Semi-Automation: Achieving Speed And Also Cost Reductions

At the beginning of the 20th century an innovator name Henry Ford revolutionised the auto industry and consequently the industrial world with the invention of the assembly line. Prior to that workers walked over to each product, carrying with them the add on parts and their tools.  Usually they made numerous trips, switching between parts and tools. A considerable amount of time was taken up by the workers travelling to and from the products.  The assembly line turned this concept around to the exact opposite, where the products move to the workers while the workers remain in one spot.  By having the workers, their tools, and parts in one place individual travel times are eliminated, thus speeding up the assembly process.  Additional, each worker would be responsible for attaching the same part(s) onto the product.  By specialising the functions of each worker the tasks become repetitive, therefore, reducing the chances of errors and speeding up the assembly process further.

The assembly line made it possible for more people to afford their own vehicle due to reduced costs and increased productivity; by having more products made over a period of time.  It would be advantageous to use those same principles in our work to raise our productivity but that is only possible if your work consists of only repetitive tasks.  Project work, for the most part, is not repetitive.  Every assignment is different or has varying degrees of differences from the next.  If your project does have some repetitive tasks within it or it has a task that is similar to a task in other project then some of the aspects of the assembly line could be incorporated into your project and others’.  This aspect I’m referring to is what I call ‘semi-automation’.  The repetitive or similar tasks could be off loaded to a process that doesn’t not require as many inputs compared to a fully manual operation.  That semi-automatic process isn’t necessarily a robot performing tasks.  It could be software used for number crunching or a jig / fixture for product alignment.

A friend owns a small business that designs and makes custom reflective products.  He told me that no two orders are the same.  All of the products are designed based on the individual customers’ requirements.  My friend told me that he spends a considerable amount of time manually quoting each proposed requirement and he said there are times when he finds it difficult to keep up when there is a surge in quotation requests. I suggested to him that he should make the quotation process semi-automatic.  He quickly dismissed the suggestion by saying each quotation is different.  He said the sizes and material combinations differ between the requests so it is impossible to do that.  I asked him if there were any common factors between the quotes for each product.  He thought about it for a few seconds and then said yes.  I told him those common factors could form the basis for making his quotation process semi-automatic.  I told him that the numbers for the common factors could be calculated by a computer programme while he manually calculates the values for the unique factors and then incorporate the two sets of numbers into the formal quotation.  A few weeks later I spoke with him.  He told me that he created a spreadsheet that has entry fields for both the common and unique factors.  He said he now spends one tenth the amount of time on the quotations compared to before.

Another friend who is an engineer mentioned to me a product his company has been making successfully for many years but now they’re finding it difficult to be competitive. He said the competition is offering their own product at a much lower price and they are not sure how to bring down their costs, in order to match the price.  He said there was one considerable difference with this order compared to the others.  That was the quantity. They had never received a quotation request for such a large quantity before.  I noted that they were fairly competitive with smaller orders but not with this large quote.  I asked him what processes were they using at his company to make this product.  As it turns out, their processes were very manual intensive.  For a small order, the number of manual inputs may not have that great of an impact as compared to a large order.  I told him that he could reduce the amount of manual inputs by using fixtures to position the components while they are being secured to one another.  Similar to the previous example, the time savings from reducing the number of manual inputs becomes greater with increased volumes. The greater the time savings, the lower the costs.

This approach of semi-automation can be used for any task or procedure that have repetitive or very similar actions.  These repetitive actions do not have to occur in the same project or task in order to have them semi-automated.  Think of it like there are two different products that need to be painted the same colour. Rather than painting them separately in their own production cells, they could be sent to a common paint booth to be painted at the same time.  The two separate steps would be combined into one step for both projects.

Until next time!

Speed: Know All Of The Criteria, And Then Some

I use to work at a company where one of the managers would ask me to do some tasks for him on a somewhat frequent basis.  These activities were typically designing fixtures and alignment tools, or adding alignment features to the design of existing products.  He wasn’t my boss but I didn’t mind doing these things.  My mentality was and always have been to do anything that benefits the company’s productivity.  Plus these requests didn’t take up much of my time.  At first I wondered why he was always asking me and not any of his employees.  Afterwards I didn’t give it any thought.  One day I over heard him talking to another manager about me.  He said that the reason why he always request me to do these tasks was that not only did I do the tasks well but he was amazed by how fast I did them. I didn’t realise I was being fast, I was focusing more on doing a good job. I remember receiving similar comments from my classmates when I was in school writing computer programmes.

There was one instance I declined to help him because I was extremely busy that day.  I did recommend that he ask one of the contract employees to do the design for him.  I told him that it shouldn’t take more than the afternoon to complete and that the contractor was very capable of doing it.  I instructed the contract employee on what to do.  A few days later I asked the manager if he was happy with the contractor’s work.  He said the contractor was still working on the design. He seemed very disappointed.  I walked over to the contractor’s desk and asked him why he was taking so long.  I told him that the design should not have taken more than an afternoon to complete.  He said that the design had to be very precise, so he was double checking and comparing the dimensions from the 3D models and the hardware.

