making it right later

Making it Right, Later

by Martin J. Lueders, PMP

It is always a good idea to look back on what you are doing each day to see whether or not you are doing things differently, now that you are more mature. The same holds true in any manufacturing environment where change keeps you competitive. If you find yourself doing many of the same tasks in the same manner in which you were doing them, say, a year ago, you may be in need of an "adjustment".

Change in established organizations has long been recognized as a "demon". Recent times have seen as oftening of that impression by examining the extent and intention of the change and advertising it as "continuous improvement". The fact remains that people, in general, donot embrace change. Change takes most people out of their comfort zones and thrusts them into someone else's world where things are different. This is still, today, one ofthe largest inhibitors to growth in small and mid-sizedfirms.

It stops all activity by casting doubt on the validity of new methods and policies. It never gets fairly judged because those in the jury box are the veterans in the organization; their prejudice much too strong to be educated. As managers in manufacturing organizations, it our responsibility to make change occur. In itself, change is just something different, neither good nor bad. When change is instrumental in making a significant differenceis when you can actually see the daily activities change, for the better.

This is real process improvement; doing all of the daily, or weekly, activities in such a manner that you have improved the performance of the organizationas a whole on a foundational level. Big-picture change is nothing with out the trickle-down effect to the persons who actually perform the work. For example, when the time spent on a task is reduced due to properly organizing the sequence of the work, the organization picks up that extra time, and improvement has occurred because you are now doing the task in a more efficient manner than you were doing it yesterday.

It is hard to convince upper level managers who have not studied management how beneficial this type of organizational change can be. No matter how many different ways you try to illustrate the improvements that could be made by embracing change, they are reluctant due to their comfort level.

I once illustrated how wrong something was and showed how it was supposed to be (a situation that would have actually brought the organization into the realm of manufacturing convention) and was scoffed at, due to nothing but comfort level in the manner in which the operations were being run. The group continued to hold meetings to discuss "improvements", but could not recognize a correct answer when it was placed right in front ofthem. It became a situation where they had to learn the lesson for themselves. The exact number to place on the profitability lost could never be calculated due to the extended period of time that they were operating in that manner, but I am confident that it was in the millions of dollars.

Our reluctance to make change a daily possibility and reality is a sort of parable. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is known to be a silly way to conduct business, and yet we see it every day, in a manner of speaking. The next time ashortcut is taken or a procedure is swept aside, think about this: If you do not take the time to root out the cause and fix it, you will be doing it again sometime in the near future. This leads to one of the initial ideas laid out in this article, doing things the same exact way it was done yesterday; no improvement, no value added, no growth. It is hard to imagine why we are so prone to do these types of things.

Although the pressures of on time delivery and superior quality are key factors in why it still happens, one would have thought that the lessons learned long ago would have been passed on to the following generations of manufacturing management. In place now we have quality managers and inspectors and specialists that will investigate what actually happened when that "one" item was shipped, mistakenly of course. There was no mistake in adding the invoice to the monthly numbers.

So we can see that it could be the pressures of performance driving us to do these things. But if it is, then there is a logical, rational solution to this type of rut; and more frequently than not, it works. Problem solving involves the evaluation of, and resignationto something not being right. This is a very simplistic view, but its accuracy has wide application. Once a problem is recognized, the root cause analysis can begin. Shortcutting the root cause analysis is the largest causeof recurring issues after the "resolution" has been putinto place.

It is a basic cycle of analysis, solution, implementation, and reevaluation. This is may seem overlysimplistic to some, but there are many examples of how this cycle is not utilized properly, causing many executives toget involved in situations they are not qualified to beundertaking. This cycle can be used as a primary tool for problem solving, but it must be understood and thecommitment assumed to follow it to the letter. In manufacturing daily activities there are two main categories: those we do to get the product out the door and those we are undertaking to make tomorrow's work (product) better. When one of the categories is abandoned, as is thecase primarily with the latter, you quickly find yourself in the rut described in the beginning of the article.

Doing the same thing you did yesterday never encourages improvement. There is an underlying truth to the cycle and the two categories of daily activities. You must give at least fifty percent of your time to each, over the course of any given period, to obtain the desired results. If your overriding focus is on getting the product out thedoor, you will get the product out the door. You will also be exerting the same effort to complete the same activities next month and next quarter because you did not work hard at improving the processes involved in meeting your objective.

It is a two-pronged approach to getting the job done, the entire job; after all, we are managers tasked with delivery requirements and process improvement. Case in point: MRP implementation. In the typical MRP implementation problems arise; some are large, having a devastating effect on normal operations, but most are manageable, given that the correct approach to resolution is applied.

The simple method above can work extremely well with MRP because it is a simple system. MRP has basic requirements and the root cause of most of these issues can be traced back to some of the basic needs of the system.Inventory is off considerably; check your bill of material accuracy. Material shortages are occurring too frequently; check allocation methods and issuances. The point here is that with a strong fundamental approach, most manufacturing challenges can be overcome, and quickly.

A good understanding of your starting point, a realistic approach to problem solving and the open mindedness of a qualified manager is normally all that is required to make significant advances in process improvement. In the long run, as is the case in most of life's situations, tackling the problem today and putting it behind you is always more desirable than making it rightlater.

This article courtesy of www.manufacturing-sites.com