Kaizen Done the IE Way: Using Operations Analysis to Improve Any Work Process (or

System) in Any Manufacturing Facility

Shahrukh A. Irani
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (832) 475-4447,
LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shahrukh-irani-8b25a55/
Website: www.LeanandFlexible.com

What is Operations Analysis?

According to (Groover, 2007), the Work Measurement and Methods Standards Subcommittee
[ANSI Standard Z94.11-1989] defines Methods Engineering as “that aspect of Industrial
Engineering concerned with the analysis and design of work methods and systems, including the
technological selection of operations or processes, specification of equipment type and location,
design of manual and worker-machine tasks. (It) may include the design of controls to insure
proper level of output, inventory, quality and cost.”

According to (Groover, 2007), the Work Measurement and Methods Standards Subcommittee
[ANSI Standard Z94.11-1989] defines Operations Analysis as “a study of an operation or scenes
of operations involving people, equipment and processes for the purpose of investigating the
effectiveness of specific operations or groups so that improvements can be developed which will
raise productivity, reduce costs, improve quality, reduce accident hazards and attain other desired
objectives.”

History and Evolution of the Methodology

Today, the course INDE6378 is the first of two courses on Lean that I teach to graduate
students enrolled in the MIE (Masters in Industrial Engineering) offered by the Department of
Industrial Engineering at the University of Houston. This course is an introduction to Lean
whereas the follow-on course, INDE6377, is an introduction to Job Shop Lean. In
INDE6378, I teach how to map, analyze and improve the material flows in a work system by
using a combination of Lean, Theory of Constraints and Operations Analysis. Figure 1
presents a high-level outline of this methodology to improve any work process (or system).

However, the origin of this course was INDE531, an undergraduate course on Work Study,
that I began teaching at The Ohio State University circa 1999. In those early years, I dutifully
taught all the charting and diagramming techniques that IEs use for Operations Analysis such
as Assembly Precedence Diagram, Operations Process Chart, Flow Process Chart, Flow
Diagram, Man-Machine Chart and Gantt Chart from the textbook (Groover, 2007). During
the COVID years, I recorded this Zoom lecture titled Improving the Toast Production System
using Operations Analysis on how to analyze and improve the ToPS (Hyperlink). Since
1999, the case study that I have used to teach this methodology is the simple-yet-effective
ToPS (Toast Production System) featured in the Toast Kaizen video (Hyperlink). In case this
video is not available online for (free) public viewing, you can “figure out” the work system
if you see these (free) online videos:
1. Introduction to the Toast Kaizen Video
2. Current State of the Toast Production System (ToPS)1 Alternative: Lean Toast Part 1
3. The Eight Wastes of Lean with Real World Example
4. Identification of the Seven Wastes of Lean
5. Future State of the Toast Production System (ToPS)2 Alternative: Lean Toast Part 2

Figure 1 High-Level Outline of a Methodology to Improve any Work Process (or System)

Being an Industrial Engineer, it is natural to “improve the way to find the best way (to perform
any work)”! First, I incorporated some Quality (now Six Sigma) tools such as Brainstorming,
CTQ Tree, Mind Mapping, 5 Why’s, Fishbone Diagram. Next, since the ToPS in the Toast
Kaizen video has a shifting bottleneck in the work system, I incorporated the POOGI (Process of
Ongoing Improvement) for implementing the Theory of Constraints. Next, since the sequencing
and scheduling of activities in a work system to exploit parallel processing is critical, I
incorporated the Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Problem (RCPSP) into the
methodology. Next, since travel and waiting times are usually significant sources of production
delays (and avoidable costs), I incorporated the Traveling Salesperson Problem (TSP) into the
methodology. As of writing, the latest Eureka moment was when I discovered that Vision AI
(Hyperlink) has the potential for performing the same tasks that are involved in any MTS
(Motion and Time Study) assignment given to an IE!

My Big Mistake (and Eureka Moment too)

1
This video is not available on YouTube. Please contact the GBMP Consulting Group (https://www.gbmp.org/).
2
This video is not available on YouTube. Please contact the GBMP Consulting Group (https://www.gbmp.org/).
However, my big mistake was that I did not incorporate Standardized Work (and Assembly Line
Balancing) into the methodology until 2014! That was because I quit academia in 2012 and went
to work full-time in industry for two years. During those two years, I got to develop, understand
and use the three charts that constitute Standardized Work. I should have studied and mastered
Standardized Work when I began teaching Work Study circa 1999! In hindsight, the writing of
this paper is a Eureka Moment for me because I realized that the two approaches --- Operations
Analysis and Standardized Work --- complement each other in ways I had never thought to be
possible.

