Sensei:I am sure it breaks down, but I am still not sure it is the real problem.
Engineer (a little angrily):Itisthe problem. I’ve been working on this for
almost four years and I can tell you it is a problem. (Is it the problem or a
problem?)
Sensei:Yes, I know you’ve been working hard on the robot; however, let me
explain why it is not the real problem. When the robot breaks down, what
happens?
Engineer:There is a fault at Loading Zone 3 because the weld nut does not
feed. We’ve been working with the vendor to improve the feeder.
Sensei:Okay, what I mean is, what happens to the line when the robot breaks
down?
Engineer:It stops, of course.
Sensei:When the line stops, what happens?
Engineer:Everyone stands around, and they call me to fix the robot.
Sensei:I mean, what happens to the flow of product?
Engineer:It stops.
Sensei:When the product flow stops, what happens?
Engineer:Everyone stands around.
Sensei:I mean, what happens to our ability to make parts?
Engineer:Of course we can’t make parts with the line stopped!
Sensei:So we are not able to satisfy our customer with the required number
of parts?
Engineer:We can’t meet the demand without working overtime.
Sensei:So the real problem is that we are unable to meet customer demand
without working overtime?
Engineer:No. The problem is the robot.
Sensei:Well, let’s go to the line and look.
As the sensei and engineer proceed to the line, the engineer wants to take
the sensei to the robot to show him the “problem.” The sensei knows that line
stoppage for any reason will ultimately affect the ability to meet production
demand and that the robot is only onepossibility. Therefore, it is further down
the causal chain and not the high-level problem he’s looking for. The sensei
takes the engineer to the end of the line to observe flow. In a few minutes he
notices that the flow stops.
Sensei:Why did the line stop?
Engineer:The employees are rotating positions.
Sensei:How often do they rotate?