It’s important to complete a task or project as fast as possible but it is more important to do it well.  As I said before, it becomes rather redundant to finish a task or project in record time if one or some of the criteria are not met.  My method of engaging any project was to first understand all of the requirements for it and set the targets for them.  The second thing I would then do is to determine the execution plan.  If you have those two aspects in place then speed comes naturally.  Think of the analogy of driving your car to a particular destination.  In order for you to successfully get to this destination you must first satisfy the criteria for the operation of your car; no mechanical problems, sufficient fuel in the tank, adherence to road laws, et cetera.  The next thing you would do is plan the route that would get you to the destination in the least amount of time.  In order to do that you would need to know before hand the traffic conditions for the various streets and causes for slow downs, such as construction.  Another thing you should plan are contingency routes.  If an accident occurs, you should automatically know an alternate street to take to avoid that slow area.

This is the approach I used when I wrote programmes in school and when I work on projects in industry. Projects would typically start with the customer or manager stating what they need to be done.  They would provide the scope and specifications or requirements that must be incorporated.  An example of those requirements could be the materials that are to be used, the loads that the product will be subjected to, the environment (temperature, humidity, et cetera) it will be exposed to, et al.  Even with the given criteria you should add to it the “then some” criteria.  The “then some” criteria are requirements that are inherent to your operational procedures, such as equipment capabilities, operator skill-sets, to name a few examples.  Your customer will not know these requirements as they are an outsider to your organisation.  So it is up to you to add them in order to obtain not just a successful completion but a speedy one as well.

The customer or manager may also state when they want it completed or ask you when it will be completed.  Either way a schedule will have to be met.  That schedule will be dependent on the next step, determining the configuration or layout of the design. Conversely, the layout of the design may be dependent on the schedule if the time frame is short.  Just like planning the route for optimising the travel time, you should select a design approach that would give you the least amount of uncertainties along the way.  You should also anticipate these risks before they occur and have contingencies ready to implement quickly, just like the changing road or traffic conditions I mentioned in the car analogy. There’s that aspect again, flexibility.  As was stated before, flexibility and speed are always together where productivity is concerned.  If all of this seems like a lot to remember, it’s not.  If there are a considerable number of criteria then writing down a check list would help to ensure that nothing is left out.

So far I’ve said that the factors for ensuring faster completions are knowing and incorporating all of the criteria, including those that are inherent to your operations, and determining the approach you would use that would yield the least number of surprises. There is one more factor that I cannot emphasise enough it’s importance.  That is always maintaining your sight on the big picture; the scope of the project, it’s schedule, it’s various impacts, et cetera.  Going back to the example of the contract employee taking longer that what was expect.  He made the mistake of becoming too focused on one particular thing, dimensional accuracy.  By focusing on that he lost sight of the big picture.  As a result the implementation schedule for the project was affected, causing equipment, material, and possibly people to sit idle.  He forgot that others were relying on him to finish the task on time or sooner.  Even when he was informed of the impact of the delay, he maintained  that dimensional accuracy was more important.  Flexibility was not considered.

Another possible result of being too focused on one aspect is the possibility of some of the other aspects being neglected.  If that happens then the project will fall short of it’s goal(s) and additional work will have to be performed to address the neglected aspects, thus adding more time.  Always be aware if a particular activity is taking too long.  Quickly determine why and address it’s root cause.  Once you get in the habit of doing these actions, faster completions will occur on a regular basis.

Until the next time!

Employee Treatment: Short Or Long Term Impact?

I want to go back to the responses of the productivity survey I conducted a few weeks ago, in particular treatment of people.  I mentioned it very briefly, so I want to go into more detail on it’s effects on productivity.  I’ve read some articles on this subject and I have witnessed different approaches supervisors and managers use towards their subordinates. Their approaches ranged from treating their employees with the utmost decency and respect to using fear and intimidation.  Much of the articles (Business Insider and USA Today Money) I’ve read focused on the former as a means to increase workers’ productivity. These articles have essentially stated the same thing that I’ve mentioned before, if employees are treated well then they will be more likely to put in extra effort in their jobs and stay with the company for the long run.  The industry term for this is called ‘Employee Engagement’.  These articles go even further to state that studies have been made that concludes that the higher the employee engagement a company has, the higher will be it’s growth and profits as compared to companies that have low employee engagement.  One of the articles references a study which finds that companies that have high employee engagement had on average operating margins of 27.4% whereas companies that are focused only on it’s goals had operating margins of about 14.3%.  Companies that ignored employee engagement had on average margins around 9.9%.  If you look at companies on Fortune’s list of the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For’, you will notice that these companies have a lower employee turnover average than their industry wide average.  As I stated in a previous post, a lower employee turnover results in higher company productivity.  You will not have your sources of innovation leaving as frequently.  You will not have to spread existing employees thin to make up for any positional vacancies.  You will not have to spent as much time and money vetting replacement candidates and there will be less training time involved for new employees overall.

