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!

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!

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.

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!

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!

Speed Through Considering Your Steps

When we are in a rush to catch a bus or train we start running. If we are late for an appointment we start running. We don’t think about how to run, we just do it. No one thinks before hand about putting one foot ahead of the other in rapid successions. It is the same when most of us are in a rush to complete a task or even a project. We don’t consider the steps or we only consider some of the steps, the basic ones. The act of running is a simple action; it doesn’t require anyone to think about the steps. Tasks and projects, on the other hand, are not so simple, therefore, they require thorough planning. For the sake of speedy completions as well as successful ones all aspects of the involved steps should be considered.

In my introductory post, ‘Productivity, Why Bother?‘, I said speed is not always a concept of performing tasks or processes faster but rather the overall time to obtain the desired outcome. In order to shorten the overall time for completion there are several concepts that can be applied that focuses on the step sequence. The concepts I will cover are Streamlining, Concurrency or Parallel Paths, and Critical Path Analysis.

Streamlining is the term I use for examining a sequential set of steps and determine which steps that could be eliminated, combined, or replaced. A step could be eliminated if it is determined to be redundant. Usually redundancies are added to a system as to act as safe guards, in case of a failure occurring at an earlier step. Typically over time, these earlier steps tend to evolve into more robust procedures thus causing reductions to the rate of failure occurrences. What I mean by evolve is that the operators of these procedures (or processes) are subject matter experts. Through their ‘on the job’ actions and experiences, they will see ways of improving the procedures/processes which are then incorporated incrementally over time. If these steps become so robust that the failure rate falls below your organisation’s acceptance standards then it becomes a feasible prospect to eliminate the safeguard steps. With those safeguard steps eliminated the overall completion time is correspondingly shortened.

Steps could also be eliminated or replaced by implementing new technologies, processes, or improved parts. An example of implementing a new technology or process could be the implementation of hydro-forming to fabricate a varying cross-section pipe to replace the conventional method. Typically the pipe would be made in sections by utilising forming techniques. The sections would then be welded together and then a weld finishing process would be applied. As stated the conventional method requires multiple steps whereas the hydro-form process replaces those steps with just two steps, since the hydro formed pipe is only one piece rather than several. An example of step elimination through the implementation of improved parts will be discussed in the next paragraph.

Another method in Streamlining that is similar to the elimination method is combining steps. By combining steps you are effectively eliminating a step(s) since the combined step would serve two functions. An example of this would be if there are two steps, say step ‘B’ and step ‘C’, that are very similar to each other. One of the steps could take on the function of the other step thus eliminating the need for it. You may ask how would that save any time. If there is a preparatory or setup period for each step then by combining steps you reduce the total setup time. A more detailed example would be assembly of circuit boards in the Electronics industry. Circuit boards are spaced to one another by using a set of standoffs. Standoffs are small cylindrical metal spacers that are a certain height. These standoffs are threaded into a nut that was pressed into the circuit board in a prior step. The second circuit board is then positioned on the standoffs. To save time, rather than inserting the mounting nuts into the boards, you could use another type of standoff that can be inserted directly into the board. You could then eliminate the mounting nut and the time required to setup the insertion step and it’s operation. That may not seem like much but consider a two board assembly that uses six standoffs. The time savings for eliminating that one step is multiplied by six. If 200 of these assemblies are made in an hour then your time savings is multiplied by 1200. During an eight hour shift your time savings becomes a factor of 9600. If you are running one shift a day, five days per week with no shut down through out the year then your time savings becomes a factor of 2,496,000. To put that number into time units, lets assume it takes four seconds to insert one nut into the board and another four seconds to screw a standoff into that nut. Your total time save for the year would be (8 sec x 249600 + setup time = 19,968,000 sec or 5,546 hours and 40 minutes + setup time). If you consider 200 assemblies are made per hour then the yearly time saved would equal to potentially an extra 1,109,200 assemblies each year.

This example just illustrated the concepts for combining and eliminating steps through the introduction of an improved part. The time savings of that part and step elimination does not stop there, there are other factors involved. The time to order that part, stock it, catalogue it, and moving them to the particular process location is also saved. That single simple act, therefore, turns into a significant time savings and thus greatly improve your organisation’s productivity.

