Not in- or outsourcing, but rightsourcing... (Haven't heard that one before) :rolleyes: :vfunny:

I don't know about you lot, but around here we've had a runaway outsorcing hype, resulting in numerous more or less anorectic organisations.

Now all of a sudden I get an invitation to a seminar about rightsourcing in my mail. It would seem that someone has decided that outsorcing has gone to far and aim to teach us how to achieve a balance between in- and outsorcing... (Groan).

Naturally, I'll treat this invitation in the same manner as I previously treated invitations to seminars concerning outsorcing in: Like a dead racoon... It goes straight to the bumf basket. Recycled, it may even gain some value.

Rightsourcing my :ca: ... Has anyone seen an invitation to Common Sense Management yet? No..? I thought not...

/Claes

I don't see any open squares on my Bu11sh1t Bingo card for that entry. Could we make it a "wild card"?
:vfunny: :bigwave: :biglaugh:

Bill

Absolutley Bill,

Any other new buzz words around?

/Claes

Try leftsourcing also, particularly useful in the glove or shoe manufacturing industries !

Claes:

A "rightsourcing" seminar? Hmmm, think it might be yet another wannabe "guru" trying to sucker in some management types with a few bucks left in the budget?

Maybe I'll start one myself.

Wrongsourcing - ferreting out the weasels, or how to avoid paying for something with a fancy name that you have already learned in business.

Oops, I forgot, that's not a ferret or weasel, but a dead racoon.

Craig

Try bullsh!tconsultancysourcing.

An excellent way for lazy fat managers and directors to go on a jolly and get some feeling that there is some science and meaning behind their miserable existance.

I can't believe that this stuff is unique to only the company I work for. It seems that time and time again we'll identify a shortcoming in our system only to find that a process is in place but not followed! We end up developing a "new improved" process, with more restrictions, more paperwork, more requirements, more reports, more checks and balances and more oportunities to fail.
IMO it is due to a substandard (or lack of) problem solving effort. Outsourcing is no different. It has been my experience that as a company grows, it holds the ties to the smaller shops that once supported it. In itself this is not a bad thing. However, when they drop the ball (due to capacity, equipment, etc.) we look the other way and don't report it. Fits into the "old boy" network of thinking. Then a manager is reporting on missed shipments and the root cause is supplier performance and the stuff hits the rotating blades!!! The other cause we've found is that price drives the work placement. It doesn't matter that they're consistently a few days late or we have to do some "touch up" it was cheep. The lost time or rework is loosely tracked for the "scratch my back & I'll scratch yours" payback system. Nobody is keeping a record of how much is owed and the vendor gets their money.
What we have successfully done is lower our incoming quality standards. Instead of raising the bar, as our customer have done, we lower it for our suppliers resulting in more work in-house, compressed timing in-house, etc. We have really just lowered our profit margin.
Isn't that sound business thinking! :bonk: :frust:

Good Grief, Randy...

You know, that really doesn't sound all that great. I have to ask: Is it as bad as it sounds, or did you just need to vent some steam?

/Claes

Randy Stewart said:

I can't believe that this stuff is unique to only the company I work for. It seems that time and time again we'll identify a shortcoming in our system only to find that a process is in place but not followed! We end up developing a "new improved" process, with more restrictions, more paperwork, more requirements, more reports, more checks and balances and more oportunities to fail.

Randy,

This is known as unlearning quality, and is practiced quite broadly. Usually perpertrated by overbearing bosses who don't give a hoot about anything else (e.g. competing priorities) they just want 'IT' yesterday. Unfortunately these people are then amazed when, 4 weeks later, the 'IT' has not occurred again.

This is prioritisation by noise volume not system.

Commonly used, and always guaranteed to produce temporary results.

Is it as bad as it sounds, or did you just need to vent some steam?
It really is that bad Claes. Last month I had to investigate a missed shipment and found the cause to be subpar workmanship from the supplier. What wasn't reported by the department NC report was that it cost us more to repair the dies than the amount we contracted with the outsource supplier. The reason for not reporting? "They'll make it up to us in the next job."

