Copyright Institute of Industrial Engineers May/Jun 2007| [Headnote] |
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
| Don't confuse busyness with business. If you make it clear to employees that downtime is unacceptable, they will always appear to be working, whether they are adding value to the organization or not. Accept the necessity of downtime and concentrate on reaching goals instead. |
The engineering clerk was responsible for making product and tooling prints, updating bills-of-materials, and other clerical functions. Her mail basket was usually empty, and her office was orderly and quiet. She never looked rushed and was always a great source of information.
When she was laid off, I was shocked. I did not understand the logic behind dismissing an obviously highly skilled employee. Then I overheard a conversation: The engineering manager said it was a good thing we got rid of her because she talked on the phone a lot.
Another lady, Kathy, was moved into the engineering clerk's position. Kathy was doing something all the time. Her mail basket was covered with prints that had just been made. (Although now the production scheduler and engineers were making their own prints.) The three design engineers were in and out of Kathys files constantly. Things had surely changed. But the engineering manager was pleased that Kathy was working hard and not talking on the phone.
The engineering manager could not see the effectiveness of the original engineering clerk and her ability to meet the organization's needs. He missed the opportunity to use the original clerk's skills to help the organization. All he saw was her downtime talking on the phone. His perception of time was people in motion, not an effective operation.
Sweet deception
A new machinist was hired to work the third shift of a candy factory. During the machinists first day at work, Jim, the machine shop supervisor, took aside the new employee. "Our boss comes to work before the end of our shift," Jim explained. "For your future in the company, always carry something whenever you are walking through the plant." This was more than friendly advice. Jim strongly believed that even if he were on his way to talk to a friend in the stock room, he should carry something like a large adjustable wrench so that he appeared to be walking to a job assignment. The perception of actual work was as important to Jim as meeting operational goals.
Walking into a food processing plant, I saw four operators standing by their filling machines just watching the machine fill containers. They did not appear to be busy. Their only duties were to load caps, load labels, correct jams quickly, and make changeovers. The first thought I had was to give these operators additional duties.
The organization's goal was to keep the food process line running continuously. Any downtime created a loss of material, potential quality problems, potential safety problems, and perhaps an inability to meet customer demand. Giving the operators extra duties and thereby taking their focus away from maintaining production of the process line would have been detrimental to the organization's goals. In this case, an operator who did not look busy meant the process line was running smoothly and the organization's goals were being met.
Toolmakers are a highly skilled craftsman. They make one-of-a-kind tooling that can cost thousands of dollars each. Thats why I was curious to see several of these highly paid employees standing around a workbench looking at tooling prints and talking. 1 questioned their supervisor about this. He was pleased that the toolmakers were not cutting metal but talking about cutting metal. Only one toolmaker was responsible for making the tools in this case. The other two had stopped their projects to review the tooling prints with him. The tool he was about to cut had $40,000 of value in it to this point. Making a mistake at this time would turn the $40,000 tool into scrap.
The tool room supervisor knew his operational goal was to make highquality tooling, and that the only way he could do this was to eliminate mistakes. If it took the experience of three toolmakers to decide on the machine changeover, then it was worth the time.
Multitasking isn't productive
I read an employment advertisement recently for an engineering position that featured a long list of skill requirements, including the ability to work on multiple projects simultaneously and the ability to adapt to change. From these job requirements alone, its easy to visualize this company creating waste by moving engineers from project to project. The goal of simultaneous project coordination can create problems.
In reality, its difficult to do two tasks simultaneously. Sometimes it's not even possible to move your hands without stopping to think. The MTM Association for Standards and Research's MTM-I application data card has a simultaneous motion chart. It classifies motions that:
* Can easily be done simultaneously
* Can be done simultaneously with practice
* Cannot easily be done simultaneously, even with practice
The MTM-I motion called "position" is difficult to do simultaneously with both hands. An operator must position a part with the right hand, then stop for an instant and look at the left hand before positioning the left hands pan. It would not be fair to expect a person to be able to do these tasks simultaneously.
To be fair to the job advertisement, projects have a natural pause, at which time an engineer has to wait until the next phase of the project can be completed. At these times, an engineer typically starts working on another project. But when that happens, an opportunity has likely missed. This downtime pause from the priority project is an opportunity to prepare for the start of the next phase of the priority project. Reviewing the next phase of the project helps reduce the risk of the priority project failing. Only after the priority project startup preparation has been completed should the engineer start to work on another.
