Phases of 5S: Japanese Transliterated English
Phases of 5S: Japanese Transliterated English
Phases of 5S: Japanese Transliterated English
is the name of a workplace organization methodology that uses a list of five Japanese words which
are seiri, seiton, seiso, seiketsuand shitsuke. Transliterated or translated into English, they all start with
the letter "S". The list describes how items are stored and how the new order is maintained. The decision-
making process usually comes from a dialogue about standardization which builds a clear understanding
among employees of how work should be done. It also instills ownership of the process in each
employee.
Contents
[hide]
1 Phases of 5S
o 1.1 Sorting (Seiri)
cleaning (Seiso)
o 1.4 Standardizing (Seiketsu)
o 1.6 Safety
o 1.7 Security
o 1.8 Satisfaction
2 The Origins of 5S
3 The Objectives of 5S
4 The Evolution of 5S
5 See also
6 References
[edit]Phases of 5S
There are 5 primary phases of 5S: sorting, straightening, systematic cleaning, standardizing, and
sustaining. Additionally, there are three other phases sometimes included; safety, security, and
satisfaction.
[edit]Sorting (Seiri)
Eliminate all unnecessary tools, parts, and instructions. Go through all tools, materials, and so forth in the
plant and work area. Keep only essential items and eliminate what is not required, prioritizing things as
per requirements and keeping them in easily-accessible places. Everything else is stored or discarded.
[edit]Standardizing (Seiketsu)
Work practices should be consistent and standardized. All work stations for a particular job should be
identical. All employees doing the same job should be able to work in any station with the same tools that
are in the same location in every station. Everyone should know exactly what his or her responsibilities
are for adhering to the first 3 S's.
[edit]Safety
A sixth phase, "Safety", is sometimes added. There is debate over whether including this sixth "S"
promotes safety by stating this value explicitly, or if a comprehensive safety program is undermined when
it is relegated to a single item in an efficiency-focused business methodology.
[edit]Security
A seventh phase, "Security", can also be added. In order to leverage security as an investment rather
than an expense, the seventh "S" identifies and addresses risks to key business categories including
fixed assets (PP&E), material, human capital, brand equity, intellectual property, information technology,
assets-in-transit and the extended supply chain.
[edit]Satisfaction
An eighth phase, “Satisfaction”, can be included. Employee Satisfaction and engagement in continuous
improvement activities ensures the improvements will be sustained and improved upon. The Eighth waste
– Non Utilized Intellect, Talent, and Resources can be the most damaging waste of all.
It is important to have continuous education about maintaining standards. When there are changes that
affect the 5S program such as new equipment, new products or new work rules, it is essential to make
changes in the standards and provide training. Companies embracing 5S often use posters and signs as
a way of educating employees and maintaining standards.
[edit]The Origins of 5S
5S developed, as with so many of today’s best practice tools, in Japan. We first heard of it as one of the
techniques that enabled what we then termed ‘Just in Time Manufacturing’. The Massachusetts Institute
of Technology’s 5-year study into the future of the automobile in the late 1980s[2] identified that the term
was inappropriate since the Japanese success was built upon far more than components arriving only at
the time of requirement. John Krafcik, a researcher on the project, ascribed Lean to the collective
techniques being used in Japanese automobile manufacturing; it reflected the focus on waste in all its
forms that was central to the Japanese approach. Minimised inventory was only one aspect of
performance levels in companies such as Toyota [3] and in itself only arose from progress in fields such as
quality assurance and Andon boards to highlight problems for immediate action.
Equally the Seiso, or cleanliness, phase is a distinct element of the change programme that can transform
a process area. Hirano’s view is that the definition of a cleaning methodology (Seiso) is a discrete activity,
not to be confused with the organisation of the workplace and this clearly helps to structure any
improvement programme. It has to be recognised, however, that there is inevitably an overlap between
Seiton and Seiso. Western managers understood that the opportunities for various cleanliness
methodologies vary with the layout and storage mechanisms adopted but by breaking down the
improvement activity in this way it is quite clear that the requirements for the cleanliness regime have to
be understood as a factor in the design aspect of Seiton. Interestingly, as noted by John Bicheno[5],
Toyota’s adoption of the Hirano approach, is ‘4S’, with Seiton and Seiso combined – presumably for this
very reason. The improvement team must avoid the trap of designing the work area and then considering
the cleanliness or tidiness mechanism.
Hirano also reminded the world of the Hawthorne Effect. We can all introduce change and while people in
the business consider the change programme to be under management focus the benefits of the change
will continue, but when this focus has moved (as is inevitably the case) performance will once more slip.
Western managers, in particular, may have benefitted from the distinction between the procedural or
mechanical elements, Seiketsu, of keeping these matters in focus and the culture change, Shitsuke,
which is most definitely a distinct approach to bringing about a new way of working. A number of
publications on the subject in the West have questioned whether this culture can really be tackled as part
of an exercise of relatively limited scope.[6] The broader kaizen, or continuous improvement, approach is
built, among other things, upon the company’s valuation of all members of the workforce. If employees
don’t feel valued within the overall company culture, perhaps the change required falls outside the limits
of a Housekeeping improvement programme.
