What’s Your First Thought?

When I wrote my first post I mentioned three aspects of productivity I wanted to cover; innovation, flexibility, and speed.  The first aspect I mentioned and talked about in detail, in subsequent posts, was innovation.  Innovation was also the first key John Chen mentioned in his post on the method for a successful company turn around.  This wasn’t a coincidence.  There is a reason why we both mentioned it first but that should not be interpreted as an order of importance.  As Mr. Chen stated in his post, innovation is what people expect from companies in his industry.  It is the most visible aspect for an outsider.  It is what is talked about most often and it tends to generate the most excitement.  If you were to tell an outsider your company is now faster in delivering it’s products or services, it is now more flexible in it’s operations, and it has improved all internal and external communications you will likely receive a somewhat positive to neutral response.  If you were to say your company is producing more innovative products or services you will more than likely receive a much more positive response.  It can be argued whether or not innovation is more important than the other aspects of productivity but one thing is certain; it definitely grabs a person’s attention more than the others.  This is the reason why it is usually mentioned first.

Once you have that person’s attention they will either assume your company is engaging in ground breaking R&D or they may ask how is it being innovative.  If you tell them “inside the box” they feel that it may not be enough.  The chances are that reason would not be based on any intimate knowledge of your organisation but purely on preference.  People generally like to hear that some thing is “cutting-edge” or radical.  As I said in a previous post ‘Innovation, No Its Too Hard – Part 2‘, your decision to innovate inside or outside the box would depend on your available resources.  If your organisation has an abundance of resources such as expertise, time, money, et cetera then both options could be considered.  If your organisation has a shortage of any one or more of the typical resources then inside the box would be the more viable option.

I read an article on an interview John Chen had where he talked about the two approaches to innovation.  He basically said that while “outside the box” is nice it is not necessary for developing great products.  He then said that utilising the “inside the box” approach can yield great products also.  What he was indicating was that if one already has a good product then “inside the box” innovation could transform it into a great product.  To understand his approach you have to keep in mind his specialty; turning around struggling companies.  Struggling companies may not have an abundance of money and certainly not an abundance of time.  With a shortage of two significant resources, “inside the box” innovation become the preferred method of innovation.

Although we all would like to have radically new products and services derived by “outside the box” thinking, we have to be aware of not only of the available resources but also the risks.  Remember the risks are much greater when you develop a product or service “outside the box” than “inside the box”.  I am by no means trying to discourage anyone for engaging in “outside the box” thinking.  All i am saying is be aware of your resources and risks.  Even though John Chen’s company was struggling and short on resources at the time, they still produced a revolutionary product that was well received by their customers.  They took the risks and it paid off for them.

In my next post I will talk about the next key to John Chen’s method for a successful turn around and how it is similar to it’s associated aspect of productivity.

Until the next time!

Productivity and Organisation Turn Around

The other day I read a very interesting post that was written by John Chen, a corporate executive. Mr. Chen has the reputation of being a corporate “turn around” artist. He has demonstrated his skills to recover a failing company and make it profitable. Some time ago he was brought into Sybase, at the time a struggling software company, to turn it around. He was successful in saving the company, even though it was widely believed that he could not do it. The company was eventually sold to SAP for $5.8 billion, 14 times it’s value when he was hired. Not only did he saved the company, he grew it, and he eventually made a substantial profit for the shareholders.

Mr. Chen is now the CEO of BlackBerry Ltd, another company that was in trouble. Within a year he has stopped the money bleed and made the hardware division profitable. With the turn around portion secured, he then focusing on growing the company just like what he did with Sybase.

In Mr. Chen’s post, he listed his procedures for effectively turning around a struggling company. What made his post so interesting to me is that portions of his strategy are very similar to what I have written in several of my posts. The question you may ask, is productivity and organisation turnaround the same thing? Partly, yes. Productivity improves the performance of an organisation while “turn around” produces favourable fortunes for an organisation. Think of productivity as a set course towards a goal or a quicker means to reaching that goal. A turn around would be a change in direction towards that goal. Productivity itself would be one aspect of the turn around process. When you look at John Chen’s keys to executing a successful turn around, they are identical to several of the productivity aspects I have mentioned in my previous post.

