Complications of Non-standard Instructions

I’m adamantly convinced that being able to assign work correctly and effectively will have an instant significant and beneficial impact on the performance of an organization. When the assignment isn’t clear, too many things can go wrong. If you’ve ever run into a mistake because someone “didn’t read the paperwork”, you’ve seen the impact of work being assigned incorrectly.

Non-standard requirements from customers make things complicated. Whether your firm makes large runs or small ones, requests from customers for a non-standard product are often the source of mistakes. It is too easy to get “into the habit” because most orders are the same. That makes it easy to assume that every order has the same requirements.

Good practice is to review with your workers any element of the job that is non-standard, because it is much more inexpensive to have it clear from the start. When you speak about the non-standard stuff, it’s more likely to be remembered and done correctly.

Equally important, you want your team member to summarize the instructions to ensure they fully understand. If they can say it back to you, that means it has registered.

So try this: For the next three days whenever you assign work to someone, make sure that you bring to their attention any non-standard requirements such as packaging, different fittings, different tolerances, colours, and so on. Then have the person summarize what you’ve told them and monitor the number of mistakes that happen. You’ll see that the errors will decrease, saving you the aggravation and the company money. Continue this practice with your crew and this will ensure work for tomorrow and many more years to come.

SUCCESS STORY

Rod (not his real name) ran the paint shop in a plant making big machinery. As part of one of our training modules, he had been challenged to make an improvement in his area and so he decided to tackle the problem of not enough carts.

In fact, they had a lot of carts…that were not being used effectively. They were usually all filled with parts that had been painted, just waiting to be used. So Rod’s team spent hours moving around carts, trying to find the right one they needed to use. Rod’s first thought was to look for a place where he could unload the parts and store them till they were used.

But then he applied the Job Methods improvement procedure. He broke down the job, observing and taking apart every detail of the work. Then he questioned each detail. What popped out is when he asked the question, “When is the best time to do it?” about the detail of painting. The answer was, “Just before the part was going to be used.” In other words, if he could hold the parts unpainted until just before they were needed, it could solve his cart problem.

Rod then looked for a trigger to say when those parts should be painted. It quickly became clear that the main body went into the paint booth and then had to harden for 24 hours before there was more work to be done. And it turned out 24 hours was plenty of time to do the painting of all the parts. And so, the body going in for paint became the trigger.

Once he put this in place, four things happened. Firstly, he found he actually had too many carts. Secondly, because the parts were hanging around for a shorter amount of time, they weren’t as damaged before they got installed. Thirdly, with fewer carts on hand, parts were easier to keep track of and find. But most impressively, because they were waiting until the parts were needed, plus all the added benefits, they could actually do the work with less stress and with one less person. What had been a crew of 6 became a crew of 5. The other fellow went to work in an area of the plant that was the constraint.

So aside from fewer carts, less damage, and a lower cost for the painting, they were actually able to increase the capacity of the plant! It was a tremendous result for a minor change in how the work was scheduled.

There were two lessons learned from that situation. The first was the level of impact it can have when changing the procedure for releasing work. The second is that when you tackle improvements, the solution will not always be what you expect!

SMALL CHANGES MATTER


One task for all supervisors is to consistently make small improvements in how work is executed. These constant improvements will make the work easier, faster and safer for the workers.

Often when supervisors first look at an operation they don’t see any opportunities. I remember one operator telling me that there was no waste in his operation: he got the material he’d be machining, got the tooling, installed the new tooling, put away the old tooling, adjusted the milling machine, machined the part, and put the part away. When he described it at that level there was no dispute. Every step was necessary.

His view changed when we challenged him to describe it in more detail. He realized that he was walking 40 steps to get tools – a step he hadn’t even noted the first time. He also observed that it involved walking 80 steps to get the tooling and 80 steps walking back, then later walking that same 80 steps to put the old tooling away and another 80 steps back to the machine.

Once he described the operation at a detailed level, he could see that by moving the tools closer to the machine he could eliminate almost 40 steps. He also realized that by changing where the tooling was stored, and by taking the old tooling off first, he could reduce 320 steps (about 250 yards or more than the length of two football fields) to only 30 steps.

Those changes immediately reduced the time for setting up the machine by three minutes or more. Since doing 3 – 5 changes a day, he now had 10-15 minutes of more machining time every day. It was like getting an entire part for free!

The lesson for us as supervisors is to look at the small details of the work–not at the big picture, in order to find opportunities for improvement.

Laugh about it, then fix It.

Sometimes unexpected things happen and it may not be what you wanted or planned.
Poor supervisors will play the victim, give up, blame others or even the world.