An Enhanced Methodology for Operations Analysis

Description of the Step Additional Details about the Step
1. Click on this link Using CTQ to translate VOC to
Define and justify the problem listen to an explanation on how to execute this step.
2. QUESTION: What role could Brainstorming play
here?
1. Click on this link Introduction to SQDC Boards to
listen to an explanation on how to execute this step
2. For each goal, select 1 maybe 2 metrics that are easy
to calculate and update (and effective measures for
achievement of that goal). EXAMPLE #1: Safety
could be measured by (i) Number of hours of
Select and prioritize the goals for process (or operation without accidents or injuries, (ii) Number
system) improvement which are (usually) Safety of safety violations that employees reported and
(Ergonomics? Morale?), Quality, Delivery eliminated, (iii) Number of safety violations
(Throughput?), Cost (Operating Expenses? identified by a Vision AI system like Detect
Efficiency Productivity? Inventory?), etc.) Technologies or Intenseye that were not reported by
employees. EXAMPLE #2: Delivery could be
measured by displaying the Flow Efficiency of the
process in due course of time. However, instead of
plotting a histogram of values of this ratio, a scatter
plot is displayed as follows: Y Axis shows Value
Added Time and X Axis shows Total Time to
Complete the Process (Cycle Time).
1. I prefer to combine the 5 Why’s (5 Why’s) and
Fishbone Diagram (Fishbone Diagram , Source:
Groover (2007), Sec 8.3) into a mind map (Mind
Mapping).
2. Click on this link What is a Mind Map? for additional
information on Mind Mapping.
3. In the mind map, I draw a circle in the center of the
Do a Root Cause Analysis of the Problem map and write the problem inside that circle.
4. Next, I draw an “octopus tentacle”, one tentacle for
each of the 5M’s (Man, Materials, Methods,
Machines, Management), radiating out from the
circle.
5. Then, as we do to generate the Fishbone Diagram, for
each M, I ask, “Why is M= (Wo)Man the problem?”.
6. QUESTION: What role could Brainstorming play
here?
Obtain the CAD Drawing for the Assembled Product with Parts List, Indented BOM (Bill Of Material)
Generate the Exploded View of the Assembled Product for the Assembled Product with Parts
List, Indented BOM (Bill Of Material)
Generate the Assembly Precedence Diagram for the Assembled Product
Validate the Assembly Process using Virtual Simulation
Obtain the routings for all the parts and sub-assemblies that are produced in-house (and for assembly of
the final product)
Generate the Operations Process Chart 1. See: Groover (2007), Sec 9.3.1 (Operations Process
Chart).
2. This chart is aka Indented Bill Of Routings.
Generate the Flow Process Chart 1. See: Groover (2007), Sec 9.3.2 (Flow Process Chart).
2. Unlike the Operations Process Chart which only
features two activity symbols (O, ), this chart
features all seven activity symbols (O ∇D  ◇).
1. Using Direct Time Study or a Pre-Determined 1. See: Groover (2007), Chapter 12 (Introduction to
Time Motion System (PTMS), determine the Work Measurement) and Chapter 13 (Direct Time
duration of each activity in the Flow Process Study).
Chart 2. I am not in favor of one-time approaches like Stand
in the Circle or Go See. Instead, I recommend that
2. Observe the process (or system) from start to
you ask for permission of the person (or persons)
finish whose work is being evaluated if you could videotape
a complete work cycle during a regular working day.
3. Therefore, I prefer to rely on video-aided TMS (or
MTM) because it is the standard IE approach that has
been in use since the days of Frank Gilbreth! (See
videos on website of Timer Pro software)
4. Translating Time Study Implementation from
Academia to the Real World.
Using the Flow Process Chart, calculate Flow 1. This metric is aka Value Added Ratio (VAR).
Efficiency of the work process (or system)
Using the Flow Process Chart, locate every activity 1. Divide either axis into two zones (Low, High) to get
