> Quality dilemma of the week.
>
> My operations folks have been beating up our quality system (ISO) due to
> the fact that they state their productivity numbers have gone down since
> incorporating ISO-9000. I challenge that.
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:01:41 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Quality Vs Productivity (Blame ISO-9000) /Hitchcock/Summerfield
From: George Summerfield
Hi Al:
In my experience, Manufacturing is always looking for a scapegoat for any decrease in productivity. Having an office for Quality just gave them one more target to choose from; and its one that the bean counters like to pick on too because of the cost of quality. So, there you are in the middle - "between a rock and a hard place". Have faith, you're neither the first (nor will you be the last) QM to be there.
Others may have a difference of opinion to my following suggestion(s); but here goes - remember, that this is IMHO and totally up to you:
1. Call-backs should not be included in your output. The idea of having a quality system is to standardize procedures and reduce the number of call-backs, warranty work, and legal liability problems. Try to find a way to localize these numbers - a history of how many there were before the implementation of the quality system - and publish an internal report showing the reduction in incidents. This is not production, this is what is commonly referred to as "hidden factory" work. You have to reduce this, without allowing it to be counted against production. Count it separately. It might be taking production workers away from production to perform "re-production", but this should reduce the total hours available.
2. Total hours available has to be clearly defined. Some companies may count two shifts per day as a total of 16 hours per day; but realistically they have to count down-time for maintenance and inspections of manufacturing equipment/machines, production time diverted for warranty or re-production work, training and union or management meeting that personnel have to attend during the work day, shut-downs for family days, holidays, etc. I'm not saying that all of this is not taken into consideration, but you may wish to re-check their figures as to how this was calculated - how exact were they, or did they take an approximation. If theirs' is an approximation, then give a better one of your own, with more detail to substantiate it.
3. An 8 hr shift has a 1/2 hr lunch break and two 15 min. breaks in it. There goes one hour right there. If there is start-up + warm-up time to machinery, than take away another 15-30 minutes for set-up. If there is wind-down and clean-up time after the shift then take away another 15-30 minutes lost production time. In an 8 hour shift, if you can accurately count 6.5 good hours of production per worker, then your company should count itself among the fortunate. If you take into effect human circadian rhythms (we're getting scientific here - and into time:motion studies as well), then between the highs and lows of the human at work during the average work-day; you'd be lucky to get 5 hours of 100% production per worker, and this does not take into effect the historically lower production days of Monday and Friday. However; without slipping back into "Taylorism", you should be able to come up with a truer number than 8 for production hours in a shift. Just adequately justify it when you present the bean counters with a more accurate equation to calculate by. Also add in that there is little they can do to improve on those numbers, especially if your company is unionized.
Hope this helps...
George
------------snippo-----------
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:04:57 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Quality Vs Productivity (Blame ISO-9000) /Hitchcock/Pfrang
From: Doug Pfrang
A few thoughts to consider:
1. There is a difference between causation and coincidence. Has anyone demonstrated a causal link between the "lower productivity" and the ISO implementation, or have they merely noticed that the two events happen to roughly coincide in time? If the latter, remind them that a great many things can contribute to a drop in productivity.
2. Pointing the finger back at management might be perfectly justified, and might make you feel better if you were the one in charge of the ISO implementation, but it is unlikely to garner support for your views.
3. "Productivity" is a notoriously nebulous measurement, often used by people who oppose some initiative (like ISO) and want to manufacture some "data" to support their cause -- so, they find a measurement that gives data favorable to their beliefs, and they do not care how contrived the measurement is.
4. ISO is a long-term process. In the short-term, writing procedures and revamping processes slows people down and can reduce many measures of "productivity."
5. ISO is also a learning process. Learning takes time to sink in.
6. According to Deming, measurements of "productivity" are antithetical to the entire concept of quality system management.
7. Success with ISO requires management support. By continuing to employ their old measures of "productivity," your managers are effectively denying that support -- so they might (ironically) be causing the unsatisfactory performance results themselves.
