Lean tools

Visual management

In French: Management visuel

Visual management makes the state of a process readable without having to ask: anyone entering the area must see within a few seconds whether the situation is normal, and if not, where it is not.

What it is

The criterion is not "are there displays", but "does an outsider understand the deviation in ten seconds". A board covered in correct figures fails that test; a marked floor location with two reference marks passes it.

The object of visual management is the deviation, not the datum. Displaying the day’s output informs nobody; displaying the day’s output next to the day’s target creates a question, and it is the question that triggers action.

It is aimed first at those who do the work, not at those who supervise it. That is what distinguishes it from reporting: reporting goes up, visual management stays on site and serves to decide now.

Three levels, from weakest to strongest

Indicate. The information is available to whoever looks for it: a label, a sign, a tracking board. It is the most common level and the most fragile — it assumes someone is looking.

Signal. The deviation comes to you: an andon that lights up, a box that turns red, an empty bin that triggers a replenishment. It can no longer be ignored without deciding to.

Guarantee. The abnormal situation becomes impossible: a part that only fits one way, a location that accepts only one object. One has then moved from the visual to error-proofing, and it is the only level that no longer depends on anyone’s attention.

Moving up one level is better than adding one more display at the same level. Most installations that run out of steam stayed at the first.

What makes a board live or die

A board holds if it is updated by those who do the work, at a short interval, and if it is looked at during a ritual — that is the role of short interval management. Without a ritual, the display becomes decoration within three weeks; with a ritual but no deviation displayed, the meeting becomes a round-table.

It also holds if it stays lean. A board carrying four indicators is read; a board carrying fifteen is no longer read, and adding the fifteenth destroyed the readability of the other fourteen. Adding an indicator should always raise the question of which one is removed.

The medium matters little — paper or screen. What counts is that the update costs little to the person doing it: a paper board filled in with a marker in thirty seconds outlives a digital board that requires opening an application.

The common mistakes

Turning the board into a control instrument. As soon as the figures serve to assess people rather than the process, they become flattering — and the board, now no more than a showcase, stops signalling anything. It is the surest mechanism for the death of visual management, and it is almost always unintended.

Displaying without a target. "148 parts" says nothing. "148 parts against 160 expected" says everything, and cost only one more column.

Going digital too early. A screen displays exactly what the data already knows; it brings nothing as long as the ritual does not exist, and it is expensive to keep alive.

On the shop floor — Logistics

A warehouse tracked its shipments on a dashboard consulted the next morning. Replacing it with a paper board kept hourly by the forklift drivers, with the hourly target alongside, brought out that delays concentrated on two time slots — information the daily average had kept invisible for two years.

The other tools illustrated by this trade: logistics and distribution.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between visual management and reporting?

The destination and the delay. Reporting aggregates to inform a higher level, with a lag of a day to a month; visual management displays on site, at a pace that still allows action. An indicator that goes up but about which nobody can do anything any more at the moment it is read belongs to reporting, wherever it is displayed.

How many indicators on a team board?

Three to five, covering different dimensions — typically safety, quality, delivery, cost. Beyond that, the board stops being read at a glance, which is its only reason for being. The right reflex is to treat space as a scarce resource: an indicator added is an indicator removed.

Paper or digital?

Paper to start with, in almost every case. It costs little, can be changed on the spot when the need changes, and requires a manual update which is precisely the moment when the team looks at its figures. Digital is justified when the data already exists reliably and several sites must see the same thing — not before.

Who should keep the board up to date?

The team that does the work. Handing the update to a support function or to management changes the nature of the tool: it becomes a report about the team instead of being an instrument of the team, and deviations stop being declared spontaneously.