on an Impact vs. Effort Matrix a 2X2 matrix --- (High Impact, Low Effort), (Low
Impact, Low Effort), (High Impact, High Effort),
(Low Impact, High Effort).
Using the Flow Process Chart, calculate (i) 1. Generate a Pareto Analysis using Frequency of
Frequency of Occurrence and (ii) Total Time of Occurrence.
Occurrence for each of the activity symbols (O 2. Generate a Pareto Analysis using Total Time of
Occurrence.
∇D  ◇)
3. Generate a Scatter Plot (Y Axis = Total Time of
Occurrence and X Axis = Frequency of Occurrence)
Using the Flow Process Chart, Impact vs. Effort 1. See: Groover (2007), Sec 8.1 (Evolution and Scope
Matrix, Pareto Charts and Scatter plot, apply the of Methods Engineering).
5W1H Questioning Process and ECRSSA Thinking 2. See: Groover (2007), Sec 9.3.4 (Table 9.4 Checklist
Process to develop an action plan to eliminate all of Questions Used to Analyze a Flow Process Chart).
NVA activities in the work process (or system).
Using the Flow Process Chart, generate the Flow 1. See: Groover (2007), Sec 9.3.3 (Flow Diagrams).
Diagram 2. This diagram is aka Spaghetti Diagram.
3. On a layout of the work place, for each and
eachstep in the Flow Process Chart, draw an arrow
connecting the two locations between which the
product is moved, either using an MHE or manually.
Using the Flow Diagram, analyze the  and  transportation steps using Systematic Material
Handling Analysis3
Using the Flow Diagram, re-design the layout of the work space to reduce material handling distances
between locations that have heavy to/from material flow traffic between them
1. The ideal layout for the work space is a work 1. Using this checklist Is It a Production Cell? published
cell to shorten travel distances between every by www.GBMP.org, assess the completeness of the
pair of consecutive work stations (or locations cell you have implemented (or plan to implement) in
where the value-adding operations are done) to a 2-column table that lists Features/Attributes
Present VERSUS Features/Attributes Absent.
the absolute (and safe) minimum).
2. I have enhanced this checklist. If an interested reader
2. This will automatically result in all NVA (even would like to receive it, please email your request to
NNVA) activities in the Flow Process Chart to [email protected].
be eliminated or reduced. In a well-designed 3. It is advisable to ensure that everybody is on board
cell, the duration of each of the  and  steps with the decision to implement the cell before it
is insignificant compared to the Takt Time at becomes operational!
which the cell/line is operating. This will
minimize the transfer delays between due to
each of the  and  steps between any two
consecutive O steps (since those two operations
could not be combined and performed on the
same work station).
Generate the Operator Balance Chart 1. See: Groover (2007), Chapter 4 (Manual Assembly
Lines).
2. This chart is aka Yamazumi Chart.
Using the Operator Balance Chart, conduct an 1. See: Groover (2007), Chapter 4 (Manual Assembly
Assembly Line Balancing analysis and use Lines).
2. [Video] Calculations done to balance an assembly
strategies to balance the workload on every line.
station to the extent possible 3. Click on this link An Ultimate Guide to Production
Line Efficiency.
4. Click on this link What is (Assembly) Line Balancing
and How to Achieve It?
5. Click on this link Assembly Suite from TAKTIQ.
6. Click on this link 10 Ways to Motivate Produciton
Line Workers.
7. Click on this link Maximizing Efficiency: A Guide to
Line Balancing in Production.
8. [Research Paper] Improvement of Assembly Line
Efficiency by Using Lean Manufacturing Tools and
Line Balancing Techniques.
9. [Research Paper] Possibilities to Increase Assembly
Line Productivity Using Different Management
Approaches.
10.[Research Paper] Improvement of an Assembly Line
in the Automotive Industry: A Case Study in Wiring
Harness Assembly Line.
11.[Research Paper] Materials Flow Improvement in a
Lean Assembly Line: A Case Study.
12.[Graduate Thesis] Application of Assembly Line
Balancing in Manufacturing Industry.

