posted 28 September 1999 02:57 PM            

You know, it would be interesting to have a 'history' type of forum here...

posted 28 September 1999 03:37 PM            

Not ascertaining the Customer's needs and wants correctly can have the same tragic effect. Addressing only the needs will stifle innovation (what the customer wants, but doesn't know it yet).

Yea, I remember reading in one of the Kerridge papers about a Xerox example. When the idea for the photocopier came about, a market survey was commissioned to determine if the idea was worth pursuing. The results were dismal. No one seemed either interested in or wanted such a contraption. But, the flaw in the survey was they were asking customers their opinion about something they had never seen or heard of. Needless to say, the survey was not considered. Unfortunately, Xerox was not blessed with the same foresight when they developed the GUI. They sold (I think) that to Apple.

All that I read in this string is so true it's disheartening.

That is why we fight the good (?) fight.

While I would like to believe this to be true, how many of you out there have seen (or worked for) companies that make $ despite themselves?

Too many, too many. The problem is, if they are making money, they sit back on their haunches and enjoy life. What they fail to realize is that if they would work to continuously make things more efficient, of higher quality at a lower cost, they would make more money. That is the problem: When things are good, it is OK. But, that begs the question: Can they be better?

Let's face it, EVERYTHING is driven by the bottom line! That's why companies are in business, and the cultural ethics and values of senior management will be reflected in the quality of the product they provide to their customer.

True enough. But quality is the bottom line. That is their failure, and ours. If we cannot explain to management, in language they understand, why this is, then where does the responsibility lie?

You know, it would be interesting to have a 'history' type of forum here...

Yes, it would.

Regards,
Don

------------------
Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Check Out dWizard's Lair:
*** Dead Link Removed ***

posted 29 September 1999 01:33 AM            

Subject: Re: Blood on my hands! /Hitchcock/Shadaksharaiah
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 09:35:18 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

>From: Al Hitchcock
Subject: RE: Blood on my hands! /Hitchcock

I recently sent a supplier corrective action to one of our suppliers with a
manufacturing facility in China. By the way, the facility is ISO certified.

The response is this...

Investigation:

"Complaint 1). Our workers do not operate rightly."

Corrective Action (short term). "We have ask our workers to pay much attention to improve."

Corrective Action (long term). "We will punish our workers strickly if still do not operate rightly".

I can see the picture as I type this... someone in China is getting Hari Kari in the spirit of continuous improvement...

posted 29 September 1999 10:25 AM            

"While I would like to believe this to be true, how many of you out there have seen (or worked for) companies that make $ despite themselves?"

You raise a good point. Probably all of us have been in this situation. But this type of thinking is consistent with taking things on surface/face value. We must be doing things right, we are making money after all (sorta like the inspector observing a within tolerance measurement when in fact the part is bad, fulfilment of prophecy). Don's point on how far they could have been if they didn't get fat and lazy (my adjectives) is indeed correct. Arrogance gets in the way.

"Let's face it, EVERYTHING is driven by the bottom line! That's why companies are in business, and the cultural ethics and values of senior management will be reflected in the quality of the product they provide to their customer."

Accurate statement and well stated. But the bottom line is only part of the equation, senior managers often miss the other parts. Businesses exist, sure enough, to create a profit for themselves, but they are also there to provide jobs, and fulfil the needs/wants of their customers. Bottom line organizations are run by Profiteers or Financiers whose interests are solely profit (my own projection here) and they are linear thinkers. Senior management should do better than that! They have a responsibility to organize the pieces and develop solutions inclusive of all parties affected by the system. System Optimization.

This has been a good thread. I enjoy reading the perspectives of others, even if we are a bit negative or complaining (a sympathetic ear or two).

posted 29 September 1999 10:35 AM            

I would send that Corrective Action back to the Supplier with a comment or two. I would almost never accept that the associate was the root cause for the problem. Two thoughts come to mind. Deming's comment on Management Owned problems being 85% or more. This would suggest that only 15% or less of the time that the associate would have control of the outcome. Also Deming's comments that only 6% of the time, a person is unchangeable or directly creates a problem. This suggests to me that fewer than 6% of the associates would be malicious enought to make bad parts. Therefor, I would accept fewer than 6% of the CARs coming back to me indicating that it was human error, and the explanation supplied would need to be quite convincing.

As far as the suggested Corrective Actions, management by intimidation (fear) is plain stupid! Seeing this on the report would make me wonder what kind of people we are working with. Just tragic to see this type of response. Yet, I have seen it! I have seen responses where the associate was fired. Unbelievable! Even if this were the case (the associate is a 6 percenter), I would hope that an organization wouldn't want to air their dirty laundry. I wouldn't.

Regards,

posted 29 September 1999 11:27 AM            

Quality like a fluid, will seek the path of least resistance, and will have a natural tendancy to go downhill unless acted upon by an outside force.

I like it!

Corrective Action (long term). "We will punish our workers strickly if still do not operate rightly".

The only difference between the response Marc posted and the responses received from other sources is the Chinese actually say what our domestic counterparts do not. Sure, we receive platitudes but, what they are really saying is, "If the person that caused this does it again, we will fire him." Sad, but true.

Bottom line organizations are run by Profiteers or Financier whose interests are solely profit (my own projection here) and they are linear thinkers. Senior management should do better than that! They have a responsibility to organize the pieces and develop solutions inclusive of all parties affected by the system. System Optimization.

Well put Kevin. Well put.

Back later with comments on #2.

Regards,
Don

------------------
Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Check Out dWizard's Lair:
*** Dead Link Removed ***

posted 29 September 1999 01:31 PM            

I'll be here.

posted 03 October 1999 11:43 AM            

In one of my classes, I tell APQP teams that if they put a production process in place that creates some percentage of defects, and the operators running that process create those defects, why not congratulate those operators for successfully accomplishing what you wanted? Heh heh...

Regarding the Challenger failure, I had the opportunity to view the "O" ring part of the FMEA. The failure mode was seperation of sections, the cause was low external air temperature, the effect was escape of fuel, and if memory serves this is a quote "...mission failure, loss of life..."

Someone overrode the known dangers. I am sure it wasn't the group that developed the FMEA, it certainly wasn't the support personnel, so it must have been someone higher up. Why? Likely COST!