The first important key he mentioned was a focus on innovation. He then talked about creating a Problem-Solving culture, where the process operators are the subject matter experts. Within this Problem-Solving culture he talked about the importance of the mindset. A sense of urgency was the next key he mentioned, along with the importance of knowing yourself and empowering employees to take risks.

Does all of this sound very familiar?

I would like to go into more detail and the similarities between what we have written but that will make an extremely long post. Instead I’ll discuss them in the following posts.

Until the next time!

Focus: Enough Or Too Much?

I mentioned in my post Temporary Leave that I recently joined a company that is in the same industry as the previous company I was with. Even though the two companies are in the same industry there is one fundamental difference between them. Until recently I’ve worked for companies that are in the manufacturing sector. This current organisation is primarily an R & D company. The operational differences between these two types of companies are considerable. In addition, this company deals with technologies which I had little knowledge about. These two factors have contributed to steep learning curves.

I engaged these challenges with the same approach I’ve always used; with a strong focus. This has worked well for me in the past, resulting in quick adaptation. This time was not any different from before. I was making solid progress in learning about their technologies and their operational methods. This strong focus was also contributing to a good progress on the design I was working on. I was applying the acquired knowledge of these technologies and at the same time I was designing for manufacturability of the individual parts. As I was nearing the completion of the overall design I was reminded of a fundamental practice utilised in the manufacturing world; ease of assembly. Typically large assemblies comprises of smaller subassemblies which can be assembled independent of one another. This technique was mentioned in another post “Speed Through Concurrent Or Parallel Paths“. This technique not only speeds up the assembly process , it also reduces it’s complexity.

I was so focused on learning and implementing the new technology and completing the design as quickly as possible, I actually forgot about creating the subassemblies. The design ended up being one very large assembly which would have resulted in a much longer assembly duration. I was very surprised I actually did that. I have never done that before. I told a colleague, who I worked with me at the previous company, what I did. He said he did the same thing within the first few months at this current company. He too was very focused on learning the new technology and procedures. That was no comfort to me because I still had to dismantle the 3D graphic models and then reassemble them into smaller, more manageable, subassemblies. I spent over a day to do that.

I mentioned in a previous post, “Flexibility and Mindset“, “…a person who is too focused would only see the small details rather than the larger picture”. Even for those of us who are productivity conscious, we can become so focused on the task(s) at hand that we may not immediately realise that our actions could have an adverse impact on productivity. This is precisely what I’ve done and as a result there was over a day of non progress. My manager didn’t get upset. He was very understanding. He said that these things do happen. From my point of view, I should have known better.

To prevent this mistake from happening again I determined how this oversight occurred and devised a method that would prevent a re-occurrence. You are probably noticing reoccurring themes from previous posts. As I mentioned in another previous posts, “productivity aspects are interrelated.”

How does one prevent oneself from becoming too focused? For starters, you need to be able to quickly access the list of all of the criteria and goals for the task or project. The reason for that is to periodically check your in-progress work to that list to ensure that there has been no deviation from the criteria and goals. By doing that frequently, any deviations you may discover would be corrected while they are still small. Less time would be required to correct small deviations than a larger ones. This technique is actually one of the phases of project management, monitoring and control. That will be discussed in another post.

Until the next time!

Rapid Problem Solving

In my previous two posts I mentioned the need to anticipate and prevent as many problems from occurring as reasonably possible.  I also mentioned that there is the possibility of unforeseen problems occurring and having procedures in place to quickly deal with them.  To quickly deal with these problems the procedures need to be systematic yet flexible.  For the systematic side, these procedures should contain two primary aspects; identifying the root causes and the required available resources.

Identifying the root cause or causes of a problem is a fundamental step in problem solving. I can not stress enough the importance of this step.  Without knowing and addressing the cause of the problem the possibility of it’s reoccurrence is a certainty.  I’ve mentioned this in one of my previous posts (Problem Solving: Bandage Fix Or Root Cause) where I used the example of reworking defective parts.  The cost of reworking or fixing one part may not significant in comparison with all of the other expenditures but it becomes very significant if it is done repeatedly over a certain amount of time and/or in large quantities.

