Historically improvement projects were carried out by business analysts, middle managers or business managers who were responsible for quality. But there was one fundamental flaw within this approach; often what looked ‘good’ on paper, or seemed to be a significant improvement on a computer screen, just would not work in practice. In short, there was a huge chasm between the theory of what would work and what actually worked in practice.
Within Lean thinking, there is an emphasis on people responsible for implementing improvement projects, being very much connected with what actually happens on the shop floor.
There is an expression of ‘gemba’ which relates to being at the actual place, the place where the action is, in order to learn how things work in reality. Videoing a process when implementing improvement projects is a simple extension of this concept.
Lasting Evidence
Although spending time at the ‘gemba’ of any production area can ensure that management are very aware of the reality of production, it can sometimes be the case that management visit the shopfloor, they spend time talking to operators and supervisors. They ask questions, they receive information, they may even make notes. They then return to their offices, thinking that the exercise of being on the shopfloor was incredibly useful.
A fortnight later, the improvement project is growing from strength to strength and there are lots of meetings and discussions about the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the project. But there is an element of relying on memory about who said what, who did what and how they did it. With time those memories become somewhat blurred and the evidence collated on the shopfloor becomes less reliable.
However, with a video, every aspect of the process is recorded for posterity. So after a couple of weeks, if there are any queries about a specific aspect of the process, then this can be verified by having a look at the video. There is no need to waste further time returning to the shopfloor to look at one area of the process, only to have to return a few hours later to check another aspect. With a video it can all be checked in a few minutes.
Some companies even have the process played continuously, enabling checks to be carried out at any given time.
Objective Evidence
The evidence that the video provides is also objective. Although it is fair to assume that operators or supervisors will always provide the best information that they can, there are times when they have a hidden agenda, or their own particular axe to grind. But when the process has been videoed, there is no risk of inaccurate information being relayed by operators or supervisors; the video speaks for itself.
Conversely there is no risk that middle management can misrepresent information as a means of satisfying his or her own particular agenda. The objectivity of this process means that this is simply not possible.
Comparison Purposes
The other main benefit of videoing a process when undertaking an improvement project is that it can be used to compare the effect that the project has had. One video should be taken prior to the project being implemented, the ‘before’ video. Then after the improvements have been carried out, then a second video should be done, so that a clear comparison can be made about what has happened to the process. Does it take less time to complete? Is it more efficient? Does it add more value to the production process?
Comparing the two videos provides objective data about the effect of the improvement and, because the camera does not lie, the evidence it provides, cannot be refuted!