3
You will need to first register on their website. After your registration is complete and you hit “SUBMIT”, you
will be given access to the soft copy of this book authored by Richard Muther.
Before you continue reading, please read the section Dilemma#2: Is There Any Role For
TOC’s POOGI (Process of Ongoing Improvement)? that follows this table. Thank you!
Identify the Bottleneck in the Value Stream 1. See: Groover (2007), Section 9.2 (Network Diagram
using Capacity-constrained Critical Path for Activity Scheduling).
Method4 2. See: Groover (2007), Section 7.3.1 (Gantt Chart).
3. Click on these links to see Gantt Charts produced
using Excel, MS Project and Smartsheet.
Exploit the Bottleneck in the system. 1. See: Tree Diagram.
2. See: Work Breakdown Structure.
Subordinate the entire system to the 1. See: Groover (2007), Section 4.4 (Other
Bottleneck. Considerations in Assembly Line Design).5
2. Isn’t this the same as ensuring that SWIP (Standard
WIP) is maintained as a buffer at the bottleneck work
station? Or in front of each work station?
Elevate the Bottleneck in the system. 1. See: Groover (2007), Section 4.4 (Other
Considerations in Assembly Line Design).
2. Isn’t this the same as strategies to increase the output
of an assembly line by (i) doing Methods Analysis to
increase throughput at the bottleneck station? , (ii)
adding utility people to relieve congestion at stations
that are temporarily overloaded?, (iii) investing in a
robotic assembly cell for lights out production during
the third shift?, (iv) adding an extra shift?, (v) paying
Overtime? etc.
Generate the three charts for Standardized 1. See: Standardized Work Example #1.
Work 2. See: Standardized Work Example #2.
1. Process Capacity Chart 3. See: Standardized Work Example #3.
2. Standardized Work Combination Table
3. Standardized Work Layout Chart
Generate a Value Stream Map 1. What Conversations Does Your VSM Drive?
2. [Research Paper] A Case Study on Productivity
Improvement of Assembly Line using VSM
Methodology.
3. [Research Paper] Production Flow Analysis through
Value Stream Mapping: A Lean Manufacturing
Process Case Study.
4. [Research Paper] Cycle Time Study of Wing Spar
Assembly in Aircraft Factory.
5. [Research Paper] Analysis of Factors Influencing
Length of Stay in the Emergency Department.
6. [Research Paper] Value Stream Mapping using
Simulation at Metal Manufacturing Industry.
Utilize Methods Engineering to explore the 1. See: Groover (2007), Sec 9.3.1 (Operations Process

4
I use a capacity-constrained version of this approach --- Value Network Mapping.
5
Storage Buffers Between Stations: A storage buffer is a location in the production line where work units are
temporarily stored. There are several reasons to include one or more storage buffers in a production line: (1) to
accumulate work units between two stages of the line where their production rates are different, (2) to smooth
production between stations with large task time variations and (3) to permit continued operation of certain sections
of the line when other sections are temporarily down for service or repair. The use of storage buffers generally
improves the performance of the line operation.
potential for automating the entire (or segments) of Chart).
the process (or system) 2. See: Groover (2007), Section 8.4.1 (USA Principle).
3. See: Groover (2007), Section 8.4.2 (Ten Strategies
for Automation).
4. See: This --- Fast Food Burger Production System ---
is an example of work that has been split between
Man and Machine so they can work in parallel
Document the project in an A3 Report (or even a Powerpoint presentation that has a single slide for each
section of an A3 Report)

Dilemma#1: What to Use First --- Standardized Work or Flow Process Chart?
I have used both the charts for Operations Analysis (Operations Process Chart, Flow Process
Chart, Flow Diagram, Man-Machine Chart, Gantt Chart) and the charts for Standardized Work
(Process Capacity Chart, Standard Work Combination Chart, Standardized Work Layout Chart).
Still, I will humbly admit that I have not figured out whether to keep separate or assimilate the
two "views" (the IE view and the ToyotaIE view) of any work process (or system) could be
assimilated into one. What would you recommend?

If I start with the “IE View” and develop the Flow Process Chart6 (and Flow Diagram) for the
work process (or system), I feel like (i) I am focusing on eliminating the NVA (non-value
adding) activities viz. the Eight Forms of Waste (TIMWOODS) in the work process (or system)
and (ii) I am taking a whack-a-mole approach to waste elimination. On the other hand, if I start
with the “ToyotaIE View” and develop the Standardized Work, I immediately identify the VA
(value-adding) activities in the Flow Process Chart (which are the Operations) and the NNVA
(necessary-but-non-value-adding) activities in the Flow Process Chart (which are the
Operations). Next, using the Takt Time for the process (or system) as a guideline, I focus on
eliminating all the wastes at (i) the bottleneck activity in the Flow Process Chart (or work station
in the assembly line) and (ii) the bottleneck activity and its predecessor activity and (iii) the
bottleneck activity and its successor activity.

