原文链接 | https://www.lean.org/the-lean-post/articles/real-lean-vs-fake-lean/
译者 | 李兆华老师，肖燕，李威
Real Lean vs. Fake Lean
真正的精益与虚假的精益
——By Michael Ballé
This is a very good question, but rather above my pay grade, and typically, this is why we need a sensei. Have you got one?
这是一个很好的问题，但这已经超过了我的能力范围，这就是为什么我们需要一位老师，你有老师吗？
You see, this question touches upon several different principles of lean practice and lean learning. And ultimately much of the answer depends on your
personal point of view. First, let me latch on to the idea of applying lean principles. On paper, this sounds clear and simple. The rub is that lean is a practice,
as my father keeps repeating, and not a theory. This means that “applying” the principles can be problematic.
你看，这个问题涉及到精益实践和精益学习的几个不同原则，而最终大部分的答案取决于你的个人观点。首先，让我来说明一下我对精益应用原则的理解。从理论的角度，听起来清晰而简单。但问题在于——正如我父亲不断重复说的那样——“精益是一种实践，而不是一套理论”。这意味着“应用”这些原则的这一说法是有问题的。
I can’t count the times when I’ve been working with guys at the gemba in a new situation (or, occasionally, in an old situation, which is really embarrassing)
trying hard to apply a lean principle such as, say, flow, or stop-at-defect. And when I’ve shared our efforts with my father (yes, I know, my father is my sensei – sigh!) he’ll roll his eyes and wonder what possessed me to advise this or that. But I’ve applied the principle, I complain. And then he’ll ask if I’ve noticed this.
Because, in this case, the principle applies completely the other way around.
我数不清已经有多少次在新环境中(或者偶尔在令人很尴尬的熟悉环境中)与现场的人一起努力地应用精益原则，例如流动、异常停线等。当我和父亲分享我们的努力时(是的，我知道，我父亲是我的老师——唉!)，他会翻着白眼，并且想知道是什么促使我提出这样或那样的建议。但我抱怨说，我已经应用了这个原则，然后他会问我有没有注意到，在此种情况下，这个原则是完全反过来的。
The issue here is that lean principles and goals can’t just simply be “applied,” they are interpreted, and there is usually a great need for wisdom in their
interpretation. So-called “real” lean is in fact far more of a tradition than a theory. That’s why it’s so important to have a connection to this tradition and to seek
to inscribe oneself within its bounds, as opposed to interpreting it as feels more comfortable. That’s why senseis are so important.
问题在于精益原则和精益目标不只是简单“生搬硬套”，更需要理解，并且在理解时通常需要智慧。事实上，所谓的“真正的”精益不只是一种理论，更是一种理念。所以与这一理念建立联系，并在此理念范围内做正确的事情是非常重要的，而不可以以自我感觉良好的方式去做。这就是为什么老师是如此重要。
Fake Lean 虚假的精益
Recently, I was struggling with a completely new environment with managers who were obsessed with productivity (of course). I didn’t quite know where
to start, and asked my father, who said to start as we always do: accidents and customer complaints. We did that, which uncovered a number of findings,
which led to kaizens to improve operator ergonomics.
最近，我与痴迷于提高生产率（这是理所当然的）的经理们面对全新的环境纠结着。我对于从哪里着手开始精益毫无头绪，因此向我父亲求助，他建议我如同以前那样从安全事故和客户投诉开始。我们的确这样做了，并且发现了一些问题，这些问题推动我们持续进行作业人员人体工学（人机工程学也叫工效学）方面的改善。
I had told the managers that they should see productivity results show up as they improved the ergonomics of their working cells.
我曾告诉经理们，随着他们对生产单元的人体工程学进行改善，他们应该看到生产率的提高。
When this did not happen, I couldn’t figure out why and discussed it again with my father. Are the operators stabilized in one zone, he asked? Or are they
moved around across the plant for flexibility’s sake? I went back to the gemba to check, and of course found out that operators could be moved from one
station to another within the day according to the MRP- calculated work orders. As long as a team of operators doesn’t “own” a cell, and doesn’t see that
they’ll get the benefits from their own kaizen efforts in their own workplace, they’re unlikely to get involved.
可是生产效率却没有提高，我想不明白为什么，于是又和我父亲讨论。他问道，操作人员是在一个确定的区域内工作吗？还是出于灵活性的考虑，他们在整个工厂内各处移动进行工作？我回到现场进行确认，发现根据MRP计算的工单，操作员可以在一天之内从一个工位转移到另一个工位。只要操作员团队没有“拥有”(负责)一个生产单元，并且没有看到他们将从自己的改善工作中获得益处，他们就不太可能参与进来进行持续改善。
Furthermore, productivity simply won’t progress as long as operators are isolated across the shop because any time won on a single operation cannot
be reorganized in a way to gain a full person, and make real productivity improvement. Ohno, in The Toyota Production System, had explained long ago
that reducing half an operator’s workload was not productivity until we could take the full person away to another job.
此外，只要整个车间的操作人员是以在车间内部到处移动的工作方式进行，生产率就不会提高。因为如果不把在各单个操作上省下來的时间以某种方式重组以节省下一个人，就不能真正地提高生产率。在《丰田生产系统》一书中，大野耐一先生很久以前就解释说，减少操作员的一半工作量并不是真正的提高生产率，除非我们能把这个员工成功转岗到另一项工作中去。
Upon reflection I realized that I had been befuddled both on the “respect” front (involving operators in the success of the improvements) and the
“kaizen” aspect (real productivity).
经过反思，我意识到我此前在“尊重”方面（让操作员参与到改善的成功中）和“改善”方面（真正的生产率）是糊涂的。
This “practical wisdom” for fault of a better term can only be learned through practice with a teacher. This a core issue to lean, and is why lean remains
fundamentally interpretative and linked to people. Principles can be codified and are a good place to start, but without the correct interpretation, they lead
to nonsensical solutions more often than not. The sensei’s opinion is the obvious test method to know whether you’re doing “real” lean or “fake” lean.
And again, what can appear as nuances of a principle can end up with radically different results when you end up applying it in practice.
讲白一点，这种“实践智慧”只能在老师的辅导下通过实践来学习。这是精益的核心问题，也是为什么精益在本质上仍然具有解释性并与人联系在一起的原因。原则是最根本的依据，这是一个很好的起点，但如果没有正确的解释，往往会导致无意义的解决方案。老师的意见是一种有用的测试方法，可以用来判断你是在做“真正”的精益还是“虚假”的精益。同样，当你最终将其应用于实践时，一个原则的细微差别可能会导致截然不同的结果。
预告：推行精益时最容易犯的错是什么？（下）
- 推行精益的可行性建议
- 推行非生产型业务的精益的办法
.jpg)
.png)