I will discuss the concept of concurrency in my next post.

*The above photo is copyright protected by Can Stock Photo Inc./marobauer

Speed, Getting It Right The First Time

The next aspect I would like to talk about for increasing productivity is speed.  We all agree that the faster we get our products and services to our customers the more productive our companies will be.  When I joined the workforce as a Design Engineer one of my goals on any project was speedy completions.  I knew it would be an immediate benefit to the company if tasks and projects were completed as quickly as possible so that delivery times could be reduced.  As a result, more tasks and projects could be completed within a given time frame.  I was surprised when some of my colleagues told me that I should work smarter not faster.  I immediately assumed that was conflicting advice.  How could they tell me not to work faster when it is advantageous to finish the work as soon as possible and how does one work smarter?  I thought I was already being smart.  As it turned out I discovered those answers the hard way.

I use to try to complete a design project as soon as possible while maintaining all of the design parameters.  The final design would be officially released and the files would then be sent to manufacturing for fabrication of the hardware.  Sometimes manufacturing would inform me that a part could not be made due to a feature that they were not capable of replicating or sometimes the parts were all made but it would be difficult to install or assemble them due to inadequate tool clearances.  Whatever the problem would be the outcome was the same, an Engineering Change Notice would have to be created and issued.  It would be assessed and a formal corrective action report would be created before the redesign process commences.  Whatever amount of time that was saved by trying to finish the design faster was completely erased by the Engineering Change processes.  To summarise, not only mistakes cost money but they also significantly reduce productivity.  This is what my colleagues meant when they said I should work smarter not faster.

In my introductory post, ‘Productivity, Why Bother?‘, I said speed is not always a concept of performing tasks or processes faster but rather the overall time to obtain the desired outcome.  If no mistakes were made over a one year the period then you would agree there would be considerable time savings.  If tasks, steps, or processes were reduced, combined, or eliminated then there would be considerably much more time savings.

Going back to my dilemma when I was a junior engineer; I didn’t ask myself what was I doing wrong but what should I be doing instead.  It was obvious I was lacking knowledge on manufacturing processes but I didn’t have the time to learn all of the required (and future) processes.  I realised the next best thing was to consult those who have manufacturing knowledge but to do it in a concurrent manner.  What I mean by concurrent is that while I was designing the parts or sub-assemblies, I would forward drawings or sketches of certain part features to the manufacturing experts for their consultation.  They would then inform me if those features could be reproduced and if not then they would suggest changes that would be within the process’ capabilities.  Those changes would then be incorporated on the fly during the design process.  Once the design was completed it could be completely made without any problems.  You may have noticed a contradiction to the previous paragraph.  I actually added a step rather than eliminating one.  As with many rules there are exceptions.  I said before that reducing or eliminating steps saves time but this example shows the addition of a step actually saved time overall.

Another aspect I kept in mind while designing were the assembly and maintenance environments, in particularly how the products would be assembled.  The assemblers should be able to assemble the products trouble free.  Again, the faster they assemble them, the faster the products are delivered to the customers.  In order to assure trouble free assemblies, I would take into account the alignment and fit of parts and the clearances for the range of motion for the various assembly tools.  If the assembler has to struggle with limited room to secure their tool to the fastener and then struggle with a restricted range of motion, productivity would be dramatically reduced.  I would also incorporate into my designs the reduction of the number of different types of tools required for particular sub-assemblies.  With fewer types of tools required there would be less time involved for looking for and switching in between the different tools.  It also reduces the probably of a mistake occurring from selecting the wrong tool.  That may not sound like much but in a high volume environment it actually adds up to be a lot. I will go into more detail on this in a later post.

Always keep in mind, speed is only effective if you get it right the first time.

*The above photo is of then Monster Yamaha Tech 3 MotoGP rider Colin Edwards during a free pratice session on October 21, 2011at Sepang Malaysia (copyright). The reason why I selected this photo is that in high speed racing even the smallest mistakes can cost you the race no matter how fast you were going.