When using root cause analysis you need to identify the problem itself and not focus on it’s symptoms.  Symptoms are the problem’s effects and they tend to be more visible than the problem itself.  A good example is someone whom has a headache, is feeling lethargic, and is coughing.  You can see the person’s symptoms but not the cause of them.  There is the immediate desire to treat the symptoms because they are making them feel uncomfortable. The problem with that is the illness would be still present, continually creating the symptoms.  Thus when a problem occurs or when the symptoms first appear, you should look at the symptoms to determine what is the problem.  You should collect as much information on the symptoms to obtain a complete understanding of the problem.

Gaining a complete understanding would involve asking the questions, what is the problem, why did it occurs, how did it occur, when did it occur, and where did it occur?  Asking yourself and others these questions will ensure a thorough understanding; since these questions would lead to the discovery of the causes or factors.

Once those factors have been identified a plan could then be created to correct the problem and to ensure that it doesn’t re occur in the future.  The plan could include changes or added components introduced into the procedures or the design of the products.

This brings us to the second aspect of rapid problem solving, knowledge of available resources.  Integral to devising a plan, you should have knowledge what resources you have at your disposal and which of those resources would be required to successfully execute that plan.  Resources are not just materials, time, and money, they are also knowledge, experience, and ingenuity.  These qualities come from your colleagues, superiors, subordinates, as well as yourself.  The people you work with are resources that should be utilised when working on problem correction and prevention.  I always ensure that I know the various skill sets of all the people I work with.  If a problem occurs which would require a specific skill set to solve, I would immediately know who to consult with.

Even if you have formulated a plan on your own, it is always advisable that you consult others for their input.  These other people do not necessarily have to have the required skill sets that would be specific to the problem.  People with unrelated skill sets can be a source for outside the box ideas, due to them taking a different or unconventional approach. There have been times when I’ve developed a feasible plan on my own and then someone, without the related skill set, proposes an idea that is an improvement or very different but better.  Again, make use of your resources.

In addition to the procedures being systematic, they need to be flexible.  A certain degree of pragmatism is required for dealing with the unforeseen problems, because they are not predictable.  The procedure may have to be adjusted accordingly based on the information gathered on the factors.  Keep in mind that the adjusted procedures cannot conflict with the product or process requirements.  Hence the reason why I said “a certain degree of pragmatism” is required.

By quickly identifying the problem, knowing which resources are needed, and devising a plan; corrective actions and reoccurrence prevention could be quickly implemented thus reducing the impact to productivity.

Until the next time!

If You Cannot Anticipate Everything, Then What?

In the previous post I said when someone asks you to create a “bullet-proof” process or design, they are asking you to create some thing that will be resilient to any and all problems that may occur.

To spend the time to determine any and all problems that may occur will add a significant amount of time to the development cycle of what you are creating.  Whether or not your organisation could afford that time is dependent on the company and it’s situation.  As I’ve been saying in most of my posts, it is better to implement things in the shortest amount of time as possible; for the most part.  Every rule has it’s exceptions.

With these things in mind, how does one develop some thing as quickly as possible without compromising problem resilience?  You could use information and tools that would be known to you to help you establish priorities.  One type of information which would be of great value is a working history of a similar process or product.  More than likely the new item or procedure is an evolution or variation of an existing article.  That existing article would have it’s history of problem occurrences and the solutions documented; to prevent any future recurrences.  Since the new article is an evolution or variation of that existing article, there is the likelihood that the same issues could occur for the new article.  The design of the new article could then have incorporated into it the same provisions or features to prevent those problems or similar ones from occurring.

These documented problems could be categorised as typical issues.  The probability of them happening is greater than the possible problems that are not typical.  For the non-typical problems we would use the tools probability analysis and risk assessment to determine the likelihood of their occurrence.  For articles that are revolutionary or completely different from anything that was created before then these would be the main tools at your disposal, since there is no history to reference.

