The page has been updated, to more closely align with the videos. Thanks for pointing out the confusion. Round 1 requires 7 people (6 workers, 1 timer), Round 2 requires 7 people (4 workers, 1 manager, 1 material handler, 1 timer), and Round 3 requires 5 people (4 workers, 1 timer). Hopefully that helps. If not, let us know.

Participants
4 Workers
1 Quality Assurance Worker
1 Timer Worker (person that times in seconds)

Then:

First of all, you need six total volunteers. Four will serve as workers. One will be a manager and one will be a material handler.

Then:

The lead time for the X plane was one minute. There were six people producing.

Can you please clarify exactly who is doing what, and who are the people “producing” – is that the whole team? equally is the QA worker the material handler during the game and the QA after or is it something different? Also is the manager the timer worker, therefore how is their role redundant or are they a worker as well (therefore meaning there are five people building planes)? or are they just a Manager?

Many thanks 🙂

I have tested the game with my team, and we enjoyed it. Thanks for sharing it!

However, I feel a little bit uncomfortable with the proposed Data Collection table.

For each round, we have measured the time elapsed to complete 20 QA-accepted airplanes. Let’s say duration for round #2 is 5’10”. What can we conclude at this step? If I am right, an external observer can only conclude that the average throughput of the factory equals 3.9 airplanes per minute.

Next, given that the total WIP is 4 airplanes in my example, we can conclude that the average cycle time equals 4 / 3.9 = 1 minute by applying Little’s Law.

Therefore, the order of computation for each round would be: duration for 20 airplanes -> throughput; throughput and WIP -> CT.

However, if one read the proposed Data Collection table, from left to right, the suggested order of computation is merely: throughput -> CT; WIP and CT -> TPH.

Is there a mistake in the way I have interpreted the suggested computations?

I’ve done this with envelope stuffing and added the round 3 which led to discussions about cross-training, importance of skill, generalist vs specialist, when to combine responsibilities vs split them, etc.

I would use the same discussion topics for the earlier rounds so the learning opportunities shouldn’t be missed but more concepts are added in round 3.

Hi Jason,

No I haven’t; I think that approach would miss a few learning opportunities. The assembly line approach enforces dependency, reveals constraints, encourages teamwork (or finger pointing), etc.

What are your thoughts on this? There are also variations on the same experiment – with lego blocks, etc.

Pete

There are numerous operational aspects that you can highlight while using simple games such as this, depending on what it is that you want the key take-aways to be:
– Who is responsible for quality here – How can we stop creating or at least not pass defects as we saw in this exercise?
– How our work links to the financial performance of our company – What are the input costs and outputs of the current and trial methods and why is this improvement important to our company and customers?
– Redefining the role of shop floor management – Who is responsible for fixing these problems? How is it done today – what should we do going forward based on what we learned today? Go and See, Facts vs. Data.

Have fun!