-- Doug
>
> My operations folks have been beating up our quality system (ISO) due to
> the fact that they state their productivity numbers have gone down since
> incorporating ISO-9000. I challenge that.
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:01:41 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Quality Vs Productivity (Blame ISO-9000) /Hitchcock/Summerfield
From: George Summerfield
Hi Al:
In my experience, Manufacturing is always looking for a scapegoat for any decrease in productivity. Having an office for Quality just gave them one more target to choose from; and its one that the bean counters like to pick on too because of the cost of quality. So, there you are in the middle - "between a rock and a hard place". Have faith, you're neither the first (nor will you be the last) QM to be there.
Others may have a difference of opinion to my following suggestion(s); but here goes - remember, that this is IMHO and totally up to you:
1. Call-backs should not be included in your output. The idea of having a quality system is to standardize procedures and reduce the number of call-backs, warranty work, and legal liability problems. Try to find a way to localize these numbers - a history of how many there were before the implementation of the quality system - and publish an internal report showing the reduction in incidents. This is not production, this is what is commonly referred to as "hidden factory" work. You have to reduce this, without allowing it to be counted against production. Count it separately. It might be taking production workers away from production to perform "re-production", but this should reduce the total hours available.
2. Total hours available has to be clearly defined. Some companies may count two shifts per day as a total of 16 hours per day; but realistically they have to count down-time for maintenance and inspections of manufacturing equipment/machines, production time diverted for warranty or re-production work, training and union or management meeting that personnel have to attend during the work day, shut-downs for family days, holidays, etc. I'm not saying that all of this is not taken into consideration, but you may wish to re-check their figures as to how this was calculated - how exact were they, or did they take an approximation. If theirs' is an approximation, then give a better one of your own, with more detail to substantiate it.
3. An 8 hr shift has a 1/2 hr lunch break and two 15 min. breaks in it. There goes one hour right there. If there is start-up + warm-up time to machinery, than take away another 15-30 minutes for set-up. If there is wind-down and clean-up time after the shift then take away another 15-30 minutes lost production time. In an 8 hour shift, if you can accurately count 6.5 good hours of production per worker, then your company should count itself among the fortunate. If you take into effect human circadian rhythms (we're getting scientific here - and into time:motion studies as well), then between the highs and lows of the human at work during the average work-day; you'd be lucky to get 5 hours of 100% production per worker, and this does not take into effect the historically lower production days of Monday and Friday. However; without slipping back into "Taylorism", you should be able to come up with a truer number than 8 for production hours in a shift. Just adequately justify it when you present the bean counters with a more accurate equation to calculate by. Also add in that there is little they can do to improve on those numbers, especially if your company is unionized.
Hope this helps...
George
------------snippo-----------
From: ISO Standards Discussion
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:04:57 -0600
Subject: Re: Q: Quality Vs Productivity (Blame ISO-9000) /Hitchcock/Pfrang
From: Doug Pfrang
A few thoughts to consider:
1. There is a difference between causation and coincidence. Has anyone demonstrated a causal link between the "lower productivity" and the ISO implementation, or have they merely noticed that the two events happen to roughly coincide in time? If the latter, remind them that a great many things can contribute to a drop in productivity.
2. Pointing the finger back at management might be perfectly justified, and might make you feel better if you were the one in charge of the ISO implementation, but it is unlikely to garner support for your views.
3. "Productivity" is a notoriously nebulous measurement, often used by people who oppose some initiative (like ISO) and want to manufacture some "data" to support their cause -- so, they find a measurement that gives data favorable to their beliefs, and they do not care how contrived the measurement is.
4. ISO is a long-term process. In the short-term, writing procedures and revamping processes slows people down and can reduce many measures of "productivity."
5. ISO is also a learning process. Learning takes time to sink in.
6. According to Deming, measurements of "productivity" are antithetical to the entire concept of quality system management.
7. Success with ISO requires management support. By continuing to employ their old measures of "productivity," your managers are effectively denying that support -- so they might (ironically) be causing the unsatisfactory performance results themselves.
-- Doug