Once the probability of occurrences have been determined then a level or threshold value should be agreed upon as an acceptable point for actions by all who are involved.  If the chances of a problem occurrence is above the threshold value then preventive measures to address those possible problems should be incorporated into the article design.  Any probability values that are below the threshold value would be deemed as very rare occurrences and any resources spent on their prevention may be committed in vain.  For example, let’s say you’ve identified ten problems that could occur.  Through the use of probability analysis, percentage of probability is assigned to each possible problem.  It may be decided that any potential problems that have a probability percentage of greater than 30% would be addressed in the design of the article.  One should not assume from this example that 70% of the identified possible problems are above the 30% threshold value. You may have only one possible problem with a probability of over 30% and the remaining nine would be below that.  The number of problems above and below the decided threshold value would be dependent on the aspects of the article and it’s operating environment.

I’m not saying one should ignore the low possibility occurrences, instead procedures should be devised to deal with them if they arise.  These procedures should not be specific to any one particular article but should be a general course of action for all articles.  It would not be productive to develop procedures specific to an article to deal with problems that may or may not occur.  Also, there are those possible problems that were not identified; the unknowns.  These procedures should also deal with these problems.

By designing your product or procedure to withstand the problems that are likely to occur and complement it with general procedures that can quickly resolve the problems that are least likely to occur, you would effectively be anticipating (operationally) close to everything.

Until the next time!

Do “Bullet-Proof” Processes Or Designs Eliminate Future Problems?

Throughout my career I’ve heard the term “bullet proof” a few times from a few managers but never from individual contributors.  The first time I heard it I didn’t know what it meant but from the context of the sentence I determined the intended definition.  Some of these phrases I’ve heard were, “…your design needs to be bullet-proof.” or “…the procedure must be bullet-proof.”

Why would anyone request, metaphorically speaking, that a design or process be “bullet-proof”?  The foremost reason why someone would make that request is  for their concern to eliminate the effects of any and all problems that may arise.  For the creator of the design or procedures, their primary concern is that it functions within the accepted criteria.  Designing for anticipated problems would be an immediate secondary priority.

I never gave the bullet-proof term much thought or the reasons why the individual contributors I know never used it, until some time ago.

I had an interview for a Manufacturing Engineer position.  Throughout the interview the interviewers repeatedly expressed how impressed they were at the fact that I was cross-functional.  I didn’t see that quality or skill as something exceptional.  It’s just a matter of doing what is required for dynamic situations.  I thought if they were impressed with that then they would be very impressed with my track record of quickly resolving production issues, since both come from the same philosophy.  Surprisingly, the technical manager was not impressed.  He said that the goal of the Manufacturing Engineer is not to solve problems all the time but to devise processes that are “bullet proof”.  Hmm, I haven’t heard that term for the longest time.  I came to the immediate realisation why my colleagues and I don’t use it.  For the sake of possibly snafuing the interview, I decided not to point out the flaw in the technical manager’s philosophy.

Sure, in an ideal world it would be possible to devise designs or processes that would account for all problem occurrences.  In reality there are numerous factors that can render the “bullet-proof” concept as nothing more than a desire.  One of these is the human factor. The human factor is one that is multi-faceted.  By that I mean to say we all have our times when we are not operating or thinking at 100%.  We have our “off-days” due to illness, distractions, or mood.  Basically our focus have diminished to a degree, which naturally would result in mistakes being made.  Another variable of the human factor is our mindsets. Mindset is another broad topic which I talked about in the Flexibility and Mindset posts (Introduction, Complacency, and Ego).

I can go on to list even more variables to this one factor but the point I’m making is that with all of the variables that are a part of this factor, the goal of devising a “bullet-proof” system becomes a very difficult endeavour.  Eliminating the human factor through automation will not guarantee a “bullet-proof” system.  Mechanical problems do occur, such as tool breakage, equipment defects, and other factors we may or not have control over.

To list every known possible cause for problems and those that would be unknown, it would be an extremely long and exhaustive exercise.  If someone requests that a product or process be “bullet-proof”, they are essentially asking the creator to undertake this very long exercise.  Does productivity suffer?  Absolutely.  Implementation times would be greatly increased, resulting in spending more time for the products and services to reach the customer.  Some may argue that the extra time spent up front will be beneficial in the long term.  That is correct if your organisation is not planning on changing anything for that length of time.  In an evolving business environment, that would not be a practical thing to do.