Inspirational supervisors find something to laugh about, they involve their team and accept the challenge in finding a solution to the problem presented to them.

Whether they should or not, your team looks to you to take leadership and let them know whether a situation is fixable, worth fixing or whether they should move on. When you throw up your hands in despair, they will too. When you treat a problem as a challenge to be met, they’ll do the same. How you respond to all levels of difficulties will be a reflection of your leadership.

Don’t Prevent Conflict. Why?

conflictI recently saw an article from a respected bank with the title, “Conflict management starts with effective prevention.” The first sentence of the article stated: “Conflict between employees is one of the most common sources of trouble in the workplace and can lead to productivity losses, increased absenteeism and poor client service.”

The article is wrong.

The problem is not the conflict. The problem is how it gets handled or ignored. There is a common perception – and this article reflects it – that conflict is bad. Nothing can be further from the truth. Conflict is normal, natural, and essential. But when the conflict is ignored or buried, that is when it causes trouble.

You see, you and your friend may have different ideas about what to do on Saturday night. It is a conflict – a difference of interests. The fact that you have different ideas isn’t the problem. In fact, if there weren’t that difference you might not consider trying one of your friend’s suggestions, and so you might miss out on something really fun.

The problem happens if you don’t feel comfortable voicing what you would like to do. If you don’t, then over time you may start resenting them always calling the shots. Or if they dismiss your ideas all the time, you may feel like this isn’t a friendship you want to build on.

In the workplace, the problem isn’t the conflict. It is in sorting through the different perspectives that you can find great innovative solutions to problems. But if differences are suppressed, the results get ugly. Eventually people will want to leave.

Your challenge as a supervisor isn’t to prevent conflict. Your challenge is to find ways that people can be comfortable that their concerns, their perspectives and their interests get a considered hearing. You want your people to feel safe that conflicts can be addressed without them being threatened. Then they can make amazing contributions.

A place to start is to understand your own response to conflict. Which of the five modes of responding to conflict do you usually use: competing, avoiding, compromise, accommodating or collaborating. And what are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. How does that play out in your relationship with your team.

If you can learn this, so you are comfortable helping others through conflicts that arise, then you will help your team members perform well and achieve amazing results.

“MOTIVATING ALBERTA’S ‘ENTITLED’”

That was the headline in the Financial Post last week. (See the full article here.) The article was about the challenge of what Alberta employers are calling a “hostage situation.”
“I guess the hardest thing for local business owners who are trying to hire unsilled labour or even [staff for] administration [is that] we feel powerless,” says Lara Dobson, a small business owner in Lloydminster, Alberta. “The employees really hold the power. If they start coming into work late or not performing at their job, I find we are all a little more accepting and take a lot of things that we wouldn’t necessarily have in a different economy.”

The article goes on to say that “In hotels, restaurants, cafés and clothing stores, shoppers have often been frustrated by disengaged – and often absent – workers bouyed in confidence by the knowledge that their employers are so desperate for labour, there is little risk they will lose their job.”

The article eventually gets it right. It puts the responsibility for this situation exactly where it should be: poor supervisors and managers. The bottom line? Employees “ work better under engaged supervisors and logical processes.”

Even the language of the employers quoted in the article points to the root of the problem. In a “hostage” situation, it is presumed to be the “fault” of the terrorist. In this case, the assumption is that it is the ne’er-do-well, insolent employees who feel they are “entitled” that are the problem. But in my mind, this assessment is wrong. Instead, it reflects employers and supervisors who are either unskilled (most likely), or lazy (not usually), or disinterested (unlikely).

There are lots of examples of people willing to work for less money for a great boss – enough to know that it is more than a fluke. The article in the Financial Post started with Lara Dobson who speaks about her stable workforce that is working for her at lower wages than they could get elsewhere. I’ve had the privilege of having people come to my plant and take less wages because they heard that the way my team was managing was appealing. Money is not the primary motivator.

Our work as supervisors has three parts:
1) to put great systems in place that make it easier to do the work, and get rid of obstacles,
2) to set standards and give feedback so people know how they’re doing and get credit for what they contribute, and
3) to communicate to our people why the work they do matters to their work colleagues, to the customers, and to the community.

Within a work environment where that is happening, the language of “hostage” and “terrorist” won’t be relevant. Work can be fun and rewarding. And you, as a supervisor, have the opportunity to make that happen.

ABOUT PERFORMANCE

“One of the oddest things in our culture is that we seem to be tolerant of all sorts of behaviour, yet are deeply unforgiving.”

This was written by Rowan Williams, the recently retired Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Church of England. He was writing about forgiveness. And while you may not have the same perspective on forgiveness as Williams, his comment made me think about how we as supervisors function.

