Archive for the ‘All’ Category
Friday, February 5th, 2010
I have got a start date for a job in Australia.
I am due to start on 22nd March, working in Sydney. I am going to work for a company called Transfield Services.
Transfield Services is a service provider to the industrial, resources and infrastructure industries.
Their web site is:
We are now busy trying to decide what to take, and what to leave. We also have to decide where we want to live in Sydney, it is all very expensive!
Tags: Steven Johnson
Posted in All, Personal | No Comments »
It’s quicker for me, but is it right for the customer?
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009
I was recently having a discussion with a friend who was explaining some Theory of Constraints training he had experienced some time back.
The training had involved showing that it was faster to do something if a person concentrated on one thing at once. The example given was an exercise involving giving people a pile of mixed up different coloured objects and asking them to sort them in to groups of the same colour.
The exercise showed that it was quicker to work thorough the items methodically picking out the different colours in order rather than picking up any colour and putting it with like coloured pieces.
This is a great learning tool, it helps to teach people to do things one thing at a time, rather than doing lots of different tasks and finishing none of them. This is a good lesson to learn especially in the industry this training was related to.
However, I have a bit of problem with this, as it sounds a lot like ‘batching’ to me.
To continue the example above a little further I wonder what the customer would have wanted? Would they want all the blue pieces followed by all the red pieces followed by…….? Or is it actually more likely they wanted a red, followed by two blues, followed by a green then …… you get the idea.
The solution above may have made sorting the pieces quicker for the people doing the task (lets call them the supplier) but not necessarily enabling them to deliver the items in the order the customer wanted them.
This line of thinking is very common in manufacturing and reasons such as machine change overs and tooling changes are reasons given as to why all one part must be made first, then another part, and so on until all the components are ready and the final product can be assembled.
It is always difficult to translate these theoretical ideas into real examples but I will try.
On a railway project, works are usually split into works occurring in sequential weeks. If I need to book some trains for a project extending over several weeks the usual temptation would be to work out all the trains then send them all through in one go. This is easier for the people planing the work as they can think about the trains all in one go and submit them together.
However the guys that process these trains into train orders may prefer that each week came through as soon as it is prepared rather than waiting for them all then having to rush to get through a big heap of work.
The same also applies to the planning of speed restrictions in association with the work. It may take some time to determine exactly when each speed restriction is to be removed, owing to planning tamping, welding and stressing works. However, again the speed restrictions are often all submitted together after all the speeds have been worked out, this can take some time, maybe weeks, waiting for possession confirmations, tamper bookings to be made etc. All the while some of the speeds will not change as they are fixed for various reasons, however the planning teams are not aware as they are all on the same spread sheet and the whole thing must be finished before it is submitted.
These may not be the best examples, but I hope they illustrate a couple of points.
Firstly, think about the recipient of the information you are preparing as being a customer. Therefore, treat them like a customer, and ask them what they want and in what order.
Secondly, making something quicker for yourself does not necessarily mean it will provide the quickest result for the process.
Please leave a comment below, maybe you disagree!
Tags: Continuous Improvement, Lean, Steven Johnson, Theory of Constraints, track renewals
Posted in All, Lean | No Comments »
What is needed to apply Lean to the rail industry?
Monday, November 30th, 2009
During my time with VolkerRail they were one of the first companies to look at how LEAN can be applied to the rail industry.
This meant starting from scratch, there is no one to copy.
Below I have tried to help you understand what type of issues come to light when looking through ‘LEAN Goggles’ at the track renewals process.
Excavation of spent ballast
When excavating the old ballast we start at one end (usually) and work through to the other. We may use one or two machines to do a rough dig, then use one machine with a dozer to trim to the finished level.
This causes waste, waste in the Lean sense rather than the more conventional sense, i.e. those activities in the process not adding value. For the example described above the following wastes exist:
Reworks as a result of a defect – using the dozer and another machine to complete the dig means we are effectively doing the dig twice.
Unnecessary motion – each time the machine working with the dozer lifts a bucket of spoil to the train it is unnecessary if the first dig had been done properly.
Inventory – the area of the dig between the first rough dig and the trim can be considered to be inventory, this area is not having any value added to it.
Defects – associated with the above point we don’t know if the rough dig is right until the dozer gets to it, perhaps the area has been over dug and is now too deep?
Inventory again – the area behind the dozer does not get any ballast dropped on it until the dozer has gone all the way through.