Okay, the message is loud and clear; you treat employees with decency and respect, they will become more engaged with the company.  The more employee engagement you have, the higher the company’s productivity will be.  The opposite is also true.  Lower employee engagement results in lower productivity.  So the question is why do some supervisors and managers operate on the other end of the scale; subjecting their subordinates to fear and intimidation?  The answer is because it works.  Fear and intimidation are effective motivators.  It goes back to our primal origins, the fight for survival.  If you watch nature shows fear is the emotion that keeps an animal on it’s guard, thus increasing it’s chances of survival.  An animal that doesn’t have any fear doesn’t last very long.  These supervisors and managers instinctively know this, therefore, that is a reason why they use it.  In reality fear and intimidation does motivate employees but only in the short term.  After a certain period of time the employee’s higher reasoning brain functions kick in or they become demoralised.  Either way, the fear and intimidation tactics will cease to work.  The demoralised employee would just give up trying and just take their job on a day to day basis, expecting to be let go eventually.  The employee who uses higher reasoning will either take steps to leave the company or retaliate.  With all three outcomes, the company suffers.

Also consider that worker motivation is not the only reason for these manager’s intimidation approach.  Another reason is they are establishing themselves as the superior, not just in rank but also knowledge and intelligence.  I have witnessed this with a few new managers. They immediately criticise everyone and everything shortly after arriving, thus giving the impression that they are the company’s or department’s saviour.  They usually don’t acknowledge any of the existing positives because that would be counter to the message they are trying to get across.  If you are considering using this approach I strongly recommend you don’t.  The reasons are as follows.  I was told about a company that had it’s fair share of new hire managers.  Some of these managers quickly played the bad cop role shortly after arriving, employing fear, intimidation, and criticism.  I was informed that it only worked on a select few.  There was no effect on the majority of employees.  Those employees were all using higher reasoning.  They knew that it was impossible for these new managers to have a total understanding of the operations and operators within a few days or even hours.  The employees would then view them as being “out of touch” or uninformed and as a result would not take them seriously.  This is the primary reason why I strongly recommend against the use of this tactic.  The exact opposite of the intent is achieved.  Rather than motivating the employees and/or trying to get them to adopt your ideas, you would be ignored.  Once the respect is lost it will be very hard and will take a long time to regain it.  There is one particular type of employee in which these tactics will not work on at all.  Those employees are the ones who are very competent, knowledgeable, and confident in the jobs they do.  Since they are very good at what they do, they will not tolerate these tactics.  Chances are they would not hesitate to leave the company, knowing that their skills, knowledge, and experience will get them into another company.  The tactic quickly becomes counter-productive as oppose to being effective for the short term. Instead it would be considerably better to exchange ideas with these employees since they would have intimate knowledge of the various operational aspects and that information would be very useful to you in your plans.

It is far more advantageous to focus on employee engagement for obtaining a long term impact on the company’s performance than on actions with near term goals.  Like everything else, to realise higher productivity levels, a foundation must be established first. That foundation is the employees.

Until the next time!

Productivity Aspects Are Interrelated

When I started this blog I wanted to focus on just three aspects to productivity; innovation, flexibility, and speed. I also wanted to talk about each one separately in each post but as I wrote these posts it was becoming more difficult to do this. The reason why was that these aspects are interrelated. They are necessary to each other when trying to achieve the goal(s). You probably noticed in the past three posts on innovation that flexibility was a re occurring sub-theme. It was indicated in the requirements of being open to other’s ideas, getting inspiration from all sources, anticipating risks, and devising the contingencies. This was the same when I was writing about speed. Flexibility is needed to change things quickly or reacting to changes. When I introduced the two additional aspects of people and communications, the sub-theme of flexibility was again present. Flexibility is essential when dealing with individuals due to differing personalities and/or circumstances. It is equally important in effective communications. As I said before, consideration and altering your point of view are very effective components of flexibility that could facilitate in getting your ideas across.

When devising ways to be flexible or do things faster in your organisation, a degree of innovative thinking is required. Innovation isn’t just for product creation, it’s also required for process creation and modification. If you want to create procedures that are flexible to changing circumstances; whether they are customer,  supplier, market, or environmentally related innovative thinking would be required.

As I’ve demonstrated, the aspects of productivity are interrelated. Just like starting from the tips of branches of a tree, they all lead to the trunk. If you incorporate one aspect you will undoubtedly incorporate one or more other aspects. Chances are you won’t have to think about it due to this inherent nature.

From this point on, my posts will not focus on one particular aspect but will include others as required. I will also introduce other aspects that have not been mentioned yet but I will not be as restrictive on the topic as I was before. There will be references or baselines to the five aspects I have already discussed.

Until the next time!

Practice What You Learned

While I was in university I was taught a technique for brainstorming, during my first year, which I used throughout my time there.  My classmates and I were given a number of very challenging projects during the four years.  Each time we were presented with one the first thought I had was, “they can’t be serious”.  Regardless of how difficult the projects were we always came up with ingenious solutions.