I have a meeting today with a group or our suppliers to go over expectation and work agreements. It should be interesting, I know a couple that are upset because we are holding PO's from them. They did work without a PO which they have been told not to do, others have done work without contract amendments and are not being paid. It should be a very interesting meeting to say the least. But something has to be done.

Who knows, after this meeting and my meeting with the company pres, I may be consulting full time!!!!:bonk:

So how did the meeting turn out, Stew?

/Claes

I appologize for not posting the results sooner.
Due to the timing of the programs we have fallen into a habit of kicking off our suppliers without a PO. It has been stated that to continue to do so may mean dismissal of the person responsible. We started doing a Value Stream Map on the PO approval process and found the largest delay is getting them approved. Last week we ran into a situation where there was product waiting to be delivered to us but the supplier had no PO so (as requested by us) was holding onto the product until they received a PO. Of course Purchasing can under fire but with the new process we had put in place, it was very clear that the request was submitted in the required time. Purchasing had a PO but was waiting for approval before isssueing it. What it boiled down to was that the approval authority is the bottleneck. It can take up to 2 weeks to get a PO approved. If we wait on this process to complete we will be late in the delivery to the customer. So the same people saying that personnel can lose their jobs are the people causing the problem.
In other words, my diplomatic skills are being tested!!!!:bonk:

Originally posted by Randy Stewart
What it boiled down to was that the approval authority is the bottleneck. It can take up to 2 weeks to get a PO approved. If we wait on this process to complete we will be late in the delivery to the customer. So the same people saying that personnel can lose their jobs are the people causing the problem.


Supplier QA. Randy’s post jogged my memory regarding the approval process for Suppliers at a large Aircraft Company that I spent a year with before the boom was lowered. I went there with 19 years Navy Submarine experience as a Senior QA Engineer to assist this company with a Navy contract they had for an Electrolytic Chlorine Generator. (1.2 Mil per copy). My interpretation of the NAVSEA contract varied significantly from what the Supplier QA people thought. They fought it every step of the way. Talk about bottlenecks. Try Jugheads. They were so entrenched with the way they did things, that we bogged down significantly while they determined that a Supplier was qualified to fabricate materials for the Navy. Many of theses suppliers were already shipping material to Prime Contractors who had Navy Contracts. But, no, we had to do it their perceived way.
Anyway, through no fault of anybody (I think), the Navy either decided to cancel the program or have it manufactured elsewhere. That coupled with a dramatic decrease in their regular business, there was a massive layoff. The entire Supplier QA department in this division, including myself, joined the first wave of 400 employees in the ranks of the unemployed. Not for nothing, but the hours that followed the announcement burned into my memory. There was crying and sobbing and wailing and hugging going on all around me. My thoughts were, at the time, look at these pompous, arrogant, smug people, reduced to whimpering creatures, now. These “roadblocks” to the process were no more. Along with the process. The layoffs continued for years, eliminating some 6,000 positions. I often wonder where everybody went and did they learn anything from realizing that you are just a number and that what you do isn’t about you, or what you think. This little story has very little to do with anything except to say that qualifying a Supplier shouldn’t be a power trip for those assigned the responsibility to do so. Because, you may be doing something else tomorrow. :bonk: :smokin:

Originally posted by energy
---X---This little story has very little to do with anything except to say that qualifying a Supplier shouldn’t be a power trip for those assigned the responsibility to do so. Because, you may be doing something else tomorrow. :bonk: :smokin:

Only too true Energy... As a matter of fact, the normal course of action when it comes to downsizing is to boot quality staff first...

Originally posted by Randy Stewart
---X---So the same people saying that personnel can lose their jobs are the people causing the problem.
In other words, my diplomatic skills are being tested!!!!

As Tom Jones used to sing: It's not unusual....:vfunny:

/Claes

Brought it up in the staff meeting today and you would have thought I pulled a rabbit out of my hat! I thought I was addressing my 2 year old with "did you do that?" A total look of disbelief. So we are now doing the VSM exercise.