Transport – the dozer now needs to travel all the way back to the beginning, this is waste as is the fact the first area to be dozed has been waiting to be worked on again.
You are probably reading this thinking, ‘Yeah but the train needs to move.’, or ‘We cannot afford to have two dozers’, or ‘It would be too slow to do the whole dig in one go.’ Well yes, that is how it is now, but how could it be in the future?
Could there be a machine that can complete the dig in one pass? Could we have new trains that can take away old ballast and bring in new ballast at the same time?
This is what is meant by the term ‘LEAN Goggles’ when one learns to use these one sees things in a completely new way. It can be quite frightening.
LEAN in action
One example of attempting to improve how the track renewal process works can be seen in the experiments using a Road Planer to excavate spent ballast.
Very good cut following excavation with planer
The trial was used to understand if the machine could improve the speed and quality of the excavation phase of a track renewal project. Excavation had, for a long time, been a process which took a large proportion of the renewal possession, and the quality was variable at best.
The planer produced a very good quality cut but with only one machine the work rate was not perceived to be great, especially considering that several passes were required to achieve the correct excavation depth and width.
Planer loading to wagons
So why has this idea not been taken further? Perhaps there exists a reluctance to change, perhaps without constant pushing people do what they have always done. But perhaps there is no real data to prove which technique is best. We need to have real data to compare outputs and quality.
We also need to have the vision to enhance the existing equipment to make it do what we want to do more precisely. The next steps for the planer were quite obvious, work them in multiple, or use a wider drum and some changes to the chute to stop it betting clogged in very poor ballast conditions.
Link the laser levelling equipment to the hydraulics, so the idea is not dead, just waiting to be taken forward again.
This solution does not provide a solution to all the wastes listed above, but perhaps it forms part of the new solution, however that may look.
Tags: Continuous Improvement, Derby IMT, Integrated Managament Team, Lean, Network Rail, Steven Johnson, track renewals
Posted in All, Lean | 1 Comment »
A final look at Manchester Metro
Saturday, November 28th, 2009
The metro is back up and running and appears to be working well.
There do not appear to be any major problems, and it is difficult to believe all the work that has been done to get it up and running again.
Here are a few photos from around Shudehill, they are a little blurry but they were taken in the dark.
Looking from Shudehill towards High Street
Shudehill Station
View towards Victoria from Shudehill Station
Shudehill Station, again
Tags: Manchester Metro, Shudehill, Steven Johnson
Posted in All, Business | No Comments »
A little rant about ticket barriers, again!
Wednesday, November 25th, 2009
Are ticket barrier really necessary?
Yesterday I was travelling back from London on the 15:30 train from St Pancras. A ticket barrier is now in operation at St Pancras and so I begrudgingly got my ticket out of my wallet, holding my coat, bag and a file in the other. Successfully through the barrier I found a seat, got out my laptop and settle down to prepare some notes from the meeting I had attended.
Seconds after we departed we were advised that a fully ticket inspection would now take place. Hang on a minute, I had just passed the challenge of getting my ticket in the machine whilst juggling the rest of my gear, now my ticket was to be inspected again. What is going on!
I decided to ask.
The Train Manager/Ticket Inspector came to our carriage and I raised my concern that my ticket had been checked by the barrier and now she was checking it again.
She explained that the machines are a bit useless for the following reasons:
The introduction of the barriers at St Pancras has meant that staff have stopped checking all tickets at the end of the platform and now check them on board, actually occupying a member of staff that was previously free to look after customers rather than inconvenience them further. It was clear she was not very impressed with the installation of the barriers.
I have stated in a previous blog that I hate ticket barriers they are an expensive, and if this is to be believed, an ineffective way of protecting revenue for the TOC. They offer virtually no benefit to the customer and are a hindrance to anyone carrying more than an umbrella.
I do not however have the same hatred of the Oyster Card system on the underground. Perhaps this is because it seems to be simpler to operate with hands full of baggage and I don’t have to queue to by a ticket before hand. Or maybe it is just that checking tickets on a metro system is very difficult and so the barriers make more sense.
Either way my dislike of ticket barriers grows.
I wish the industry would look at the whole journey experience and stop putting barriers (literally) in the way to people using trains.
Tags: Continuous Improvement, Lean, Railway, Steven Johnson, Ticket Barriers
Posted in All, Ideas, Lean | No Comments »