When I entered the workforce I was excited and super eager but when I was presented a design requirement I froze.  I could not come up with any ideas.  This was incredibly strange.  I created some amazing ideas for some outrageous projects while I was in school. My first job in the real world and I’m unable to conduct any creative thinking for requirements that were no where near outrageous as what I did in school.  The closest analogy to what was happening would be someone studying for an examination; being well prepared and drawing a complete blank when they open the test page.  The problem was I got nervous because these requirements were real world problems, not some wild contraption that will never go beyond a lecture hall.  Since these were real world applications I felt that the solution should be more complicated than it needed to be.  I did realise that regardless of where the product will be ultimately used, the principles to create it will be the same.  Keeping that in mind, I devised solutions much faster.

The steps my friends and colleagues uses to create innovative ideas are very similar to my own but there is one thing they didn’t mention that I do.  We all analyse the problem and note the constraints.  From there I would devise the simplest ideas to address the problem and all of the constraints.  I would then evolve the ideas until they are compatible with the various factors involved, such as manufacture ability, operational environment, costs, et cetera.  By first devising very basic or simple solutions, you will greatly reduce any pressure you may feel to produce some thing elaborate.  After the considerations for those factors I just mention are incorporated into the idea, chances are the finished concept will not be so simple afterwards.  I noticed that this approach typically produces quicker turn around times on concept implementation as compared to coming up with some thing more elaborate from the start.  There is a saying, although I’m not sure were I heard it.  It goes; the more complicated a thing is, the greater are the chances of something going wrong.  Essentially, the higher the complexity the higher the number of variables that could contribute to some thing not expected happening.  At least when you start off with a simple idea, you can control it’s complexity as it evolves.  You will, therefore, have more control over risk mitigation.  My colleagues probably do use this approach but they probably felt it was too simple to mention.

I would like to give an example of this simple approach.  I would also like to mention in more detail one of the possible steps for innovating that was mentioned in the previous two posts.  This step is the combining of parts of different ideas into one.  We used a custom designed/manufactured fastener that functioned as a structural component in one of our products.  This fastener was made in the far east, so delivery times were long.  Somehow we ran out of these fasteners before an order was made to replenish the stock.  Product delivery was now on hold until we receive more of these fasteners.  Unfortunately the delivery time was six weeks and the customer could not wait that long for their products. I was asked to devise a solution to this very serious problem.  I asked myself the question, “What is the simplest, most direct way to solve this dilemma?”  As it turned out, there was another type of product we made for the same customer that used a similar fastener.  We had enough of these other fasteners in stock to complete the products and ship them.  The only difference between the two was that this second fastener had a different profile head and a shorter body. The head was flat rather than counter-sunk.  The flat head wasn’t a deal breaker, the short body was.  It wasn’t long enough to be effectively used in the products that were on hold.  I thought an obvious solution would be to drill a shallow flat bottom hole into one of the parts that these fasteners secured.  By drilling this hole, the overall material thickness between the two parts would be reduced enough for this shorter fastener to be effective.  The flat bottom hole would accommodate the flat head.  This was a very simple and very quick solution to implement.  Another idea that was presented was to dissect one of the remaining fasteners and measure all of the dimensions.  A spectroscopic analysis would be performed to determine the alloy.  With that obtained information, a machine shop could be contracted to reproduce the fasteners.  That idea would take far longer to implement than using the other fasteners and drilling one of the receiving parts.

When I presented my idea to the customer.  They were concerned about the possibility of cracks occurring in the flat base of the drilled holes.  The idea was quickly dismissed by the customer but I didn’t want give up on it.  I remembered one of our plant maintenance employees previously suggesting that we could machine the flat heads of the other fasteners into a counter-sink profile to match the original fasteners.  His idea didn’t address the issue of the shorter body of the replacement fastener.  His idea for machining a counter-sink profile on the replacement fastener heads would solve the problem for potential cracking at the base of the drilled hole.  The flat bottom holes would be prone to cracking but angled bottom holes would not be.  I decided to combine the two ideas.  The customer accepted the modified idea, the solution was quickly implemented, and the products were shipped.

That was an example of an idea in it’s basic form not being good enough as a solution but taking an element from another idea and combining them yielded a superior solution.  This example also demonstrates what I’ve said about the simple approach to initial creation of ideas.  It can lead to quicker, less complex, more manageable solutions.

Until the next time!

How Does One Create Innovative Ideas? – Part 2

In my previous post I talked about the techniques my friends and colleagues uses to create innovative ideas.  As I said before, not only were their techniques very similar to one another but they were very similar to the method for group brainstorming.  I was taught brainstorming while I was in my first year of university and we conducted group exercises. It was my first exposure to this technique and I was rather apprehensive about it’s effectiveness since it seemed random in nature.  After my first session I realised just how effective it can be.

The main guideline for brainstorming is to generate as many ideas as possible in a set amount of time without any judgment of those ideas.  The goal is to foster creativity from all of the participants without the fear of producing what may be perceived as a bad or dumb idea.  As the individuals produce their own ideas, the other brainstorming team members will feel more confident to create and divulge their own ideas.  With that in mind here are the steps for group brainstorming.

