Designing, operating and improving a lubricants plant in an effective and efficient manner can be a big and oftentimes daunting job. Fortunately, those who are tasked with doing so have a few valuable tools at their disposal to make the job more manageable. One such tool that I found useful throughout my career was TIMWOOD—an acronym that represents the seven major wastes of the LEAN methodology, which is a set of management principles that focus on optimizing processes and maximizing value.
Before I explain how TIMWOOD has served me in my career, I must introduce a few other terms and ideas that helped to guide my thinking. For instance, “first in, first out” (FIFO) was an important term that I came across in my early days as a student of materials management in the early 1980s. At the time, supply chain management—in its current form—hardly existed. While there was some degree of interconnectedness, logistics, distribution, purchasing and stores management were components that existed independently.
Years later, I read “Seven Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen Covey. With the knowledge that the book imparted, FIFO began to assume a different level of strategic sense to me. For example, prioritization was a key habit discussed in “Seven Habits” that appeared to me to be similar to FIFO. Both principles resonated with me at that time in my career. Similarly, the term “first things first” appeared similar to FIFO and helped my learning to continue.
It was at this point that I became a LEAN practitioner, which led me to adopt the principles of TIMWOOD. TIMWOOD—which outlines the major categories of waste in most processes—very much resonated with me, as it seemed to piggyback on my previous understanding of what it takes to be efficient and effective, which I had learned from “Seven Habits.” The main difference was that while one methodology (“Seven Things”) worked on improvement and effectiveness, the other (TIMWOOD) worked from the backend by focusing on eliminating inefficiencies and waste.
I found that the momentum from FIFO, to “first things first,” to TIMWOOD was energizing, timely and helped me to solve problems quickly and effectively. However, TIMWOOD is something that I have adopted not just as a tactical tool to eliminate waste or improve safety management but also as a structured “strategic tool” to help me make key decisions about plant design as well as operations improvements.
Furthermore, when reconfigured into a quantitative scoring template, TIMWOOD has helped me for quite some time to present and evaluate options. It has also aided other stakeholders by accounting for feedback on their unique challenges and thoughts. Overall, I have found that TIMWOOD has helped the collective stakeholders to arrive at a consensus.
A Quick Introduction to TIMWOOD
I’ve discussed the general theory of TIMWOOD, but now let’s get into an overview of its concepts, after which we will jump into the structured framework of its application.
TIMWOOD consists of seven areas in which waste can occur. Those areas, along with key defining points and examples of each, are summarized below:
Transportation
- This is a process involving movement from point A to point B that must be done in the most effective manner.
- Eliminate or minimize waste in this flow. That is to say, improve the effective flow as well as the speed of it.
- For example, a typical conveyor movement must be optimal and not route circuitously for any reason.
Inventory
- Inventory—essentially the stocks of any process, WIP included—must be maintained at an optimal level.
- Avoid excessive stocking, as this may be an indicator of a buffer that one is trying to keep to suppress the inefficiency of a predecessor or successor activity.
- For example, keep safety stocks for raw materials or finished products as opposed to JIT inventories, where possible.
Motion
- Any movement to conduct a process or sub-process, including human actions, must be optimal.
- For example, how and where heavy parts versus light components are stored will affect optimization.
Waiting
- Obvious as it may sound, this is any additional process time consumed due to lag of dependent tasks.
- For example, one may have to wait for quality control approval before starting a batch filling process.
Overprocessing
- This consists of excessive steps taken to perform a task.
- An example would be flushing a system before blending, flushing again before filling, and so on.
Overproduction
- Related to inventory, overproduction includes excessive and unintended production.
- An example is filling or blending more volumes than demand and orders dictate to meet certain process constraints.
Defects
- As the name suggests, this involves classic defective or noncomplying parts or batches. It is directly related to the quality performance.
- In this aspect, you want to get it right the first time. You will need to consider how to be at 100% correctness—or within the typical six sigma levels.
As logical as the concepts of the principle seem, the TIMWOOD approach to process improvement is a shop floor-based, bottom-up approach and is typically combined with Kaizen initiatives on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the approach goes hand in hand with structured safety walks, and many times the identified wastes are linked in some way to an unsafe act or condition, or both.
TIMWOOD Application and Decision Making
As you may have already gathered, I have derived tremendous joy in the application of TIMWOOD. In the lubricants business, we are constantly faced with several potential solutions to problems. For instance, alternative plant designs are generally reviewed, analyzed and decided upon qualitatively. That is to say that subjectivity is ever-present in such situations, and it is never easy to arrive at a consensus choice.