When we, as supervisors overlook poor performance, we are, as Williams says, “tolerant of all sorts of behaviour.” We accept it and don’t deal with it. We work around it, and make excuses for it.

But the moment some bad consequence happens, because of that poor performance, we are “all over the person.” Worse, we don’t let go. We carry the memory of the catastrophe like a grudge and are ready to bring it up again in an instant. I can remember a conversation about an individual who was having performance problems. The comment from one of my leads was, “Remember when he did…,” referring to an event 2 years before.

So we had accepted / tolerated the poor performance, but then we wouldn’t let go of times someone messed up.

Since people usually “mess up” as a consequence of some ongoing poor performance, we really bring it on ourselves.

A more constructive approach is to be demanding about day-to-day behaviour, and recognize that mistakes will happen. Hard on the process; easy on the people. When mistakes occur, our task is to understand what is it in the process that makes the mistake possible? That’s a harder question, but will get you better results. And it makes for a far more constructive workplace.

So the next time someone “messes up”, assume that it was the process rather than the person, and do some digging to see what is it about the process that made the mistake possible. Get a feel for the real underlying reason.

SUCCESS STORY – “I’m too busy!”

One of the ideas that we keep emphasizing in our programs is that when you assign work, you must have a conversation about time. There are two parts to the conversation. One is the question, “how long do you think this will take?” The second is a discussion about priorities: what is the impact on other work if this work is inserted.

“Claire” (not her real name) recently told me about just such a conversation. She asked her production worker how long a task would take, and was told 4 hours for 100 units of the product. Claire was expecting 1 ½ hours. So she challenged the person.

“Do you really think it will take over 2 ½ minutes to do each unit?” she asked? And when the operator was asked, she replied, “No way! I should be able to do it in a minute.”

Now with a commitment to get the job done in 1 hour and 40 minutes, Claire was content that she would get the work done when she wanted it done, because the worker was content that it was reasonable.

As Claire said, when she told me this story, “If I hadn’t asked, who knows how long it would have taken, but it would have been more than 1 ½ hours, for sure.”

IDEAS ABOUT SUPERVISING – LEAN MANUFACTURING

Lean manufacturing is a term that has been given to a set of tools and practices that focus on reducing waste in any process. The best known organization used as an example is Toyota, but interestingly, they don’t think of it as “lean manufacturing.” To them it is just the Toyota Production System. And for them, they are very clear that it is a set of solutions that works for them, but that it cannot simply be copied. Each company needs to make it their own.

The Toyota Production System is more than a set of tools. It is a mindset. The mindset is that they want to eliminate anything that the customer doesn’t want to pay for. If an activity doesn’t obviously add value for the customer, then they’d like to eliminate it.

They also understand that they cannot know all the answers to the question “How?” when they set out. So Toyota looks at improvements to their production processes as a series of experiments. So much as possible, they try to understand the processes and what is causing the waste. Then they come up with an experiment that they think will help eliminate that bit of waste. They do the experiment as quickly and cheaply as they can, draw conclusions, make appropriate changes and go on to the next experiment. The concept of “failure” doesn’t fit in this approach, because the experiments are an effort to learn something. Because they start with some clear expected outcome, they always learn something.

From Toyota’s efforts to eliminate waste come many of the tools you may have heard about: 5S, JIT (Just in Time), mistake-proofing, one-piece flow, fast set-up times (SMED, which stands for Single Minute Exchange of Die), level load scheduling, and so on.

Done right, applying these methods creates more and more capacity and delivers more and more value so that the firm can sell more and more product. Done right, it improves job security. Unfortunately, too often, it is done as just another way to do “cost cutting”, and when this happens it often fails and it tends to leave a bad taste in people’s mouths.

As supervisors, the concept of eliminating waste can be powerful. If you have done the Job Methods program you may recongnize that the six questions in Important Step 3 – Question Every Detail are just another way of asking, “What is the waste here? How can we eliminate it?”

And that brings me to the final point. The methods that we teach at First Line Training are built on a program called Training Within Industry (TWI). This program was presented in Japan during the reconstruction after WWII, and one of the many small companies that learned and embraced the TWI approach was Toyota. So really, what you learn in TWI is the roots of lean.

ASK “HOW LONG?”

Poor supervisors tell people what they want done and leave it at that. Middling supervisors also tell people when the task is required.
Great supervisors start the conversation about time by asking the workers how long they think the task will take to complete.

Why this works
When asked “how long do you think this will take?” people have to think through the task, and if their estimate is much different from the supervisor’s expectation, it provides the opportunity to clarify the task. It also lets the supervisor judge whether the worker will need help to get it done on the supervisor’s timeframe.