So, if I were to integrate the “IE View” and the “ToyotaIE View” of Operations Analysis, I
would (1) generate the Flow Process Chart and Flow Diagram7 from the video of the Current
State of the work process (or system), (2) develop the Standardized Work for it and (3)
implement appropriate strategies to improve the performance of the process, reduce production
flow delays and eliminate redundant costs.

Dilemma#2: Is There Any Role For TOC’s POOGI (Process of Ongoing Improvement)?
I have studied Assembly Line Balancing and (finally!) understood the methodology for
improving the initial design of an assembly line by distributing work evenly across all work
stations (and the employees at each of these work stations). Now, I am unsure if I should include

6
I hope you are familiar with Richard Muther's version of the FPC with 6 activity symbols available for download at
www.RichardMuther.com.
7
Value Stream Mapping is a popular Lean tool. But, even before one invests time and effort to generate the Current
State Map for a work process (or system), they should generate the Flow Diagram for the as-is product flow using
the Flow Process Chart. In fact, if one observes the values of any operator travel times in the Standard Work
Combination Table for the (desired) Future State of the work process (or system), they will be insignificant relative
to the Takt Time at which the line or cell has to operate. Does the Operator Balance Chart for an assembly line ever
show the inter-operation transfer delays between consecutive work stations? 
in my methodology the POOGI (Process of Ongoing Improvement), which is the CI (Continuous
Improvement) methodology used to implement the Theory Of Constraints (TOC). Because, if
one accepts that an assembly line is a chain, then per the initial Operator Balance Chart for an
unbalanced assembly line, isn’t the work station whose Cycle Time >> Takt Time going to be
the system bottleneck? If so, aren’t we going to (1) raze the work being done at that station
(Exploit the constraint), (2) limit how much we raze the work being done at the predecessor
stations unless one of them becomes the new bottleneck (Subordinate the system) and, if the
need arises, (3) add capacity at the bottleneck (Elevate the constraint).

Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt’s book The Goal was published in 1984. Toyota were using Standardized
Work, MFID (Material Flow and Information Diagrams), Pull Scheduling, SMED, Heijunka
schedules sent to the Pacemaker in assembly line, etc. prior to 1984. So I have reason to believe
that the POOGI (Process of On Going Improvement) is a rehash of the CI process used to
balance an assembly line using the Operator Balance Chart.

For any interested reader, I have prepared a presentation titled Is the core assumption underlying
the Theory Of Constraints an extremely restrictive assumption? and posted it on LinkedIn
(Hyperlink) to which I attached a Powerpoint presentation to support my stance. In addition, I
have prepared another presentation titled Explaining The Goal (and POOGI) using Lean
Thinking (and Value Stream Maps) in which I discuss in detail why I think that there is little, if
any, originality and merit in TOC’s POOGI (Process Of Ongoing Improvement).

Dilemma#3: Should There Be a Flow Process Chart for Micro-Motion Work Analysis?
A Flow Process Chart that uses these activity symbols (O ∇D  ◇) to document and
analyze a work process (or system) is useful for documenting and analyzing a work process (or
system) with macro-motions in a large work space, especially travel between dispersed locations.
Similarly, is there need for a Flow Process Chart to document and analyze a work process (or
system) when material is not being transported between locations by a person or an MHE
(material handling equipment)? Such as in the case of setup, inspection, loading/unloading a part
on/off a machine, etc. where the work is a sequence of micro-motions that can be documented
and analyzed using the therbligs shown in Figure 2 (Hyperlink)?
 Figure 2 Standard Symbols Used to Represent the Therbligs
(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therblig)

Does the Methodology Work?

I request your feedback. To date, the students who take my course, INDE6378, in Spring
semester undertake the following assignment:
1. First they must watch the video One-Piece Flow in Welding Operations.
2. Next they are asked to improve the current state of work cell. Would you not agree that
its design and operation needs a significant number of improvements? Despite the fact
that already all work stations, employees and support services are co-located in proximity
to each other to create a factory-within-a-factory aka Focused Factory?
3. Then they execute each step of the proposed methodology in the sequence shown in the
table.
4. Finally, using macro-motion and micro-motion analysis, they are asked to point out how
to eliminate all the degrees of freedom and other uncertainties in the work cell that
prevent the implementation of a fully-automated welding cell.