1) Select a group of individuals who are of differing backgrounds or disciplines.  You want the widest possible amount of diversity of ideas.  If your group consist of all like minded people then you are going to get very similar or small range of ideas.

2) Select a locale for the brainstorming session that will be free from distractions.  You want a flow of ideas to be continuous without anything to distract the participants, thus interrupting it.  There should be a large vertical surface for recording the ideas for everyone to see, such as a white board, an easel, or even a computer monitor projector.

3) Someone should be appointed to write down or record the ideas on the vertical surface or monitor.  It is important for all of the participants to see all of the generated ideas so that it will instill confidence and inspire them.  It also gives them the opportunity to build on some of the ideas already presented.

4) Present the problem or requirement and list any criteria or guidelines in which the participants should follow when they are generating their ideas.  Give them several minutes to think.  If a significant amount of time goes by without any ideas being created then present a couple ideas of your own to act as a catalyst.  Your catalyst idea should kick start the individual creative processes.

5) Write down the ideas as they are produced and give positive reinforcement to each person providing them regardless of your own thoughts of each idea.  Try to encourage as many ideas as possible regardless of their initial feasibility.

6) Once the idea creation process have finished, review all of the ideas and start short listing them in terms of feasibility.  All of the participants should take part in this step.  They could give their reasons on why or why not that particular idea is appropriate.  Do not completely discard the ideas that weren’t short listed.  Some of their aspects could be usable in one form or another.

7) When you’ve narrowed down the short list to a single idea, start to consider ways to improve it.  One way to do that would be to take elements from the other ideas and combine them into the final selected idea.

If managed well, the brainstorming technique can result in the creation of some very innovative thoughts in a relatively short amount of time.  Having individuals of different backgrounds tends to increase the occurrences of outside the box thinking.

Comparing the steps of the brainstorming technique to the steps my colleagues use to create their own innovative ideas, you will see several similarities.  My colleagues said they get inspiration from all sources.  They are open to all ideas from anyone.  This is essentially the same as steps ‘1’ and ‘5’, the only difference is that occurs before a problem is presented.  They go on to analysing the problem or understanding the criteria for the requirement.  This is the same as the first half to step ‘4’.  They then generate the ideas on their own and/or with inputs from others.  Again, this is in line with steps ‘1’ and ‘5’, now after the problem is presented.  After they’ve generated the ideas they evaluate, compare, and even combine these ideas.  This is the same as steps ‘6’ and ‘7’.  The one aspect they say should be maintained for proper creativity generation is that you should be relaxed. That is in line with the first half of step ‘2’.

I have presented, over this and the previous post, the steps used by individuals as well as groups to create innovative ideas.  I encourage you to try them to see what you can come up with.  Creating the idea is one thing.  The next challenging step is implementing it.  Any innovative idea comes with risks.  It is inherent when trying something new.  One of my colleagues has stated that, “As with creating and implementing an idea, one must know the risks.  You must be willing to take these risks providing you have devised contingencies to deal with them.  Always be wary of the risks and act on them immediately or better yet, before they occur.”  He also said that the action to create innovative ideas are, for the most part, reactive.  He stresses that it should also be proactive.  You should use what you have learned from that innovative idea and apply it another similar situation or project, before the need materialises.

How Does One Create Innovative Ideas?

There is the common notion that innovation is only created by very talented or gifted individuals, people like Leonardo Da Vinci, Albert Einstein, or even Steve Jobs.  As so called “regular individuals” we resign ourselves to sit back and expect others, who we feel are more creative or intelligent, do all of the innovative thinking.  If you want to be conscious about productivity then that is the wrong attitude to have.  We should not wait for those who we perceive as being more talented or intelligent to produce brilliant ideas.  They are already very busy doing just that because everyone else is also expecting the same thing from them.  To have your organisation progress faster, we all have to be innovative thinkers.

Up until now all of my posts were introductions to the various aspects of productivity.  Wow, 18 introductory posts!  I guess I won’t be invited to too many parties, or seminars. In reality, there are a multitude of facets to productivity.  I wanted to focus on just three but my colleagues were suggesting other aspects to include, such as my former manager suggesting that I talk about people as productivity drivers.  Their suggestion are valid since none of the aspects are independent of one another.  They are all interrelated.  I will going into details on this in another post.

Now back to my promise on going into more detail on how to create innovative ideas.  As I said in a previous post, we are all capable of being innovative because of the necessity to overcome obstacles and our ability to dream inspires us.  When it comes to devising a solution to a problem, a certain amount of creativity is useful for establishing a starting point and direction.  I asked some colleagues and friends (independently) to tell me the steps they use to create innovative ideas.  There immediate response was identical, “I just do it”.  Their response was understandable, since they do it so often that they don’t think about the steps involved.  It would be the same if you encountered a bird that was able to interact with you in a conversation.  If you asked this bird, “How do you fly?”, it’s response would be identical to my friends’ and colleagues’ response; “I just do it”.  In reality we all know that birds’ flight is not something that is mystical, there are a series of steps involved. Relating back to my question, my friends knew this so they proceeded to think about the steps they use.  Not surprisingly, they all gave very similar (if not identical) responses. Dependent on their functions, some of them innovates predominately inside the box, another innovates mainly outside the box, and there is the one fellow who I mentioned in my ‘Conflicting Attitudes Towards Innovation’ post that straddles both sides of the box on a regular basis.

