The essence of the Value Stream Mapping tool

In 1999 the Portuguese version of the workbook by John Shook and Mike Rother "Aprendendo a Enxergar" (Learning to See) was launched. One of its most important purposes was to give lean practitioners a perspective that went beyond improvements to individual processes. Many companies in Brazil were used to the concept of continuous improvement (or kaizen), but as a rule they did not focus these improvements systemically.

The value stream perspective had already been pointed out in "Lean Thinking," by Womack and Jones, as fundamental to the lean transformation, but the next step was missing: a tool capable of looking at value-adding processes horizontally. This meant breaking with the traditional perspective of examining departments or functions and emphasizing the activities, actions and their connections in order to create value and make it flow, from suppliers all the way to end customers.

With more than 2,600 workbooks in circulation and more than 50 workshops held by us at the Lean Institute in companies of various sectors, sizes, complexities, etc., we have observed that this tool has helped countless companies in Brazil move from isolated improvements to systemic efficiency. However, there are still some inadequacies in its use that deserve to be addressed in order to preserve its essence. It is worth remembering that these mistakes occur in several countries, as the workbook's own authors point out in their most recent talks and articles.

Confusing means with ends

Mapping all the value streams of an organization can be a relevant exercise. Many people fall in love with the tool and apply it broadly, mapping everything. But much more important and, in truth, the only thing that matters, is concrete action in implementing the defined future states. Since resources are limited, including the time of those responsible for the mapping, mapping for mapping's sake is not a valid strategy.

Value Stream Mapping is only a means of improving your organization's performance, which is, after all, the true end.

So we suggest:

- Focus efforts on the value streams that require substantial improvement from a broad perspective, with the business objective at its core;

- Clearly understand the current situation - not only the problems (symptoms), but also why they occur;

- Define improvement targets for the chosen product families (e.g., for some, the priority may be to reduce costs through less rework, higher machine utilization, etc.; for others, to free up physical space to enable an expansion or to reduce lead time to increase responsiveness to market variations); ideally, define indicators and numerical targets from the start. An alternative may be to define qualitative objectives, which can later be quantified;

- Define and seek consensus on a future state that can be reached within 6 months to a year, with little investment;

- Define and implement an action plan with clear responsibilities, tasks and targets to be achieved;

- Once the future state has been implemented, start mapping again, because implemented future states become current states. This should be the dynamic of continuous improvement.

Value Stream Mapping cannot be delegated

Responsibility for the mapping and, therefore, for defining and implementing the future state must lie with senior management: it needs to get directly involved, personally walk the value streams and explicitly support the effort. This guarantees the relevance of the future state and that senior management, at least manufacturing management, will be familiar with the new language, will know the current state well and will demand the implementation of the future state.

Leaving responsibility for the maps to technical staff, process engineers or even those responsible for lean coordination means taking unnecessary risks that, however interesting the proposed improvements may be, implementation will be compromised.

Moreover, prioritizing actions and determining measures of gains without senior management's involvement can be imprecise, making the proposals much less attractive than they could or should be.

Value Stream Mapping is different from traditional process maps

Process maps generally focus on individual processes and not on the material and information flows related to product families. The future-state vision is defined on the basis of often obvious prospects for improvements to be made, without taking into account lean principles, which are capable of generating ever leaner value streams.

Don't be dazzled by inventory levels and the possibilities of reducing them

It is very common for people to be disappointed, and at the same time fascinated, when they find high levels of inventory in their value streams, whether of raw materials, products in transit or finished goods. Simply converting these numbers into financial values helps people glimpse significant gains that are immediate and seemingly easy to achieve. Measuring inventory levels helps to measure lead time, a very important indicator. But inventory accumulations bring us an "invisible" message: they point to where the flow is interrupted. Our task is to understand why this happens and to identify what can be done to improve the flow from raw material to finished product.

Don't clutter the maps

Some companies add unnecessary information to the maps, such as the cost of inventories, the distance between workstations, the number of forklifts used, etc., cluttering the map with "smoke" that makes it impossible to see what is essential. Days of work are often spent gathering this not very useful information. Using the basic parameters (C/T, C/O and Uptime) is enough to design a better future state. The goal is not to produce complete and perfect maps. A good map is one that makes it possible to clearly envision the change.

Choose the right altitude

Looking from too far away means not being able to see the current state precisely and having no vision of the future. Looking too closely means seeing only isolated, not systemic, improvements. Understanding the current state is harder than it may seem, especially from the perspective suggested by Shook and Rother. After years of analyzing and improving individual processes, it is difficult for most managers to look at value streams from high above, seeing the door-to-door flow as a whole. A first approach may not contain many details of the individual processes, nor is that the initial objective. A brief walk along the value stream allows you to glimpse, in very broad terms, only a first view of the current state.

Define improvements that can be made within one year

Mike Rother and John Shok teach us that a future state defined with an excessive number of kaizens, more than 6, possibly means going far beyond the future state that can be achieved within a period of up to one year. An ideal-state map can be a good vision of the future, two to five years ahead. But, as a rule, it is not very operational, because it paralyzes the team in the face of the investments required and other factors that prevent immediate action; adopting a "future map 1," whose action plan can start tomorrow, with results reaped in 6 months, is essential for taking the steps needed to gradually reach the ideal state.

Draw up action plans, not study plans, and monitor their implementation daily

It is essential for top management to take part by making clear the priority of implementing the designed future state, its expected implementation deadlines and the resources (mainly human) that must be allocated. Without this determination, there is a risk of "action" plans with months-long activities, of the type "study the possibility of such a change...", where weeks-long activities such as "implement such a change..." would be possible. Once the action plan has been drawn up, its execution must be monitored daily, removing obstacles one by one as they arise. And they may arise, paralyzing the team, if the determination to change is not very solid.

Many companies have used the current-state map as a justification for problems. Don't waste time that way. The power of the tool is its simplicity and its power to bring about change, serving as a monitoring mechanism. But avoid becoming enchanted with the tool itself: remember that it is only a means, whose essence must be understood and always remembered.

In sharing these insights we are under no illusion that we are providing an "infallible implementation recipe," but we are certain that spreading the lessons learned, from many cases of application and observation, can be useful to all those who intend to make Value Stream Mapping a tool capable of supporting real transformation in their companies.