So the question of, do “bullet-proof processes or designs eliminate future problems?  In theory, yes.  In practice, it is not a feasible endeavour.

In the spirit of keeping this post short, I would like to continue this topic on next week’s post.

Until the next time!

Unintentional Innovations

I came across a very interesting online article from the Globe and Mail on innovations that were unintentional but became very successful.  The article primary focused on a scientist at 3M, Dr. Spencer Silver.  Dr. Silver was tasked with developing a super strong adhesive but he created a formula that produced an undesirable result.  The adhesive was surprisingly very weak.  Most people would have discarded this error and not mention it because it would have been considered as a failure.  Time, money, and materials were spent in the pursuit of developing a specified product, which was not achieved.  That would have a definite negative impact on productivity, which is not something anyone would admit to. Dr. Spencer Silver however didn’t discard the formula nor did he kept quiet about it.  He informed his manager and colleagues about this apparent failure.  He believed it may have some useful purpose at some point in time.

I would like to add here that it is good practice to inform others of any problems or failures that you may encounter in what you are doing.  By informing everyone about them, they would benefit from learning about them and that way they don’t get repeated.

One of Dr. Silver’s colleagues, Arthur Fry, used pieces of paper as bookmarks in his hymn book but they would fall out when he opened the book to that page.  He remembered the weak adhesive that Dr. Silver created and realised that it could keep those pieces of paper in place.  He could then easily peel them off without any transfer of adhesive to the page itself. That lead to the creation of 3M’s Post-It Notes.  In it’s first year of sales Post-It Notes generated two million dollars.  Now Post-It Notes are sold worldwide, generating about a billion in revenue per year.  This is from an adhesive that was originally considered a failure.

Keep in mind that this weak adhesive itself was not useful since stand-alone adhesives need to be strong in order to maintain adhesion between two parts.  This weak adhesive only became useful when it was applied to the top of the back portion of a square piece of paper. This is in line with a statement I made in my post ‘How Does One Create Innovative Ideas?‘. That statement was, “One or two ideas may not be an answer to the problem but an element from each idea could be combined to form a new idea that would solve the problem.” The plain pieces of paper were not the perfect solution to Arthur Fry’s hymn book marking because there was nothing to hold them in place when ever he opened his book to that page. The adhesive was too weak to be used for the conventional purpose but combined with simple pieces of paper and this new idea became a very lucrative, innovative product.

There are other successful accidentally products I can mention but you already get the idea. These products didn’t become a success by the unintended innovation alone.  Although it was the basis.  That success was brought on by recognising their potential, the imagination to see their future applications, or combining them with another idea to produce a superior product (or process).

Search “15 amazing discoveries inspired by accidents” to learn more about unintentional innovations.

Until the next time!

Seriously, Know Your Performance

We’ve all done this at least once in our lives.  There is a product or service we want to buy. We do the research and perform all of the calculations to verify that it is affordable.  Then when we are ready to buy it, we discover a cost that isn’t taken into account.  The purchase may now not be affordable or it is at the expense of reallocating resources from other requirements.

This analogy directly applies to determining your organisation’s performance in terms of expenditures in it’s operations.  I stressed in the previous post the importance of knowing your company’s performance by considering all of it’s facets.  If you don’t take into consideration all of the areas of it’s operations then there is the possibility of over (or even under) stating it’s performance.  This would result in discrepancies between it and the balance sheets.

A few years ago a fellow bragged to me about his company being extremely productive. I was very glad to hear this.  He also said that they’ve improved upon it every consecutive period.  He then proceed to tell me how much their “operational efficiencies” were.  He said in one time period their operational efficiency was 86%.  I told him that was impressive. He then said that in the next period their efficiency increased to 93%.  Okay, they must really be on the ball I thought to myself.  He then said that the next period had an efficiency of 98%.  Now I was starting to feel disbelief.  He then said their efficiency increased to 105%, 113%, 121%, and 134% on each consecutive period.

