Continuous Improvement. In a manufacturing plant, it is often closely related to ‘Lean’: the elimination of any ‘waste’ within the production process – whereby anything which does not represent the creation of value for the customer is redundant. In other words: slimming down. Wim Lobeek, Manager Continuous Improvement, recalls an example. “When we were reviewing steps in the assembly line, an operator used a hammer to hit a brace. With every reoccurring product. We asked him why. “Well, the brace needs just a little additional bending, else it won’t fit.” was his answer. Naturally, it makes sense to ensure that when the brace is initially bent, it’s done properly. But for the operator, the extra step had became so common, he no longer questioned it”.

Another term: FMEA. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis. “In 2006, when we set up our improvement team, our first priority was to reduce the number of errors which occurred during production. For this, you review every step. In what precise way is this operation meant to improve the product? And what could go wrong? Take, for instance, the operation of welding a hinge on the body of a safe. If this weld is flawed in any way, it may very well remain undetected during production. It could even result in a malfunction of the door during use by the client. That would constitute a very serious error, to be avoided at all costs. You therefore assign a high risk factor to this event, and subsequently look at ways to eliminate its occurrence. One measure would be to permanently fasten the dials on the welding device that you want to never vary. With FMEA, you thus review every step, determine the main risks, and measures to counter them. You then implement these measures, evidently starting with the severest risks.”

To design operation which are ‘fool-proof’ – impossible to execute erroneous – is known as ‘Poka Yoke’, another term originating from Toyota, a company known for its pioneering implementation of ‘Lean’. An example of such a fool-proof design is the SIM card, which, as a result of its angled edge, can only be fitted into a mobile phone in one way. A concept Wim Lobeek and his team utilised to effectively eliminate errors while mounting locks onto safes. There are many kinds of locks which Gunnebo offers for safes: combination locks, the more traditional locks with a key, and electronically controlled locks. Every lock consists of many components, and it used to be difficult to oversee if any component was overlooked while assembling. Wim Lobeek: “The measure to overcome this proved to be relatively simple to set up, but yielded a very effective improvement with immediate results. We implemented a system of boxes. Each box would contain all components for either one, or a batch of safes. The concept is simple: when a box contains parts after a series of locks is completed, at some point, a part has been forgotten. These kind of seemingly small changes throughout our production process really leapfrogged the quality of our products during the first years of continuous improvement.”

This analytical dissection of the production process, and the persistent implementation of improvements – it all took place during years in which the way Gunnebo produced safes was fundamentally changing. As recent as at the millennium, products like safes, cash-deposit boxes, cell-doors and vaults were manufactured by dedicated teams. The decline in the market for these products coincided with a fast increase in demand for ATM safes – not by the dozens, but by the thousands. Moreover, the efficient assembly of an ATM, with many components and electronics, requires a high level of standardisation of dimensions and accuracy of manufacturing. It required a closely controlled high-volume production, with an assembly process which is efficiently designed as a string of repetitive operations. In other words: where each worker used to contribute to many stages of the construction of a single safe, he now repeated a single, confined operation on a stream of safes passing his ‘station’ within the assembly line. Aided by the expertise offered by a customer, Gunnebo started to implement the concepts of Lean. And although many were a little hesitant at first, it soon became clear that this systematic approach brought the improvements that were urgently required.

“Our manufacturing process has become steady, uniform and productive. Looking back at the first years of producing via an assembly line, I could be very disorderly, with an ad hoc approach to malfunctions and last minute orders. “This batch should be painted now, so I can be shipped tomorrow”. My main concern at that time, as a production manager, was channelling the correct products in a correct sequence through the assembly line. We simply did not have sufficient insight into our processes, and any measures we contemplated made us more aware of how we lacked a structured approach to improvements. It was time to act. We set up an improvement team of which I became manager. And, with the help of a customer, we began a thorough analysis of our process, in 5 or 6 sessions, each of a week, in which we went through a part of our assembly line, and devised a coherent and practical outline of a more efficient setup.”

“It is good to, once in a while, look back and become more aware how things have improved over time. When I had just joined Gunnebo, we worked in a 2-shift system to overcome a huge increase in demand. Each shift had an increased staffing, we worked on Saturdays, and even – voluntary – on Sundays. With combined efforts we managed to manufacture 683 safes in one week. And everyone said: “There’s no topping this. If we want to manufacture even more safes, we’ll need more spray booths, maybe even a night-shift.” And now, with a single shift, we produce over 800 safes weekly. Lean – to some it may seem a ‘fashionable’ thing, but it has considerably raised our results, above expectations.”

“The persistent application of FMEA, with the help of our operators and team leaders, has lead to a multitude of improvements of our products. It has substantially reduced the chance there are errors in our ATM-safes. Our customers measure these errors in PPM – the number of errors per a million products. In 2006, the level of PPM was around 4000. Today, we have managed to reduce that to zero, when you look at the past year. No errors whatsoever. Mind you, there do occur a few marginal errors which our customers don’t actually consider to be errors – we ourselves however do treat them as such. But even then, the level does not exceed 200. Our processes have absolutely professionalised significantly. “

“Continuous Improvement – that’s something you can follow through with indefinitely, applied to ever smaller details, and every emerging viewpoint on manufacturing. It definitely is necessary to continuously monitor if your processes, which you consider to be efficient, may be designed to be even better. But there’s an economic side to it – efforts to improve must, in the end, create added value. We’re not a company which should operate similar to the Automotive industry, nor should we aspire to use clean-rooms. But we do need to pursue an ongoing automation, as we now do with the Gunnebo 2020 programme. To produce more economically, and to still further raise the quality of our products. Automation results in less deviations in our products. Our customers demand a lower purchase price, and these better tolerances. To me, automation is both necessary and hugely beneficial. I am convinced it will, in the coming years, bring significant changes to this factory. “