1 recall a time when 1 sat down with an engineer named Henry to assign him a project. He pushed his chair back and asked if I wanted quality projects or a quantity of projects. I could hear the anxious concern in his voice. My initial thought was, yes, I want both quality in the project and I want a quantity of projects completed.
At this company, the theory was to give engineers a large number of projects so they will always be busy. They were expected to do some work on each project every week. Theoretically, projects are progressing if work is getting done every week on them. Henry said he was concerned about switching projects because it took time to shift gears between projects throughout the week. More important, he believed there was the possibility of skipping a step in a project if he was not careful.
As managers, we want employees to think fast on their feet but not skip any necessary process steps. When we are under pressure to complete several projects, we may direct employees to jump from one project to another. We push to get the employee working toward the new assignment. By doing this, we may be encouraging employees to take shortcuts.
If we took shortcuts setting up a production machine, the end result could be loss of material, poor quality, and low productivity. Yet we demand employees quickly change projects and we expect a different result. Even worse, we think changing to any project should be instantaneous.
The changeover time for a CNC milling machine can vary depending on the product to be produced. The same is true for people: Some mental changeovers are instantaneous, but more difficult projects require more time to think.
Manufacturing managers know that every process changeover is needed even though these changes add no value to products. Changing over a machine is an investment in time and material. There is always the potential for poor quality and lost material at the beginning of a new changeover. If we have just invested money into a changeover, we are hesitant to tear down that machine to start another job. We should be just as hesitant to move an engineer from job to job. In manufacturing, the objective is to reduce changeover time to zero. We use single-minute exchange of dies and other approaches to help reduce changeover time.
How do we reduce engineers' mental changeover time?
* Have the engineer focus on one priority project that meets the organizations goal.
* At project pauses, the engineer should prepare for the project to start again.
* The engineer may be assigned other lower priority projects.
* Train the engineer on a mixture of different projects. What the engineer learns from each new project will build his or her knowledge base for future projects and reduce mental changeover time.
* Be careful of your own tendency toward attention deficit: Allow engineers to focus on completing priority projects.
Your mind works better without you
You are driving to work. The car in front of you slows down to make a right turn. You look in the rear view mirror to check the car that's been tailgating you for several blocks. Everything appears to be OK, so you return your line of sight forward, and there it is - the answer to your business process problem.
You were not even thinking of the problem, but the answer suddenly appeared. Where did that come from? Could it be your mind was working on the problem all along? It could be that because you were not forcing your mind to think about the problem, your mind had time to work.
If we see engineers filing paperwork or cleaning their desks, it looks like a waste of time. Why aren't they working on that critical project problem? How many times have we told someone to stop doing something and get back to work? Have we ever caused an engineer to lose a potentially great idea?
In the bottling plant, I watched as the maze of conveyors brought empty bottles into formation to the filling machines. Labels peeled off a roll and were precisely placed on each bottle. To produce more product, the operator could simply increase conveyor speed, right? However, the increased speed did not necessarily improve output.
To understand the speed-to-output relationship, the operator tried to find the optimal speed for each process line. After checking several process lines, he realized he was reducing the line speed to reach the optimal output. I tested this theory by reducing a line speed. To my surprise, the process line produced more per shift. Operating at a higher speed was causing downtime and killing production. Reduce production speed and produce more?
In a continuous process line, where each machine is tied to the next, every machine has the possibility of stopping due to a malfunction. In this case, for example, a bottle could fall over. If one machine stops, eventually the whole line stops. Increasing the machine speed increases the possibility of a malfunction or the frequency of stops. Slowing the process line down may allow each machine to operate without malfunctioning.
Keep goals in mind
To find the optimal speed, remember the operational goals. List the criteria that are important to your operation. Typical criteria involve quality, scrap, product loss, material loss, safety, and quantity produced. The optimal speed will give you the best condition for each criterion.
To improve output and the optimal speed, there are several factors that have to be considered:
* Equipment. ItIs possible that the equipment was never able to operate at the design speed. Unreliable equipment design or equipment modifications may also present problems. Is maintenance, especially preventive maintenance, being completed to keep equipment in good working order?