I thought to myself; what are they using to ship the product, a time-machine?  I asked him how did he determine those numbers.  I told him that the only way they could get efficiencies over 100% is if they were getting material and labour for free, all of the production steps were being performed simultaneously (with no step-up time and no idle time for any parts), the company was getting bonuses for early shipments, et cetera. Getting operational efficiencies over 100% would defy the laws of physics and economics. He explained the method they used to calculate their operational efficiency.  They estimate the time needed to complete each job and then divide it by the actual time.

What the …?!?!

That explained those numbers.  I proceeded to tell him that their method didn’t take into account any scrapped materials, any reworking of parts, or any other contingency factors that may contribute to cost.  The efficiencies they calculated didn’t necessarily mean that the work was being performed faster but that the times were over estimated.  Since quotation prices are based partly on time estimates, it was a certainty that the prices were higher than what they should be.  He did say that their competitor’s prices were becoming lower than their’s over time.  I told him that was not surprising.  If the estimators all know that the efficiencies are calculated by dividing the estimated time by the actual production time then it provides them the incentive to over state the time estimates.

This example shows that one should not focus on one apparent positive aspect and only be a little concerned about a negative one.  They are all interrelated.  If you are getting very positive set of performance numbers but another set are not favourable, question the very positive numbers.  Some thing is being overlooked or calculated incorrectly.  Several aspects of their production were overlooked and therefore not included in the calculations. That resulted in over inflated values in the efficiencies and prices.

This is why I strongly recommend that you thoroughly know your company’s performance. Only by knowing or ensuring that all the contributing factors are taken into account, will provide you the confidence that the performances are accurately represented.  With your performances values being accurate, you can then use them as a true benchmark to gauge the improvements.

Until the next time!

*The feature photo was obtained from the royalty free photo site, Can Stock Photo. As with any iceberg, you only see ten percent of it above the surface.

Know Your Performance

So far I’ve been talking about the importance of improving productivity and the various ways to accomplish this.  Up until now I have left out an important aspect.  That aspect is knowing what your or your company’s performance level.

It is very important to know the current level of productivity in order to know how much it has improved and if the increased level is acceptable compared to the amount of resources invested into it.  Just like everything else, you would like to know how much of a return you are getting on the investment.  If the chosen method involves a significant amount of effort but only increases productivity marginally then it may not be economically feasible to continue with it.  Conversely, if the method yields considerable improvements with a small amount of effort then it could be considered for other departments or divisions.  Knowing what the actual performance levels are and continually monitoring them will aid in gauging your productivity improvements.

I was told of an example from a colleague when he joined a new company.  On his first day his manager told him that he was currently doing a cost reduction exercise as he was looking at one of the products.  He said he needed to find ways to lower the price in order to become more competitive.  My colleague said that he noticed from his manager’s countenance that he was struggling to finding ways to reduce costs.  He then told his new manager that he will assist him whenever he discovers any cost savings that could be made.

After several weeks on the job he discovered that the company was not completely aware of all their costs.  The costs they were aware of were not being accurately determined.  These costs were from operations.  It turned out that the manager was focused on cost reductions through product design only since he felt that was the best way to lower the product price.

The products were relatively simple so there was very little that could be done design-wise. This explained why his manager seemed somewhat frustrated.  If he looked at the operational costs he would have discovered much greater savings.  What he didn’t realise is that the operational costs directly affect the cost of the products made.  The cost to make the product includes the labour, the machine running and maintenance, utilities, opportunity costs due to any downtime, et cetera.  Any reduction in the operation costs will directly impact the product costs.  When the engineer told his manager of the potential savings from various changes to the processes, his manager was not all that responsive.  When the engineer told him of a technology which could improve design efficiency, he became very receptive.  He was stuck in the mindset that cost reduction through the design was the only way to reduce the product’s price.  What the manager did not know was that the gains from incorporating this technology would be marginal in a low or medium volume manufacturing environment.  Significant cost savings would only be realised in a high volume environment.  Also, incorporating this technology into the existing designs would involve significant redesign time and a write-off of the existing inventory for the replaced hardware. In other words, the expenditure would exceed the gains in the near term and would not lower the product cost by much.

