Yet this is not the existing is questioned

Work-related stress, high-speed and questioning of management regularly make the news. New forms of work organization, such as "lean manufacturing" would be the cause of these crises repeatedly. But that is our traditional models Are they still source of progress Is it not necessary to evolve The following fundamental issues, which our industry can make the economy. Recent events in Toyota and PSA, have put doubt on management methods and organization of the work of large French companies. The limits of the "lean manufacturing" organization are plotted the finger: productivity, profitability, objectives increasingly more ambitious, more effective, high and average rates reduced, mobility, are the causes often denounced by trade unions and the media. The man would be locked in the grip of a new framework, then the basis of the "lean" is precisely the human in the heart of the system When we know the benefits, both in human terms than performance, generated by this approach, one must wonder: "lean" is really responsible for all the ills The malaise is not instead of our traditional models

To better understand the origins of the social crisis, it seems to me necessary to put us in the current context. We continue to suffer the effects of a crisis affecting the industry in the world. We are in a global economy, which still further expanded the boundaries of the competitiveness and imposes the products more rapidly on the market. Despite this our industry remains traditionally attached to models of type corresponding to a bygone economic situation taylorian organization. Today, a company must be flexible and capable to adapt to global competitiveness. It is not conceivable that it can without changing its organization and its social models. If we look more specifically at the working conditions of employees, traditional models have developed clear precedence over the high rates, mass production, neglecting precisely the arduous nature of the work and the interests of employees. This State, associated with a deficit of consistent communication of management, is in my view, the obvious cause of the stress of the employees. How many times have I seen an employee lost to a multitude of often contradictory orders, forced to make an arbitrary decision to move forward, which will be charged him fatally. One can imagine the stress generated by this communication "multidirectional". Yet, this is not the existing is questioned. This is what can bring change. If you look at the "lean" the social angle, his contributions can be considerable. First, remember that "lean" is a system that relies on humans. All of the actions stems from this principle. The objective is, of course, to optimize results and the performance of the company, but it must also pass through the improvement of the conditions of employment of each for best results. This is not to increase the pace of the cadences, but qualitatively optimize its work. "lean" aims to reduce waste and process variability by limiting the pénibilités and deficits of organization through a logic of work and a more coherent way of order flows.

In fact, these are men and women of the company involved in the definition of their future operating modes as "lean" was considered rightly that are best placed to advance their work environment. Another originality of "lean", is his ability to create and renew genuine dialogue between field staff and management. Considering that the improvement must come from the base means a new form of communication between employees and management. The role of managers takes on a new meaning in human terms. They must create the conditions for a fluid relationship to generate suggestions and the resolution of the problems directly by employees. Finally, the "lean" implies top management a clear explanation on the process and goals, and the definition of an enterprise repository that fixed a common cap and standards facilitating the reproducibility of the installed logic. The objective is to involve them in the achievement of improved continuous and perennial of the system.

So, what are the obstacles to the success of this approach One of the key factors of failure in the implementation of "lean", is the imbalance between the integration of the tools and the social aspect. Indeed, most of the projects put the priority on the technique without taking into account the early humans. However, we have seen: they are the men and women who build the project. Without them, nothing is possible and lasting improvement will not happen. Another point to note, training is often dissociated from the deployment, while it should be implemented as soon as the first phases that employees understand and adhere to the actions and objectives. Finally, one last reason is the absence of specific structuring of the project and a comprehensive methodology.

To conclude, I can say that after having experienced and implemented many projects "lean", this system allows a real change. It produces social progress if the dialogue between management and the field. Do not see the "lean" under this aspect, is the hijacking of its essence and deprive a vector of social reconciliation. It gives us the opportunity to transform our vision of social relations, where interests of employees and top management are more contradictory. This would be a pity of not grasping.