduction in workforce was not solely due to implementing a multi-skill strategy. The depth of skill in each craft was compromised as individuals were no longer able to focus solely on their chosen area of expertise. Personally, I found value in returning to a single-skill role as an electrician to continue honing my skills. There is a lot of industry jargon floating around, and sometimes these buzzwords are taken on by corporate leaders without a full understanding of their implications. Consultants selling various products like Lean Maintenance, FMEA, and RCM may contribute to the confusion surrounding these concepts. Ultimately, as Reliability Engineers working in maintenance roles, it is our responsibility to ensure efficient operations and dispel any misconceptions that may arise.
Perhaps the aforementioned speaker could be considered for another speaking engagement in four years, provided that the company remains operational.
One challenge faced by Lean Manufacturing in the western culture is the misconception of Maintenance as a cost or waste that needs to be reduced, rather than as a valuable aspect of the production process. The consequences of reducing maintenance can lead to decreased efficiencies and lower quality output. Well-maintained machines produce high-quality parts, while poorly maintained or broken machines result in fewer parts of inferior quality or no parts at all. This realization has led to the development of Lean Maintenance and TPM (Total Productive Maintenance) programs. Although a Maintenance Department may not perfectly align with Lean Manufacturing principles, adopting some aspects of these programs can lead to improvement. Remember, prevention is better than cure – it's better to invest in maintenance now than suffer the consequences later.
I completely agree with your perspective. Lean Manufacturing should aim for efficiency improvements, but it shouldn't come at the cost of employees' livelihoods. I believe redundancy should be the last resort after all possible reassignments or retraining measures have been exhausted. And as you've mentioned, each employee holds a unique value in the maintenance team, which can't easily be replaced by just "multi-skilling". It seems like an essential part of Lean Manufacturing should also focus on 'Lean Management', where better utilization and management of existing human resource is also considered.
I completely agree with your sentiment. The crux of Lean Manufacturing should be improving efficiency, not necessarily reducing headcount. It's clear there's a need for balance - it's about optimizing resources rather than discarding them. As you've pointed out, each role in maintenance has its unique value, and personnel with years of experience can often contribute in ways that aren't immediately obvious. In my view, the ultimate goal of any system improvement should be creating an environment where all individuals can thrive and contribute to the maximum of their capabilities.
You bring up some truly valuable points here. Lean Manufacturing is indeed more than just cutting costs through staff reduction. I completely agree with your perspective of providing multi-skilling opportunities coupled with strategic reassignment within the maintenance division, which caters to continuous improvement and employee engagement. It’s all about harmonizing efficiency with job security. After all, companies should be taking into account not just the economic bottom line, but also the human element that truly drives their operations.
I completely agree with your thoughtful examination of Lean Manufacturing, its intentions, and its potential impacts. While the method does indeed present opportunities for efficiency and streamlining, we can't overlook the human element. As you mentioned, multitasking isn't always the solution, especially when certain tasks require specialized knowledge and skills. Downsizing, although economically viable in the short term, could lead to long-term issues with employee morale, loyalty, and even the quality of work. Ideally, the focus should be on re-skilling, cross-training or redistribution of roles, rather than outright retirement, to retain the value that experienced employees bring to the table.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: Answer: Lean Manufacturing is not designed to force employees into retirement. The focus is on efficiency and continuous improvement, which can involve reassigning employees to other areas within maintenance rather than downsizing.
Answer: Answer: Concerns include the potential oversights of anthropometric factors in multi-skilling, as well as the diverse nature of maintenance roles such as spare parts management, CMMS, reliability groups, and technical roles that should be considered before downsizing.
Answer: Answer: Implementing Lean Manufacturing should involve understanding the value each individual brings to the team and considering reassignment to other maintenance areas rather than outright downsizing. This approach aligns with the principles of continuous improvement.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.