The cost of doing it twice

The problem it solves

Doing a job the second time costs almost what it cost the first time and earns nothing. That is the whole arithmetic of rework, and it explains how an operation can be full of activity and capable people and still leave little behind at month end.

Waste in a small operation stays invisible because it has no line of its own. It is distributed: into the material cut wrong and binned without comment, the order corrected three times by phone, the trip made because a part was missing, the hours someone spent waiting on an approval that came the next morning, the report prepared every month because somebody asked for it once years ago and nobody has checked whether they still read it.

When cost pressure arrives, the usual response is to cut what can be seen: headcount, hours, purchasing. The waste survives untouched and is redistributed across fewer hands, so the operation gets worse and the rework grows. What was never examined is the process, which is where the consumption happens, and that part does not present itself: somebody has to go and look at the place where the work is done.

What it covers

The day is spent walking the operation rather than discussing it in a room. The group follows the real flow of work, receiving, preparation, execution and delivery, hunting for one thing: consumption that never turns into something a client pays for. Material, hours, movement, space, attention. Whatever turns up is noted where it turns up, without debating remedies yet, because arguing about fixes at the point of discovery stops the search.

The second part sorts the findings by type, because each type has a different remedy and confusing them is what sinks cost reduction campaigns. Waiting is not solved the way rework is, and over-ordering is not solved the way unnecessary movement is. Rework gets particular attention, with each case traced back to where the error started rather than where it was caught, which usually sit in different areas with different people.

Then comes the uncomfortable conversation about work done out of inertia: reports nobody reads, double checks left over from a problem already fixed, copies kept just in case. In a group exercise each one faces the same question, what would happen if it stopped, and the group decides what goes, what shrinks and what stays with a written reason beside it.

The day closes by ranking. Fixes are ordered by effort and by effect, starting with the reversible ones, and each gets an owner and a date. The group also sets the standing review that heads off the most common pattern in this kind of work: an intense campaign, a visible improvement, and a quiet return to the starting point within months, once nobody remembers why anything was changed.

What participants learn

• Identify, by walking the operation, the consumption that never becomes value for the client.
• Analyse waste by type so each kind receives the remedy that fits it.
• Interpret a rework case back to the point where the error originated.
• Evaluate the work done out of inertia and decide what is dropped and what is kept.
• Prioritise the fixes by effort and by effect, starting with the reversible ones.

Agenda

1. 01Types of waste and how they look in a small operation
2. 02Rework: where the error begins and where it is caught
3. 03Waiting: on material, on information, on approval, on availability
4. 04Movement and transport nobody questions because it was always that way
5. 05Over-ordering to avoid running short, and what it ties up
6. 06Work that continues because somebody asked for it once
7. 07Ranking fixes by effort and by effect
8. 08A standing review so the waste does not quietly return

What the organisation leaves with

• A map of the operation with waste points marked and sorted by type.
• A list of rework cases with the origin of the error identified for each.
• A ranked list of fixes with an owner and a date against each one.
• A defined review rhythm so the waste does not quietly accumulate again.