Another misguided belief is that it’s preferable to perform certain activities
less frequently so that waste is minimized. This is most commonly applied to the
movement and delivery of materials in a facility. There are additional factors
that contribute to this belief, namely the distinction between “direct” and “indi-
rect” labor. Within Toyota, all manufacturing employees have the same classifi-
cation. They are all called “production team member,” and there is no distinction
regarding the type of work performed. All employees are viewed as assets, and
the cost of the asset is the same regardless of the type of work being performed.
Waste is waste, and the cost effect is the same regardless of job function.
In contrast, managers of other companies are more often evaluated based on
their ability to control indirect labor costs, which means fewer material handlers.
If there are fewer material handlers, the obvious solution is to deliver larger
quantities to the line less frequently. In many ways, this method increases the
overall waste, and the net result is a higher “total cost.” (Most cost accounting
systems are focused on the individual cost of labor, or piece production costs
rather than the overall cost for the entire system.)
The case example below compares the two thought processes. The Toyota Way
is to always focus on optimizing value-adding activity, and any system estab-
lished begins with consideration for the operator and minimizing waste. We use
the expression, “Treat the value-adding operator as a surgeon.” A surgeon needs
to focus exclusively on the patient, and when reaching out to request a scalpel,
an assistant places the right tool directly in his or her hand. This philosophy
leads to increased quality and generally lower overall waste.
Case Example: Consolidation of Common Waste in an
Assembly Plant
At an assembly plant of a major automotive manufacturer, the manager
directed a continuous improvement team to focus on reducing indirect
labor costs by minimizing the number of times parts were moved from
a warehouse area to the assembly line. The plant manager was intent
upon bringing the material from the truck to the line directly, with a
minimum number of trips. It was hard to understand why he focused
on this. It’s likely this was driven by years of being beaten up by upper
management to reduce labor cost as the primary directive. This narrow
objectivecan often lead to eliminating one waste but creating other
more serious wastes. In this case the plant manager was convinced
that producing in larger batches and putting product in large con-
tainers would save material handling costs. But what are the other
consequences of this “big box” mentality?
Reviewing Figure 4-5 below, and beginning with the value-adding
operator, we see that the overall length of this one sample work zone