Where Do We Go From Here?

1. Earlier in this paper, I wrote, “Being an Industrial Engineer, I guess it is natural to “improve
the way to find the best way (to perform any work)”! How would you improve my
methodology? I welcome any and all suggestions to improve it, even if it involves starting
afresh.
2. Next, how do you think technology of the 21st Century will enable waste elimination through
improvement of work processes and/or systems? Do you know of any other technology that
will enable waste elimination through improvement of work processes and/or systems? For
any interested reader, here is some introductory reading:
 a. Role of Automation in Waste Elimination
b. Role of Machine Monitoring in Waste Elimination
c. Role of MES (Manufacturing Execution System) in Waste Elimination
d. Role of CWP (Connected Worker Platform) in Waste Elimination
e. Role of AI (Artificial Intelligence) in Waste Elimination

References
Burtner, J. M. & Biswas, P. (2018). Translating Time Study Implementation from Academia to
the Real World. (Hyperlink)

Groover, M. P. (2007). Work Systems and the Methods, Measurement and Management of Work.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Z94.17 Work Design and Measurement: A Bibliography of Terms. Institute of Industrial and
Systems Engineers, https://www.iise.org/Details.aspx?id=2566 .

Irani, S. A. (2020). Job Shop Lean: An Industrial Engineering Approach to Implementing Lean
in High-Mix Low-Volume Production Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Kato, I. & Smalley, A. (2011). Toyota Kaizen Methods: Six Steps to Improvement. Boca Raton,
FL: CRC Press.

Nicholas, J. (2018). Lean Production for Competitive Advantage: A Comprehensive Guide to

Lean Methods and Management Practices. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Rother, M. & Shook, J. (2009). Learning To See: Value Stream Mapping to Create Value and
Eliminate Muda. Cambridge, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute.

Shahrukh A. Irani, Ph.D., is a freelance consultant based in Sugar Land, TX, who helps high-mix
low-volume manufacturers customize their implementation of Lean. With one foot firmly in
industry, he keeps the other foot in academia by teaching a 2-course sequence on Lean at the
graduate level in the Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Houston. He can
be contacted at [email protected] or (832) 475-4447.
 Appendix 1
Related Discussion with Another Industrial Engineer on LinkeIn

Raaghavan Venkatram, CPIM, LBC: From my understanding the flow process chart or any
process analysis tool is used to get a grasp of how the work is actually happening. This is
important because even though there might be a documented SW, you’ll still need to know
whether/not the standard work is being followed!! If the SW is being followed, then yes I think it
makes sense to try to make the work better using the standardization tools you mentioned. But if
your process analysis shows that the current way the work is happening does not meet standard
then the logical thing to do would be to take a small detour to understand why the SW wasn’t
followed before trying to improve. You don’t want to throw more improvements when the
previous ones haven’t stuck!

Shahrukh Irani: I have not reached the stage where SW is being used to sustain the execution
of work. I am at the start where I am an IE being told, “Here is my work system. Tell me if I
need to fix it. If so, where and how and how much do I fix it?” So an IE would start with the
FPC. After learning how SW is arrived at, I am no longer sure. But then there is the methodology
for Assembly Line Balancing —— SW seems to borrow heavily from that domain of IE. Which
comes first —— eliminating NVA work using the FPC or improving VA work using ALB logic
and letting that drive the waste elimination? In which case, is the FPC obsolete?

Raaghavan Venkatram, CPIM, LBC: Ah! Got it. I am leaning toward doing a process flow
chart first. Balancing the work content of each operator in the line to takt can be achieved by
many means - Eliminate, Combine, Rearrange or Simplify steps, bucket brigading (self
balancing),using SWIP etc. I think doing a flow analysis would widen one’s perspective on how
to improve flow. I can’t put it in words but there’s something about putting current flow on paper
that makes your brain click !! For someone well versed in IE, sure they can go to SW first but
this is just how I’d do it !!

Shahrukh Irani: Everything has a good use. Just putting in correct sequence is the challenge.
SW teaches a different way to look at work than how IEs have been taught for the last 100 years.