Figure 1. TIMWOOD Framework Assessment
| Principal | TIMWOOD element | Design Option Filling Line Supplier 1 | TIMWOOD Score 1 | Design Option Filling Line Supplier 2 | TIMWOOD Score 2 | Design Option Filling Line Supplier 3 | TIMWOOD Score 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Principle | TIMWOOD element | Design Option Filling Line Supplier 1 | TIMWOOD Score 1 | Design Option Filling Line Supplier 2 | TIMWOOD Score 2 | Design Option Filling Line Supplier 3 | TIMWOOD Score 3 |
| Principle | TIMWOOD element | Key assessment points (+/-) | Score (1-5) (Low-high) | Key assessment points (+/-) | Score (1-5) (Low-high) | Key assessment points (+/-) | Score (1-5) (Low-high) |
| 1 | Transport | The end to end transportation by conveyor and transfer conveyors is shorter due to intrinsic design of the line-efficient capex and opex | 4 | The transfer between capper and downstream is especially longer and consumes more space and time | 2 | More optimal than Option 2 but comparitively still less efficient | 3 |
| 2 | Inventory | Not appreciably different in each option | 5 | Not appreciably different in each option | 5 | Not appreciably different in each option | 5 |
| 3 | Motion | Inefficent motion within capper and rejection mechanism | 3 | Efficient motion within all systems | 4 | Efficient motion within all systems | 4 |
| 4 | Waste | All equiipments are designed efficiently and offer good solution | 4 | Additional issues foreseen on certain equipments such as inkjet printer | 3 | Additional issues foreseen on certain equipments such as case packer | 3 |
| 5 | Overprocessing | Ideal in most places and efficient | 4 | S conveyors and carton printing have additional operations not foreseen in others | 2 | U conveyors and carton foil sealing machines have additional operations not foreseen in others | 2 |
| 6 | Overproduction | Not relevant | 0 | Not relevant | 0 | Not relevant | 0 |
| 7 | Defect | All equipments meeting international standards - track record and performance good | 4 | Some equipments such as case packer and inkjet are of non standard specification adapted locally - no performance record | 2 | Some equipments such as capper and no foil detectors are of non standard specification adapted locally - no performance record | 2 |
| Total Score | max 30 | 24 | 18 | 19 |
The template displayed in Figure 1 is an illustration of a structured TIMWOOD model to be used for decision making. Some guidelines for implementing this framework are provided below:
- The framework is an adapted assessment table based on TIMWOOD elements. If some of the TIMWOOD elements are not very relevant, such elements may not be assessed or scored.
- The scoring pattern and matrix is based on convenience. The assessment team may choose to adapt any convenient scoring pattern, as per operational needs.
- While each of the TIMWOOD elements are scored equally in the illustrative assessment in Figure 1, I have also come across situations wherein the assessment team placed a varying degree of impact on each element. In such cases, weights have been added to each of the elements. For example, transportation may be weighed 50%, while defects may be weighed 20%, and so on. Thus, the final assessment will be based on a weighted average score of all elements, unlike the simple sum comparison, as shown in Figure 1.
- While the focal point—in essence, the project or process team responsible—may initiate this assessment, the assessment is better completed by a cross-functional team. This will help to avoid subjectivity or bias in the assessment.
- Once the assessment is completed, this assessment provides a clear and quantitative comparison of each of the options on the table. As can be seen in the table in Figure 1, Supplier Option 1 is the most favorable option in this case.
- Suffice it to say that this review is entirely process-oriented and more technical in nature. Commercial views are not yet considered in this evaluation and are out of the scope of this review.
TIMWOOD Versus Seven Habits
As I discussed in the beginning of this article, the concepts of TIMWOOD enabled me to reflect more deeply on process orientation based on my earlier exposure to Stephen Covey’s “Seven Habits.” Clearly, I found some deeper comparisons between the two, as both had similar efficiency improvement goals at the forefront of their arguments. In Figure 2, I’ve attempted to provide comparisons between the two (arguably synergistic) schools in an effort to provoke thought in the readers of this article. I hope you may find my comparisons useful when and if you implement TIMWOOD.
Figure 2. Seven Habits Versus TIMWOOD
| Seven Habits Element | TIMWOOD Element |
|---|---|
| Begin with the end in mind: Keep clear goals in focus and always be in sync with that. Do not drain resources. | Inventory: While meeting demand, do not create excess inventory or drain resources. |
| First things first: Have a clear priority (urgent versus important). | Waiting: Priority is the key for this deliverable (urgent versus important). |
| Be proactive: Focus on the goals at hand and respond effectively. | Overproduction: Focus on the demand at hand and respond effectively. |
| Win-win approach: Trade-offs in decision making and mutual benefit orientation is key. | Motion: Trade-offs in movement and integrated benefit realization is key. |
| Seek first to understand, then be understood: Prioritize listening versus speaking. Ensure measured efforts. | Defects: Getting it right the first time is key. Understand specs and get ideal results. |
| Synergize: Good teamwork and collaboration lead to the best results between and within teams. | Transportation: No process is an island. Transport effectively and achieve optimal results. |
| Sharpen the saw: Self-development and improvement leads to improvement in all seven habits. | Overprocessing: Progress optimally, and intelligently process and challenge need. |
As I conclude this article, I think it may be apt to say that the comparison of “Seven Habits” to TIMWOOD is purely my own reflection, and I found it interesting to share with other lubricant professionals. My hope is that this will kindle your creative juices and perhaps lead you to your own unique conclusions. Overall, I would urge you to have fun with TIMWOOD. I have found it to be a powerful quantitative tool, and you may, too! That’s why I truly believe that TIMWOOD is an unsung hero of operations excellence.
With this mindset, I look forward to the future of lubricants supply chain management and operations excellence with both confidence and optimism.
Ganesan Ganapathi has 40 years of experience as a supply chain and manufacturing professional with leading oil companies such as BP, Shell, Total and Bharat Petroleum. While leading operations, supply chain and plant management with these companies, Ganesan has noteworthy contributions in the space of Strategic and Master Planning of Supply Chain and Manufacturing. He can be contacted via LinkedIn.