The engineer tempered his manager’s enthusiasm for this new technology by explaining to him that the actual cost cutting goals will fall short of his expectations.  The engineer recommended that the technology should be used on all newly developed products only. He also gave his manager a systematic explanation on why he should consider the operations side for greater cost saving.

When looking for areas to improve productivity, it may not be possible to investigate all of them at the same time.  It is acceptable to focus on a few or even one area at a time but you should not exclusively focus on it.  You should keep in mind there are other areas that must be investigated in order to get a complete picture.  Furthermore, it is very important to be flexible and keep an open mind to other’s ideas.  Those ideas could save or make your organisation a lot of money.

Problem Solving: Bandage Fix Or Root Cause Analysis?

Problem occurrence is an expectation in everyday life.  We are seldom in a perfect situation. We seldom do things perfectly and we are never in a perfect environment.  Anticipating the problems and preventing them from occurring is an excellent practice.  It is what risk analysis and management is all about.  Even with the best risk assessment being performed problems will likely still occur.  It is very difficult and time consuming to predict every possible scenario for a problem occurrence.  So when a problem does occur, how would you address it?  The typical answer I have heard is directly and swiftly.  My next question is, what does directly mean?  Granted problems should be addressed quickly based on their impact but I’m left wondering in what way the problem is directly address.

I’ve noticed most times when people encounter a problem they address the effects of the problem but not the cause of it.  Addressing only the effects of the problem is nothing more, in my opinion, than a bandage fix.  A person falls down and they get a portion of their skin scraped, resulting in bleeding.  A bandage is applied to protect the wound and facilitate the healing process.  The problem in this example is the cause of the person falling.  The injury is the effect of the fall.  The bandage treats the effects of the fall, not the cause of it.  Whatever caused that person to fall is probably still present to cause another occurrence.  If the person falls again then another bandage would be applied and so on. Even though the cost of a single bandage may not seem like much, after awhile the cost does add up and an appreciable amount of money would have been spent.  If the cause of the fall was discovered and eliminated then the expenditures on bandages would be saved.

This exaggerated and simplistic analogy is an accurate example of what happens in the working world.  When a problem occurs in the workplace, no matter what it may be, the tendency is to fix the effects without determining it’s root cause.  If fixing the problem effects is (say) effective then that procedure becomes the acceptable corrective action method for whenever the same (or similar) problem reoccurs.  It is exactly the same as the person continuously applying a bandage after every time they fall.  Just like the falling analogy, an appreciable amount of cost savings could be realised if the cause of the problem was addressed rather than continuously spending resources to fix the effects every time.

Let me give you an example of a simple and apparently inexpensive effect only fix.  Let’s say we have a part that is completely symmetrical except for one feature, a small hole.  Let’s also say that due to an inherent interpretation problem on the drawing, it is possible to make this part in the mirror image to what it is suppose to be (reversed).  Since the part is symmetrical, reverse forming it would not be a problem since the mirror image part would look exactly the same when place beside the correctly formed part.  Remember this part is not completely symmetrical.  There is a hole on the one side only.  Since the hole is functional, a reverse formed part would be unusable.  Rather than throwing the part away, a quick and easy fix would be to manually drill another hole on the correct side.  With this fix the part becomes usable.  At first glance this easy fix seems to have a negligible cost impact.  Just one person taking a few seconds to measure the correct location and drill the hole.  Since it seems so easy, it is understandable that it would be adopted as a standard solution to any re-occurrences.  As I mentioned in a previous post, that is one of the dangers of complacency.  Let’s expand this problem.  Now consider that 300 of these parts were made.  The time involved for the fix becomes very significant.  Also consider that the original process used to punch the hole cost a fraction of a cent to operate.  The cost of the employee to drill the extra holes is considerably more.  Plus that employee would be taken away from their main task, thus lowering general productivity of your organisation.  In reality, this simple inexpensive fix is not inexpensive at all.  It would be far cheaper to address the root cause and eliminate it on the drawing, therefore, resulting in all future parts being made correctly

No matter what you do, don’t get caught up in any apparent simple fixes. It is far cheaper in the long run to deal with the root cause than to continuously implement a simple fix.

Until next time!