It would be assumed that the innovation process commences when a problem or requirement is identified.  The need to overcome the obstacle or satisfy the requirement would motivate one to produce ideas but as my friends have indicated, the innovation process starts before that.  They said that one should obtain inspiration from all sources around them.  In other words, remember what you see, read, and hear now; you may need it in the future.  With reference to engineers, we are always reading about new technologies or discoveries.  We make a note of them if we feel that there is a chance they may be useful in the future.  Once you are presented with the problem or requirement, analyse it. Understand the root cause of the problem.  For the requirement, understand and memorise it’s criteria.  You must know the expected outcome.  Time would be wasted if you created the solution to a requirement that didn’t match what was wanted.  The next thing they said that it is essential to keep an open mind to accept different ideas from other people. Evaluate, compare, and combine these ideas for the feasibility of solving the problem or satisfying the requirement.  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 could solve the problem.  I will go into more detail on this in another post.  One of the most important aspects my colleagues gave was to be relaxed.  We tend to think much better when we are not stressed or distracted.  Two of the respondents said that their best ideas occur when they are away from work relaxing at home or somewhere else (this is one of the reasons why I selected the above photo).  Sometimes I’ve awoken up during the middle of the night with the solution already in my head.  Others have concurred.

The steps so far are common to all of the respondents.  At this point their methods begin to differ depending on whether they are innovating inside or outside the box.  The inside the box innovators will do one of the following or both.  Devise several solutions to mitigate or eliminate the problem. Select the best one and implement it.  If there is some additional time or if there will be additional time in the near future then they will make on-going improvements to the solution (an incremental approach).  Remember from my third post that time is most likely a limiting factor for innovating inside the box.  For the person innovating outside the box, they would have more time to devise an answer.  For them, they would be constantly challenging the environment around them.  They would be continuously asking the question, how can this or that be done better?  They would then come up with the answers based on their knowledge and the inspirations around them.  Of course, after the solution have been devised and implemented there will be testing or validation of the idea to determine if it is a real world solution.

I noticed that the majority of responses were very similar to the procedure used for group brainstorming.  Brainstorming is a procedure in which a group of people generate as many ideas as possible for a specific problem.  Once they feel satisfied they have amassed enough ideas, they then whittle down the quantity until they have a few or the best idea.  I will discuss this further in the next post.  I have so much to talk about on this topic.

Until next time!

What Do You Think?

So far I’ve been talking about my experience and knowledge on improving personal and organisational productivity. I decided for this post to ask people I know, who are from various professional backgrounds, what are their views for improving productivity. Their backgrounds included general labourers, skilled tradesmen, engineers, and managers. I wanted to survey as broad as possible backgrounds to establish any commonalities or trends.

I noticed distinct similarities in the answers of the general labourers and the skilled tradesmen (the blue collars). They indicated that the working environment has a significant impact on worker productivity, specifically the cleanliness, safety, and the organisation of the work area. Essentially less clutter, easy access to resources, and a structured flow of personnel and products facilitates greater productivity. One of the persons surveyed even went as far as to indicate how a choice of colours of the walls and furniture affects the workers mood. That response caused me to remember when I first walked into my previous company. I noticed that all of the chairs, cubical dividers and doors were purple. I though it was either the president’s favourite colour or it was selected for psychological reasons. Afterwards I found some articles on how colours influence productivity.

Another answer that was given was compensation. They said that workers who believe they are under paid will not make as much effort to be more productive as compared to workers who are satisfied with what they are receiving. That is an universally accepted fact which applies to the majority of people regardless of which group they belong to. This group also mentioned that a sense of accomplishment was equally important, along with recognition of that accomplishment. Acknowledgment of a job well done from their superiors does have a multiplying effect on their efforts in he near term (as was stated in my previous blog ‘People, Are They Assets Or Not?‘). In terms of the accomplishment response, they said a lack of progress will have adverse effects on their productivity. If the work is not progressing at a reasonable pace then frustration sets in and determination starts to ebb.

Another common response that was given by this group was talent utilisation. They said that if one’s skills and abilities are under utilised then frustration occurs and the desire to be productive is reduced. The possibility of promotion was indicated as another major motivator for increasing one’s productivity. This answer could be included under the response of recognition, as a reward that could come with it. This answer was rather ironic for me since I have known or come across a countless number of people who started their careers at a bottom level and have progressed up the organisation ladder. The remaining two answers were treatment and enjoyment. They elaborated that if an employee is not treated with respect then it goes without saying that that person will likely not make any significant effort to their functions. It is a common fact that enjoyment or morale is another significant factor for boosting productivity. It is used by the military and top companies to increase enthusiasm levels in order to motivate it’s members or staff to undertake tasks more effectively.

