Lean Construction Ireland Annual Book of Cases 2021 57 stream calculations. As shown in Figure 2, the current state had 10 steps in the process, consisting of a lead time (start to finish) of 17 hours 55 minutes and a process time (time spent working on task) of 34 minutes.We identified 17 hours 20 minutes of waiting time which involved waiting for signatures or looking for people. Figure 2. (Then) Current StateValue Stream Now, we could visually see the process steps and we had the data for the actual times involved. In steps four, five, six, and seven, we could target improvements and opportunities identified as Kaizen bursts (Figure 2). Identifying LeanWaste We highlighted areas in red under the headings: transport, inventory, motion, waiting, over-processing, over-production, defects, and skills. We used the associated acronymof TIMWOODS, and it was a great way to get the team to use it as the identification tool for waste in the processes.The team enjoyed this process and it enhanced engagement as we teased out the different types of waste.As shown in Figure 3,we defined whether the steps were value-add, necessary non-value-add, or non-value-add items. Figure 3. Identification ofWaste We crucially ensured that waste was labelled as a process and not a person, thus eliminating any finger-pointing or blame culture (see Figure 3). Physically writing up the dayworks was labour intensive and involved over-processing, defects, and non-utilisation of skills as it was later retyped. Defects were mistakes in calculations and illegible writing. Skills not utilised were using a computer to do up the calculations, the use of drop-down menus for repetitive information, and the lack of copy and paste in the manual process.The motion identified in three steps was the walking around on site trying to find the person for signatures – noting that this live site was a 33-hectare site which accumulated to a significant number of wasted miles of motion. Furthermore, specific sites are hazardous environments wherein mobile phones are not allowed and only specific personnel carry walkie-talkies.Once you leave the compound you must wear complete safety attire, and thus if you were looking for a personal signature in a cleanroom environment you had to gown up to do so.We needed to establish what we do, how long it takes, where the inefficiencies were occurring, and how could we get to our root cause.Again,with emphasis importantly placed on it being about the process and not about the person. 5WhyAnalysis The 5Why analysis questioned why the dayworks took so long and why it happened again (see Figure 4). Following on from the standard answer of “there was no other way”, we focused on the cause and effect of the problem. Figure 4. 5Why Analysis FishboneAnalysis The fishbone analysis established that we could only complete the dayworks process manually as no other method was available, thus prompting us to identify another level of the problem, namely that we had no other method available.Did we look at our environment? The project was a hazardous site.We asked if we had correct staffing and were we using the correct machinery.We always did the process the same way as there was no other method present in Suir Engineering.The analysis showed that only site and commercial staff were part of the existing process. Figure 5. FishboneAnalysis Step one was where the client initiated the contact;we did not want this step to move to an electronic request as this was instrumental Case 15
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTIzMTIxMw==