The TWI Blog for the Training Within Industry Community of Practice

Patrick and I were just a little intimidated when approaching Steven Spear at the 2010 TWI Summit for him to write the foreword for our new book Implementing TWI: Creating and Managing a Skills Based Culture that was published by Productivity Press in November 2010. Who wouldn’t be? We learned so much from his articles and books, especially from his 1999 classic article Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System, Steven Spear and H. Kent Bowen that is posted on our web site. We could not have been more pleased with his timely message that is worth reading as a reminder of why we are all so passionate about getting the TWI Program back into the mainstream of training today.

Bob Wrona, Executive Director TWI Institute

 Companies are under ever increasing pressure to remain on the competitive cutting edge.  A fully engaged workforce is essential for doing this successfully, and Training Within Industry (TWI) is a powerful approach to creating and maintaining this engagement.

 The increasing competitive pressure comes from a variety of forces. 

  •  Economic development in Asia, South America, and Eastern Europe has increased the number of potential rivals challenging for customers loyalties.
  • Incredible improvements in communication and transportation have converted those potential rivals in actual ones.
  • Scientific and technological advances compress the half-life on any market offering’s viability, increasing the demand for ever faster improvement and innovation in development, design, production, and delivery.

 These three forces are significant under any circumstances.  Add to this the fallout of the world wide economic recession the last few years.  All organizations have to rapidly reconfigure how the bring value to market as customers have become more circumspect in terms of how they are going to satisfy needs that have changed in significant, discontinuous ways.

 That workforce engagement is essential is also without question.  A naive view might be that increased technological sophistication has increased the capacity for a select brain trust to do the hard ‘thinking’ of what to sell and how to make it, leaving the remainder of the organization to do nothing more than be button pushing monkeys for automated equipment and processes.

 This belief that mind and muscle are separable is simply wrong, at least as wrong now as it was in the past.  In the heyday of scientific management, it was thought that a select few could do the time motion studies to reveal how the remaining masses could work most effectively and efficiently.  This missed incorporating in work design the subtleties of circumstances known only by those involved in actually doing work, and it missed incorporating the additional critical perspective other people might have brought to the design.  Separating mind from muscle had no basis other than the elitist social construct of the day.   

The need for broad engagement has only gone up, not down.  Walk into any work environment–manufacturing, healthcare, and any service sector–and the number of distinct professions needed to accomplish work has gone up by many multiples and the sophistication of the equipment people use to complete their work has increased exponentially as well.  Creating value is ever more a team effort, with the skills required of individual team members ever more challenging in their acquisition and demanding in their expression.  Manufacturing is no longer the physically hard work of wrench turning–like Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times or a character in Diego Rivera’s fresco, Detroit Industry.  It is cutting edge physics, chemistry, and increasingly biology brought to bear in creating products useful to society.  The amount of required know how is considerable.

Which brings us to training.  Success depends on staying ahead of the curve, and staying ahead of the curve depends on engaging the minds and the muscle of everyone in the organization.  How then, to get that engagement?  It is unrealistic to expect that people will arrive with the skills already intact.  Even were they products of the most successful education, and we know not all education is so successful, they’ll lack the job specific skills and knowledge to succeed.  People could acquire skills through experience alone, but that is both time consuming and unreliable.  How do you ensure people get the right experiences at the right time?  Or, people could be developed in a mentored apprenticeship fashion.  But that too takes considerable time and produces uneven results.

Therefore, an essential ingredient in being competitive is having a reliable system for developing skills.  This is where Training Within Industry comes in: Job Instruction training to bring novices up to speed, Job Methods training so they could be active agents in improving what they did and how they did it, and Job Relations training that teaches the foundations of positive employee relations.

Graupp and Wrona bring many examples of companies that embraced these elements of TWI, improving their competitiveness by improving their capacity to fully engage their workforce productively.  These examples can serve as inspiration and models for years.

With best wishes for continued success,

Steven Spear

Sr. Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management, Author, The High Velocity Edge–How Market Leaders Leverage Operational Excellence to Beat the Competition.

The mood at the AME conference last week in Baltimore was decidedly more upbeat than 2009. Over 2000 people gathered in a community of learners and teachers. Over 400 of them were from the field of healthcare and many were from all over the world (beyond North America).
We made new friends and caught up with our many old friends throughout the five days. The buzz was about investing in people because no program is successful without the support of the organization at every level. Of course TWI is built on the foundation that investing in people is the way to success in any enterprise.
TWI was on the minds of many. Mentioned in a number of presentations as critical to the success and sustainability of Lean initiatives, Patrick, Bob and Steve were busy answering questions after every breakout session. The interest has never been higher in both manufacturing and healthcare.
Bob and Patrick had a sold out Friday workshop on Implementing TWI. It was based on the content of their new book, Implementing TWI: Creating and Managing a Skills Based Culture. (Productivity Press)
We will be adding more on the conference in the next weeks as we reflect on all the learning.

Our own Richard Abercrombie was having lunch with a manager in one of our largest companies deploying TWI.  Richard and the manager discussed  the critical need for support for TWI at each site.  Richard paraphrases his converation below so we can all benefit from his expertise.

TWI Job Instruction (JI) focuses on that part of the line organization closest to the work.  In your company who would that be? Who are the people responsible for what happens “out on the genba.”  Examples are: Managers, Group Leaders, Team Leaders and Team Members.

 All of these people have a critical role to play in the implementation of TWI.  The Operators, of course, do the work and it’s the responsibility of management to see that they are well-trained.  Therefore, the Team Leader’s role is to USE Job Instruction.  The Group Leader’s role is to GET IT USED.  And the Manager’s role is to PRODUCE RESULTS from JI.

To fulfill each of these roles, some type of training is usually necessary.  First of all, it is necessary to complete the 10-hour sessions in Job Instruction.  In particular, the Manager and Group Leader(s) should participate fully in the 10-hour sessions so they have a concrete knowledge of the JI plan and how to make it work on the production floor.  The Manager is a bridge to middle and upper management and is in a position to understand how to translate company objectives into specific action plans for Job Instruction with the Group Leader(s).  On that basis, the Group Leaders can direct and guide the Team Leaders in the use of Job Instruction in support of these company objectives. 

Without the active and ongoing interest by the Manager and Group Leader, there will be no traction for Job Instruction on the production floor.  Active interest does not mean that they just talk about how good it is.  They must use Job Instruction as a production tool the same as any other production tool currently in place.

After being trained in Job Instruction, the Manager and Group Leader(s) need to be trained in how to coach their subordinates.  The coaching consists of helping Team Leaders understand the importance training according to a plan and making sure they develop and maintain a Training Timetable.  It also involves helping them improve their skill of breaking down jobs in preparation for instruction, and then encouraging them in the use the 4-Step Method while training a Team Members on specific jobs.  To accomplish this type of coaching, the Group Leader has to fully develop their own Job Instruction skills.

To provide this training and development, sometimes staff personnel, for example, the Training Department, Quality Control, or Continuous Improvement are utilized for this purpose.  But the appropriate Manager must first lay out just how the staff resources will assist the Group Leader to gain the skill of Job Instruction and the ability to coach Team Leaders. 

Staff people are most qualified to fulfill this role when they have completed the 40-hour Job Instruction train-the-trainer.  In other words, while they will be active in delivering the 10-hour sessions to Job Instruction trainers, they have another role, which, for want of a better term, might be called a TWI follow-up coach to the line organization.

The reason behind the necessity for such a support structure is the notion that “you and I are interested in what the boss is interested in.”  Therefore, to make Job Instruction “the way we do business on the production floor ” and not a casual, once-in-a-while project, the boss must be visibly and concretely driving the process.

Richard Abercrombie, TWI Institute Master Trainer

Major shipyards from coast to coast are rediscovering the power of Training Within Industry Job Instruction (TWI JI) training. We say rediscovering because one of the major deployments of TWI JI during WWII was in shipbuilding.  Walter Dietz in his history of TWI, Learn by Doing: The Story of Training Within Industry (1970) recounted the remarkable results yielded by TWI during the wartime national emergency.  He wrote: “Many ship yard managements felt that Job Methods and Job Relations were material factors in the country-wide spectacular reductions of work days from laying of the hull to the commissioning of the ship.  Savings in shipyards, as a result of a single Job Methods improvement, frequently ran into sizable sums.  More Important was the ability of Job Instruction training to equip green workers to learn, in very short time, an essential job in the production effort.TWI programming covered shipyards on all three coasts as well as the inland yards and all the “J” programs effected the usual measurable results.” (pg.41)  

Then, after the war ended, TWI all but disappeared in the United States save for a few consultants, like Dietz, who had worked during the war with C.R. Dooley in the TWI Service. By the 1970’s it was a part of history. In the past ten years, as concerns for U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace continued to grow, a renaissance in interest in TWI has occurred.  TWI is making history once more and shipyards are again on the forefront. One west coast shipyard Superintendent, now working with TWI Institute Senior Master Trainer Patrick Graupp, is seeing the immediate results of Job Instruction Training in the shipyard. He reported the following to Patrick in a recent communication about the results of his action research.

“Today I am gathering the pilot group to go over TWI outputs so far. We are making good progress… The table below cites the differences we have observed so far when comparing TWI and traditional training methods. It is clear that a large gap is now beginning to form as we continue to compare both methods in the field with our mechanics. TWI, it would appear, is emerging as a clear winner in this comparison.”

The experiment was designed to compare the performance of workers trained in the yard’s traditional way to workers trained using TWI JI training methods. The variables observed were: Safety, Quality, Efficiency, and Knowledge.  They were checked by direct observation by a expert observer.  The observed number of unsafe actions in the tradional group was 10 out of 120 times conducted while the observed number of unsafe actions in the TWI  group was just 2 of 315 times conducted. Quality issues observed in the tradtional group were 57 of 80 times conducted while quality issues observed in the TWI group were a mere 3 of 210.  The efficiency metrics in the tradtional group  was 71% and in the TWI group 119%, an improvement of 48%. Finally, knowledge retention, as measured by the workers’ ability to restate the important steps and key points in a job, in the traditional group was 61% and in the TWI group 92%, an improvement of 31%.   


Attribute Traditional Method TWI Method Delta
Safety Times Conducted Safely Unsafe Times Conducted Safely Unsafe  
Employee performed all tasks safely? 40 37 3 105 104 1
Employee used proper body positioning? 40 37 3 105 104 1
Employee used tools properly? 40 36 4 105 105 1
Total 120 110 10 315 313 2 8
Quality Times Conducted Without Issues With Issues Times Conducted Without Issues With Issues  
Employee performed tasks to meet quality standards? 40 23 17 105 103 2
Employee performed self inspection of completed task? 40 0 40 105 104 1
Total 80 23 57 210 207 3 54
Efficiency (minutes) Time Allotted Time Spent Efficiency Time Allotted Time Spent Efficiency  
Employee performed the task in allotted time? 27 38 71% 31 26 119% 48%
Knowledge Retention Instructor Steps Trainee Steps % Steps Retained Instructor Steps Trainee Steps % Steps Retained  
Number of Important Steps 17 15 88% 19 19 100%
Number of Key Points 30 14 47% 33 33 88%
Number of Reason for Key Points 12 7 58% 24 22 92%
Total 59 36 61% 76 70 92% 31%

That is a fast start by any measure!  This kind of simple research can serve as model to others implementing TWI who want to measure immediate impacts of the training through the comparison of selected performance indicators between those  trained in the old  way and those  trained using TWI JI.    

Patrick Graupp – TWI Institute Senior Master Trainer

Steve Grossman – TWI Institute Director


Productivity Press will be releasing the new book by Pat Graupp and Robert Wrona in December.  In Implementing TWI: Creating and Managing a Skills Based Culture, they present a compendium of exemplary TWI program implementations and argue for the need to gain active involvement of the entire enterprise to insure success.  

The best way to energize people is to provide them with the tools they need to get their jobs done in the most effective way. For the most part, people want to be proud of their work, and they want to be rewarded for the good job they do. The best way to channel that energy into positive workplace relationships is to provide supervisors with the skills they need to lead people just like TWI did during WWII, like Toyota has done since adopting TWI in 1951, and as you will learn from the case studies in this book.

The book contains case studies with contributions from the people who were there and lived the experience.  Two examples are presented below.

  Nixon Gear President Dean Burrows

Many companies approach economic downturns with the focus to reduce costs, reduce investment, and “hunker-down” for the impending storm. At Nixon Gear we used this as an opportunity to invest in the future of our company, employees, and customers. We weathered this storm with smart investment, strong cash management, and self-funding the improvements. Through the acceleration of Lean and the resurging use of TWI, we exit the recession with a stronger balance sheet than when we entered it. Although our volumes were down 40%, our stock value dipped only 5%. The improvements that were driven during this downturn, through Lean and TWI, allowed us to double our cash on hand, reduce our inventories by 43%, reduce lead times by 50%, while improving our margins. As we exit this recession, we find ourselves better positioned to exceed our customers’ expectations and to capitalize on business opportunities.

By dedicating the resources required, and committing the organization to implement the vision, success is inevitable. We may be busy, but we are never too busy to improve. We plan two to three kaizen events each month. As the improvements are implemented, they are locked-in and sustained with JI. In between our planned kaizen events, we coach employees on how to use JM to further drive the organization forward. Having a company resource and a well-trained workforce on TWI has made a measureable difference and distinction in our business. If you do not dedicate the time to improve, you will always find an excuse not to do it. You will be too busy, not have enough people, or create another excuse. As we improved our processes and freed up resources, thanks in good part to TWI, those resources were then used to improve other processes. It is a self-funding process.

 Albany International Plant Manager Scott Curtis

As the global downturn hit bottom, Albany International was dealing with many tough decisions, one of those being how to further reduce raw material costs. Faced with several suppliers running at less than full capacities and looking for opportunities to reduce costs through increased volume, we had to make some tough choices. One of those choices hinged on our ability to quickly absorb more volume without an interruption in service levels or quality. Based on the gains experienced over the last three years, in large part due to the TWI and Lean methodologies implemented, AIMP was fortunate enough to gain the market share to become the key monofilament supplier to the company. This decision did, however, result in the plant closure of another supplier. This could have been a different outcome for AIMP had we not experienced the improvements we had over the last three years. Moving forward, AIMP is in a much better position to react. The plant now has the training infrastructure and an improved ability to quickly respond to a rapidly changing world.

 Look for the book coming in December for the rest of the story!

Steven Grossman – Director TWI Institute


A special thank you goes out to all our Certified Trainers who took a few moments to fill out the survey emailed a couple of weeks ago.  A full report can be found on the TWI Institute website:


What follows is a brief summary – please leave comments – we love to know what you think.

Second Annual Survey of the TWI Institute Certified Trainers

In August 2010 we undertook the second annual survey of the TWI Institute Certified trainers.  The purpose of the survey was to find out the following:

  • How many of the TWI certified trainers were still active. If not – why not.
  • How many training classes they taught this year. 
  • How many people were trained?
  • How did this compare to last year?
  • If they plan to train more or less next year than this year.
  • What TWI Institute services they used this year.
  •  If they are interested in information about TWI Problem Solving Training.
  • What they would like to see at the TWI Summit next May.
  • What services they would like to see the TWI Institute provide next year.

The survey was sent via email to 304 Certified Trainers.   The TWI Institute trainers are located in 39 states in the U.S. and eight countries.  These certified trainers work in 100 client companies and 22 MEPs and a small number of private consulting firms. 

The survey was answered by 125 trainers, or 42 percent of the 304 delivered surveys.   The sample was a representative, self selected sample.   

  • Seventy-eight percent, of the respondents reported they were currently delivering training and working with TWI.  The rest provided a variety of reasons they were not active such as being laid off or promoted.  The active respondents averaged about 5 training classes this past year. They averaged 8.5 participants in each class.   About half said they delivered more than the prior year, about one-third delivered the same as last year and the remainder said they had fewer training deliveries.  Forty-one percent said they planned on more deliveries next year, 44 percent planned on the same and 15 percent said they planned on fewer next year. 
  • When asked what TWI Institute Services they used this year they responded as shown on the following table.
a)  Information on the website 79%
b) Information on the phone 35%
c)  Help from Master Trainers 36%
d)  Additional training 13%
e) Additional Train the Trainer 17%
f) Train the trainer for clients N/A Companies
  MEP 26%
g) The TWI Institute  Blog 47%
  •  When asked if they are interested in information about TWI Problem Solving Training 18% said yes, 28% said no, and 54% said they did not know.

The last two questions (8 &9) were open-ended.  Question 8 asked what they would like to see at the TWI Summit next May.  The respondents wanted a greater variety of topics,  metrics related to JI success, class delivery tips, on-site plant tours, round tables, TWI Problem Solving,  healthcare, Lean and job breakdown creation.

Question 9 asked what services they would like to see the TWI Institute provide next year. The respondents asked for access documents online, roll out strategy, Problem Solving Training, information on any updates or modifications made to materials, information about what other companies are doing, on-site consulting services allowing the TWI Trainer or Master Trainer to “coach” the TWI trainees, management training, Network of TWI trainers on the webpage, TWI materials in Spanish as part of the disk, and replacement wire sets that are the same as my original set.

The ability to generalize to the entire population is limited because the sampling was self selected from the pool of possible respondents. Having said that, we believe the survey revealed the average active Certified Trainer works in a company or MEP, holds about one class every two months which has 9 participants, plus observers, conducted about the same number of classes this past year as the year before and predicts the same for next year.   In addition, he or she uses the TWI Institute website, reads the blog, and doesn’t know enough about PS to make an informed decision. 

  The results of this years’ survey will inform planning for the rest of this year and next year, including plans to:

  • Run a webinar on pushing through corporate roadblocks when TWI projects get pushed to the side
  • Run a webinar on sustaining the TWI program (training is the beginning – not the end)
  • Run another webinar in TWI Problem Solving.
  • Develop more metrics for the impact of JI and JM
  • Update the Certified Trainer Data to insure continued accurate contact information. 
  • Continue to improve features and usefulness of the TWI Institute website.
  • Broaden the audience and authors on the TWI Institute blog.
  • Expand the post training coaching for Certified Trainers.
  • Continue to work with MEP trainers to increase the referrals for Train the Trainer
  • Give Certified Trainers more information on other than training TWI maintenance activities necessary to sustain the program. 
  • Update the breakout sessions at the TWI Summit to appeal to a more experienced audience.
  • Follow –up on TWI Institute service requests.
  • Continue to increase the TWI Healthcare data base
  • Create a network of trainers
  • Follow-up with another survey next August updated to eliminate confusing wording, ask more questions about TWI Institute services and Certified Trainers job descriptions. 

Steve Grossman – Director

A Visit to Toyota

Recently, Bob Wrona and I made a presentation to a continuous improvement group from an international company at their annual CI conference.  The day before our presentation they invited us along on a tour they were taking of the Toyota, Georgetown  Kentucky complex. I’m sure many of you have been there.  I wonder if, like me, you were in awe of the size and complexity of this operation?      

Unlike the general public, following the standard tour, we had the opportunity to meet with an Operations Manager.  He spoke to us about the Toyota Production System (TPS).   He talked about the role of the team leader and identified two key components. First, treat the team members with respect and second  keep the workers from needing to do anything “abnormal” (his word.)   Of course the second component got people’s attention. What did he mean by “abnormal”?  He explained that the workers were trained to follow standardized work and complete their tasks in a prescribed manner and timeframe. If they were busy  solving problems and/or looking for the causes of those problems; they are not doing their standardized work and therefore doing something out of the ordinary or “abnormal”.  The team leader’s job is to  take this burden from  the team member whenever a problem is identified  and get them back to “normal” as soon as possible.    

How do they get back to “normal”?  Through standardized work which, once codified, must be trained to and followed with care.  On the toyotageorgetown website Teruyuki Minoura says: “It’s important to create a climate in which people are trained to follow rules and standards as if they were second nature  … This kind of reflexive response is a hallmark of Toyota’s monozukuri.”  (process of making things)

The website goes on to define standardized work. It consists of three elements: Takt-Time, Working Sequence, and Standard In-Process Stock.  “Takt-Time” is the time which should be taken to produce a component on one vehicle. This timing mechanism is based on the monthly production schedule. Daily total operating time is figured on the basis of all machinery operating at 100% efficiency during regular working hours. The takt time allows us to produce many parts of many different types for use in vehicles on the production schedule and to supply those parts to each process on the assembly line at the proper time. This keeps production on schedule and permits a flexible response to a change in sales.  Working Sequence refers to the sequence of operations in a single process which leads a floor worker to produce quality goods efficiently and in a manner which reduces overburden and minimizes the threat of injury or illness. Standard In-Process Stock is the minimum quantity of parts always on hand for processing on and between sub-processes. It allows the worker to do his job continuously in a set sequence of sub-processes, repeating the same operation over and over in the same order.”  (

 Reading between the lines we see the indelible outline of Job Instruction (JI).  People must be trained to follow  a process that leads a floor worker to do their job correctly,  safely, and conscientiously; with a  set sequence of steps repeated over and over, in the same order.  