* Materials. Obviously, materials must be of sufficient quality to perform to expectation.
* Training. New operators should be trained to use equipment properly, and all operators should be retrained occasionally to prevent the loss of operational knowledge.
* Methods. Best practices should be documented and followed.
Continuing to improve the process will allow the process speed to be increased. We often fall into the trap of believing that moving fast through time is the answer to productivity Developing an effective and dependable process that meets operational goals is the answer to productivity, even when people move slowly through time.
Observing well-spent time can be difficult. seeing people hurriedly doing their daily work gives the illusion that something constructive is being done. Our primary input is in front of us either seeing a task done or recording a task in a time study.
If we penalize employees for showing us their downtime when they have met their operational goals, we will see a magical transformation: Everyone will be busy all the time. But this deceptive busy magic act performed makes it harder for us to manage. If downtime is actually occurring, we want to see it. seeing downtime allows us to plan for the future. And these plans allow us to create operational goals. The operational goals and plans will keep us from jumping from hot project to hot project. At the same time, we must encourage employees to take time to think of new ways to perform more effectively and reliably.
I challenge you to take one employeels job description and review the operational goals. Are you supporting the employee in meeting these goals? Are you an obstacle in the ability of the employee to meet these operational goals? see the operational goals for each employee. Fully support employees in meeting their goals.
View uncontrolled speed as a waste creator and controlled speed as a reliable process. see downtime as an opportunity, a measure of waste, and a measure of effectiveness. By doing this, you will create a new perception of time.
| [Sidebar] |
| The perception of actual work was as important to Jim as meeting operational goals. |
| [Sidebar] |
| Supervisors can turn good employees bad |
| [Sidebar] |
| Even model employees can become unproductive under the rule of a bad boss. |
| According to University of Florida management professor Timothy judge, "When employees feel they're mistreated, they get even. If they think their supervisor is nasty toward them, they will find a way to restore that perceived level of injustice." |
| So gossiping, pilfering, backstabbing, and long lunches can become the norm not just for workplace malcontents but even for exemplary employees when they feel put down by their supervisors, says Judge, who has conduced research on the subject. |
| The findings are important because employers often behave as if worker attitudes are irrelevant and have no effect on performance. |
| "Training supervisors to treat employees with respect is not something that costs employers a lot of money, and it can produce real dividends." Judge said. |
| [Sidebar] |
| When we are under pressure to complete several projects, we may direct employees to jump from one project to another. |
| [Sidebar] |
| Operating at a higher speed was causing downtime and killing production. Reduce production speed and produce more? |
| [Sidebar] |
| Neural bottleneck thwarts multitasking |
When it comes to doing two things at once, your brain, while fast, isn't fast enough. So say  Vanderbilt neuroscientists Paul E. Dux and René Marais. |
| "Why is it that with our incredibly complex and sophisticated brain, with 100 billion neurons processing information at rates of up to a thousand times a second, we still have such a crippling inability to do two tasks at once?" Marois, associate professor of psychology, asked. "For example, what is it about our brain that gives us such a hard time at being able to drive and talk on a cell phone simultaneously?" |
| Researchers have long thought that a central bottleneck exists in the brain that prevents us from doing two things at once. Dux and Marois are the first to identify the regions of the brain responsible for this bottleneck. |
| "In our everyday lives, we seem to complete so many cognitive tasks effortlessly. However, we experience severe limitations when we try to do even two simple tasks at once, such as pressing a button when a visual stimulus appears and saying a word when a sound is presented. This is known as dual-task interference," said Dux, a postdoctoral research associate in the department of psychology. |
 | |
| [Sidebar] |
| The researchers are interested in further exploring what is happening in the bottleneck to slow performance and believe the work may have future implications for people performing complex tasks. |
| "It may be possible to look to the sort of tasks people are going to have to do in a very complex environment, such as flying a plane, and find out under what circumstances these tasks may be less vulnerable to dual-task interference," Dux said. |
| [Author Affiliation] |
| Mariin Neely was a guest lecturer at Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis for 10 years. He received his M.B.A. from Indiana Wesleyan University. Neely is currently managing member of Con/ess LLC. |
My Research
