One of our newly minted Certified Trainers raised the issue of how to provide notes for a number trainers instructing on a number of the same JIBs provided to them. Pat answers by focusing on the issue of the number of JIBs developed before the training occurred. He suggests a more developmental approach. Please comment if you have some good ideas.
I attended the 40 hr JI class back in December. We are currently re-implementing JI here after a failed attempt last year. There are 2 questions I was hoping to get some help with. The first is, in our machining operation, we will be training somewhere near 100 JIBs per operator. This will be spread out over several weeks. We are currently trying to establish some documentation on how to communicate to instructors on what order the JIBs should be taught (an Operator training Plan). I was wondering if anyone in the TWI community has encounter a similar issue and may have developed an effective way to establish and maintain a training plan such as this?
Second, because we are trying to establish and maintain Standardized Work, and we will be using several different trainers to conduct the training on the same operation, we are going to be making 1 standard set of JIBs for each operation. The problem we have come across is how do we provide “Instructor Notes” within a jib without complicating the JIBs or confusing the instructor?
I’m sure I’m not the first person to encounter these types of problems and was hoping the TWI community could provide some help based on other’s experiences.
Thank you very much.
Patrick Graupp Responded:
Hi. This is Pat and I hope you’re doing well. BTW, our Danish friends are doing well and training a lot of JI classes.
My first impression was that 100 breakdowns in a few weeks seem like “biting off more than they can chew at one time.” In particular, that’s a lot of breakdowns to “road test” all at once. In other words, you have to learn from the breakdowns you make by trying them out and then fine tuning and improving them. Then the breakdowns you make thereafter will be better and better. It’s a development process. You can see from the Albany International case study how they learned to make breakdowns which was critical to their training success.
But you still need to make progress. So I think it’s better to select a smaller set of the jobs (not ALL of them) and focus on getting those trained and stabilized. That will be much more realistic for your machine operators to learn and master. If you’ve selected the right jobs (based on criteria you choose) then you will get the most “bang for your buck” and that will create momentum for moving on to the next set of jobs and so on. Better to move one strong step forward at a time rather than try to do it all in one swoop.
As for having several trainers using a common set of breakdowns, I think that is quite alright. That’s what LEGO did when they standardized jobs in a pilot project last year across three plants in Denmark, Hungary and Mexico. They had their “global trainers” create a common set of breakdowns and then let their “local trainers” teach using these breakdowns that crossed countries, languages, and cultures.
Let us know what other questions you have moving forward. Whatever you do, keep in touch so we can all learn from your experiences. Good luck with the project.
Best regards, Patrick Graupp