When the manager was asked about how they do problem solving, he replied: “The tendency is to jump to a solution before getting to the root of the problem”. He talked about the need to return to the standardized work to make sure the problem is not imbedded in it.  So, he said, we ask the team member to go through the job step by step and recite the key points to us. Sound familiar?  The assumption is they have been trained and know the Important Steps and Key Points (and, I assume, the reasons why).  We didn’t have time to talk about their entire training program, which is quite extensive,  but clearly JI is in there.  

It’s one thing to read about Toyota (TPS)  and how they do things and quite another to see it for yourself. I recommend it.   


Last month we said: “The TWI Institute and University of Phoenix have completed an articulation agreement to provide continuing education credits  under their Prior Learning Assessment program.  The following ten hour  TWI Institute classes are approved for  0.5 credits: Job instruction Training; Job Relations Training; Job Methods Training; Job Safety Training.  Following successful completion of the corresponding ten hour class, the following 40 hour train the trainer classes are approved for 2.5 credits:  Job Instruction Train the Trainer;  Job Relations Train the Trainer; Job Methods Train the Trainer; Job Safety Train the Trainer.  The combination of the two equal a three credit undergraduate course.   We were pleased to be selected to participate in this program.  For more information go to: ”

We are now on the list. Go the webpage and scroll down, select “stuv”, find “TWI Institute…” , and click.  If you are going to or have recently taken TWI training contact  UP for information.  


Coaching redux

We did a blog last September on TWI Institute coaching and are finding a spike in interest in it as we move into mid-summer of 2010.  Companies are now building coaching into the initial TWI training plan.  A typical scenario is a week of JI/JR training for XYZ Company followed by three days of coaching after a month of practice.  Another scenario is a JI training followed by two, one day coaching sessions, after three weeks and six weeks. Whatever the design, the purpose is the same: review the skills learned; observe the practice; improve the practice.    All the best have coaches, batting coaches for baseball stars, swing coaches for golf champions, speech coaches for politicians, and acting coaches for Oscar winners.  Yet, when we take a training course that teaches us skills in leading, or instructing, or improving methods, or improving safety, or problem solving,  we are reluctant to look to a coach to improve our performance.  At the TWI Institute we are encouraging coaching for our initial training and especially for our recent Certified Trainers because this is the best way to maximize the return on the training investment already made.  


Many thanks to Terry Cox (Dakota MEP) and Al Engstrom, Plant Manager at Giant Snacks for this impact statement.  It shows how powerful JI can be in a relatively small business and  how easy it is to measure its impact.


Giant Snacks, LLC, a family-owned business located in Wahpeton, N.D., got its start back in 1958 when Bob Schuler began selecting the absolute best tasting sunflowers for his customers. Bob’s son Jay, Schuler has dedicated over 30 years towards making sunflower seeds a bigger and better seed eating experience.  Continuing on with the family tradition, Jay’s brother Tom runs the online store and Jay’s two sons, work as sales representatives. Currently they employ 35 people.


As part of Giant Snacks continuous improvement program, which involves getting input from every employee, and having discussion with Dakota MEP, it was concluded that a more structured training program would be a benefit to the organization. Because Giant relies heavily on a multi-functional, cross-trained workforce, they wanted to make a significant reduction in the learning curve for both new employees as well as cross-training of existing employees.


Through learning about the Continuous Improvement process and determining where training fit into their program, Dakota MEP helped Giant employees learn to use the Job Instruction Training module of Training Within Industry. Every employee was trained in the four-step Job Instruction method, how to break down jobs and how to prepare a training timetable. Standard work was created through breaking down the jobs and creating digital photographs of critical processes. After each breakdown was completed, employees were brought together to form consensus on how to do the job, resulting in every person doing the job in a similar manner and ultimately stabilizing Giant’s processes.


Giant now uses Job Instruction training to create job breakdowns and standard work, as well as applies the four-step method, to train new and existing employees. As a result, the learning curve for new employees was reduced by 66 2/3%. Film waste was improved by 63% totaling monthly recuperating savings of $1, 137.87. In the past that would have been considered common scrap and a cost of doing business.


“In talking with my internal trainers, they found employees feel the new training program gives them a better opportunity to get to know new employees on a personal/professional level enabling them to know when they are ready to advance to the next level of training. Statistically, we went from a 6-8 month training curve down to 6-8 weeks. This is a huge improvement and it shows in the attitudes of new employees and their knowledge of the job at hand. I am very pleased with how this turned out for the company and all the employees involved in this program.”

—Al Engstrom, Plant Manager

Tag Cloud