I noticed several commonalities in the answers from the engineers and the managers (the white collars). Some of the answers were in line with the blue collars but they were given in a somewhat different perspective. The top answer for this group was resource management which included talent utilisation for the purpose of developing a team cohesiveness. They said it was important to identify people’s strengths  and group them together so that their collective skills complements the group as a whole. An accurate analogy could be puzzle pieces coming together to form the big picture which leads to the next response. They said that keeping sight of the big picture was extremely important for maintaining high levels of productivity. The approach of keeping sight of the big picture is very broad, some of those aspects have been mentioned in my previous posts. The next common answer given was communication but they stressed that I must be two way; from manager to worker and from worker to manager. By maintaining open lines of communication between all parties problem identification is quickly relayed, which in turn results in a quicker time to devise a solution and then quicker resolution implementation. The group would also experience an open flow of ideas, resulting in quicker and more frequent possibilities for innovation. For this to happen, as one of the respondents said, one must have an open mind to listen to, properly evaluate, adapt, and implement these ideas.

Another component that is essential in this team environment is the fostering of proactive behaviour. Problems should not only be addressed when they are discovered. It is much better to anticipate them before they occur and take the necessary step to prevent any occurrences. In addition to managing one’s resources in terms of talent utilisation, proper project planning is an absolute requirement for greater productivity. That is very much self explanatory. If the project is improperly planned then resources would not be effectively used (or wasted) and productivity decreases. This group also stated that proper compensation is necessary to maintain productivity amongst all parties. The reasons they gave were similar to what the blue collars gave. The final two factors given were the treatment of people and a sense of accomplishment. Again the reason for these answers were in line with what the other group gave.

I did notice two distinct trends between the two groups. The blue collars’ responses were directly personal requirements for productivity, whereas the white collars’ responses were directly the requirements for team productivity. It is due to the fact that when tasks are assigned to the blue collars they tend to execute them individually rather than collaboratively, whereas the white collars tend to interact collaboratively with their colleagues on assigned tasks. The managers are more concerned with the performance of their team and they feel that they are only as productive as the team itself.

If you have any answers of your own, which you feel would improve productivity, then please submit them in the comments section of this post. I would be very interested in your ideas.

Until the next time!

Conflicting Attitudes Towards Innovation

In 2009 PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) surveyed over 200 CEOs from companies around the world on their priorities towards innovation.  The survey found that the vast majority indicated operational effectiveness was a far greater priority than innovation.  The reasoning was that increasing operational effectiveness had an immediate impact on the bottom line whereas increasing the efforts on innovation may have an impact but in the long term.  In other words, utilising your resources for guaranteed near term gain over the probability of long term gain or loss.  PwC repeated the survey again in 2013 to determine if there were any changes to these CEOs priorities on innovation.  There was a definite general increase in priority towards innovation.  In fact, three-quarters of the CEOs now considered innovation to be equally important as operational effectiveness.  They see innovation as a means to produce breakthroughs in product development that would keep the company ahead of the competition.

The PwC report also states that companies are moving away from dedicated innovation teams or R&D departments and relying on the mainstream operations teams to develop innovative ideas.  In fact, management encourages the mainstream employees to set aside some time for innovative thinking and research.  By having the operations employees take on the addition task of devising “outside the box” ideas, the company’s payroll expenditure becomes more efficient.  These employees are still engaged in their main functions of revenue generation as oppose to a dedicated R&D team who’s ideas may or may not produce revenue.  This strategy demonstrates management’s value and expectation of their employees to make their company more competitive through the creation of their ideas.

Since this survey involved 246 CEOs from around the world, it would be a natural assumption that the majority of companies have a genuine appreciation for their employees; that is until they leave.  I read an Entrepreneur article that talked about the actions companies take to retain their talented people.  According to the article, for the most part, there are none.  If an operations employee, who is a regular innovation contributor, decides to leave, the company views it as a part of doing business.  People are going to come and go.  The problem is that it is not just the person leaving but also a source of innovation.  The company becomes that much less innovative with that person’s departure. According to this article, the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) Human Capital Benchmarking database states that the annual employee turnover rate is an average of 15 percent industries wide.  The author then uses an effective analogy by saying that if the sales or revenues were cut by 15 percent then a massive amount effort would be made to determine the reasons for the reductions and to reverse the problem.  The author then states the attitude towards the people by saying, if that same percentage of people, who have the potential to create millions in innovative ideas, were to leave then nothing would be done about it.  I found this to be very contradictory to the PwC report.  If effort is made to encourage and foster innovation through the employees then why would a company do nothing to prevent them from leaving.

I did witness something similar.  I use to work with an extremely talented engineer who produced more innovative designs on a regular basis than anyone else in the company. Whenever he was given a design project, management expected him to design something very innovative; which he would do every time. He never ceased to to amaze me with his unique designs.  Once I was involved with a very large and difficult design project.  I could not do it all on my own with the very limited amount of time I had.  When I asked for help, I was super relieved when they assigned this engineer to help me.  Between the two of us, we produced a very effective, efficient design that was on schedule with no manufacturing issues.  This engineer had never disappointed anyone and always exceeded expectations. One day a decision was made to cut costs by downsizing.  I was super shocked that the most innovative person in the company was selected.  To this day I still don’t know what they were thinking.  A possible generic reason could fall in the category of mindset.