[edit]The Objectives of 5S
Hirano identified a range of benefits from improved housekeeping, all of which can be regarded as falling
within the Lean portfolio – that is, they are all based around the elimination of waste in one form or
another.
The most obvious benefit from items being organised in such a way (i.e. that they are always readily
available) is that of improved productivity. Production workers being diverted from production to look for
tools, gauges, production paperwork, fasteners, and so on is the most frustrating form of lost time in any
plant. A key aspect of Hirano’s organisation approach is that the often-needed items are stored in the
most accessible location and correct adoption of the standardisation approach means that they are
returned to the correct location after use. Another element of Hirano’s improved housekeeping is
improved plant maintenance – workers ‘owning’ a piece of plant, responsible for keeping it clean and tidy,
can take ownership for highlighting potential problems before they have an impact on performance. (Of
course, this brings with it the interface with preventive maintenance and the need for clarity in the
‘assignment map’, that is – who does what. The division of tasks between production workers and
specialist maintenance engineers varies with the nature of the business, but ownership rests within the
business unit rather than within the ‘service provider’.)
The next aim is perhaps Quality. The degree of impact of dirt in a manufacturing environment, obviously,
varies with the nature of the product and its process but there are few, if any, areas where dirt is
welcome. Even if it is only in the form of soiled documentation accompanying the goods to the customer
this can send a very negative message about the company and its culture. In other cases dirt can have a
serious impact on product performance – either directly or indirectly, perhaps through compromising the
integrity of test processes. Of course, 5S does more than address dirt; an inappropriate layout can result,
for example, in product damaged through excessive movement or through the use of tooling other than
that defined as the standard. Standardisation is a theme of Hirano’s approach, overlapping to a
considerable extent with, for example, that of Ohno. A Standard Operating Procedure for tool certification
is much easier to achieve if the tool to be certified is always in a clearly-marked location.
Another goal is improved Health & Safety. Clear pathways between workbenches and storage racks can
minimise accidents, as can properly-swept floors. As with Quality, a well-organised, clean and tidy facility
lends itself more readily to standard practice. Hirano also described how an environment in which the
workforce has pride in their workplace can contribute to a considerable extent in a number of ways
including customer service. Improving the layout of the facility merges with the concept of visual
management; if workers can see the status of plant and of work in the facility, thus removing the need for
complex tracking and communication systems, then benefits will accrue. 5S can also be a valuable sales
tool when potential customers visit; a well-organised, clean and tidy facility sends a message of a
professional and well-organised supplier.
One point made by all practitioners is that the adoption of 5S must be driven by goals. An article in the
journal of the UK’s Institute of Operations Management written by Mark Eaton and Keith Carpenter of the
Engineering Employers’ Federation noted that “the successful implementation of 5S requires that
everyone understand why it is being used and what the expected results are.[7] As with all Lean
techniques the aim is improvement in business performance; the adoption is not an end in itself.
[edit]The Evolution of 5S
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challengedand removed. (May
2011)
Many Western companies now promote Hirano’s approach with a sixth ‘S’ added for Quality. Not
unnaturally, there is some debate over this, with devotees on both sides of the argument. The sixth S
serves a fundamental purpose – it reminds everyone of the need for Quality. A key lesson taught by
Japanese automobile manufacturers, and one central to the Toyota Production System, is that traditional
levels of performance must be not only exceeded, but replaced by a completely different perception of the
scale of what is acceptable. Rather than managing defects in percentage terms, Western managers
heard of management in ‘parts per millions’, with single-figure levels of defects being the goal. Given that
a 1% failure rate equates to 10,000 ppm the scale of improvement to be sought as part of the adoption of
Lean was, to say the least, spectacular.
This improvement in quality levels could, of course, only be achieved with a complete re-definition of
processes and culture within Western manufacturing. This includes issues such as ‘Design for
Manufacturing’ and the fundamental change from Quality Control to Quality Assurance (that is, the Quality
department role moving from inspecting and highlighting problems to guaranteeing methods and
procedures to eliminate errors). Housekeeping, of course, is central to this and adding a sixth ‘S’
highlights this.
The contrasting view, and the one taken by Hirano in establishing this approach, is that each and every
‘S’ is a phase. As noted earlier, a major lesson for Westerners was Hirano’s 5S methodology breaking the
programme down into a series of steps. The sixth ‘S’ does not add to this; Quality is not a phase, it is an
objective – along with productivity and the others described above. Moreover, it is an objective of each
and every phase. Adding the sixth ‘S’ might be perceived as recommending a programme carrying out the
sorting out, organising, cleanliness, procedural and cultural steps and subsequently building in Quality,
which of course is not possible. If all the objectives have not been built in throughout each element