Making it Right, Later
by Martin J. Lueders, PMP
http://www.manufacturing-sites.com

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 a
softening 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, do
not 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 of
the largest inhibitors to growth in small and mid-sized
firms. 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 difference
is 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 organization
as 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 of
them. 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 a
shortcut 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 resignation
to 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 cause
of recurring issues after the "resolution" has been put
into place. It is a basic cycle of analysis, solution,
implementation, and reevaluation. This is may seem overly
simplistic to some, but there are many examples of how this
cycle is not utilized properly, causing many executives to
get involved in situations they are not qualified to be
undertaking. This cycle can be used as a primary tool for
problem solving, but it must be understood and the
commitment 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 the
case 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 the
door, 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 right
later.




This article courtesy of www.manufacturing-sites.com

---