A good friend once said to me very good people are rare, so if you come across any you should hold on to them.  I made the effort to stay in touch with this engineer and I’ve consulted with him several times.  As the author of the article said, if the option to keep the person is not possible then the company should make the effort to obtain that person’s services on a contract basis as needed in order to retain their innovative thinking.  That is definitely sound advice but another bit of sound advice I would like to add is that the health and well being of the company is much bigger than any individual’s ego or personal feelings.

Until next time!

People, Are They Assets Or Not?

Several months ago I told one of my former managers that I was going to write a blog about productivity, covering the areas of innovation, speed, and flexibility.  He immediately said I should include people as an important aspect since it is people who drives productivity.  I remember him presenting the argument to the other managers that the single greatest asset any company has is it’s employees.  He said they are a resource that, if they are treated well and managed properly, will produce an excellent rate of return on investment.  He did have the reputation of assembling the most productive teams in the company.  He told me what his groups’ profit margins were.  I have to admit, it was very difficult for me to believe him since I have never heard of such high numbers before.  He said I don’t have to believe him, I could verify it with the Controller and the Finance VP.  I didn’t have verify it with them, I saw the loyalty his employees had towards him and the effort they put into their work.  They came into his office on a regular basis to discuss production schedules, priority changes, problems, and issue resolutions with a high degree of enthusiasm.

On the opposite end of the spectrum was one of our executives.  He often repeated his philosophy to us that everyone is replaceable.  He had also said he does not care how good of a job any employee did yesterday, he is only interested in what they do for him today.  It would be difficult to imagine anyone willing to put in any extra effort if they are told they are replaceable and any good work they do becomes irrelevant the next day.  Basically the message here is that if you show value towards your employees then they in turn will make the extra effort to be more productive.

I would like to add to that executive’s two philosophies.  He is right about everyone is replaceable but only in the long term, not the short term.  That is especially evident if the employee has many years of knowledge and experience that is specific to the organisation. It would be difficult and/or expensive to find another person with the equivalent level of knowledge and experience who can quickly adapt to the company’s business practices.  In reality it takes a significant amount of time to replace someone.  Applications would have to be read and evaluated.  The selected candidates would then be interviewed one or more times during the short listing process, before the replacement is selected.  In the meantime, the duties and functions of the former employee has to be performed by another employee (or employees) who have their own duties to perform.  Even after a replacement is hired, further time is needed before the new employee is fully capable to completely perform those duties on their own.  From the time the original employee leaves to when the replacement is up to speed the productivity of that position (and the positions of the employees filling in for the vacant position) is significantly impacted.  This is the main reason why people are not easily replaceable in the short term.

With regards to the executive’s second philosophy of only caring about what an employee does for him now or the immediate future and not what was done before; how does he evaluate candidates in an interview, on promises?  Our past experiences define us and we build upon them for what ever challenges that may occur in the future.  If someone does an exceptional job on a particular task before then it is highly likely they will do an exceptional job again on the next task.  Those performances in the past instills confidence and a sense reliability towards that person.  Those traits are not some thing that could be quickly obtained by a replacement.  They would need time.

If you are a team leader, supervisor, or a manager keep in mind when it comes to your employees, you get out of them what you put in.  That was demonstrated and taught to me by my former manager (who I mentioned at the beginning of this post).  I took that philosophy with me when I joined another company.  During the selection process I indicated to two of the company’s principals my approaches to situations and people.  I assumed they were very impressed since they did hire me.  On my first day I was shocked to witness during a meeting one of the principals humiliated a design engineer over something that certainly did not warrant such behaviour.  This principal had completely forgotten everything that was discussed during my interview and as a result he lost a significant amount of respect from me.  What I found to be very curious was that the design engineer appeared not to be phased by the insults.  I then wondered how often does this happen?  I saw in the engineer’s demeanour that he did not bother to put in any extra effort in his work.  If that principal thinks very little of him then there is no incentive for him to try harder.  I decided to put into practice one of the techniques my former manager uses.  I gave the design engineer a task to design some products that interconnected but I didn’t want to make it easy for him.  I gave him the spatial dimensions but I told him that they were not accurate.  I gave him a range of the possible inaccuracy and then I walked away. The next day he showed to me his design which incorporated features that addresses any possible inaccuracies in the spatial dimensions.  I was impressed.  I told him he did an excellent job and that I was pleasantly surprised on how fast he devised the solution to the problem.  By challenging him I was indicating that I had full confidence in his abilities and by saying that I was pleasantly surprise by his speed, indicated to him that he exceeded my expectations.  After that he would put in maximum effort on any request I gave him.  With that small gesture on my behalf he became a much more productive employee. The same could not be said of the treatment that principal gave him.

These examples demonstrate that you do get out of an employee what you put in, but in the latter example I got a lot more out of the design engineer than what I put in.  It doesn’t take much effort.

Until the next time!