Intelligent Manufacturing € January € 1996 € Vol. 2 € No. 1

The Push for Continuous Improvement

Continuous improvement programs have become one of the most oft-cited (though least-understood) methods that manufacturers plan to implement to increase their productivity and profitability. The concept itself sounds deceptively easy, and after all, who could be against something called "continuous improvement?"

The troubles start when a company sets out to identify those areas that are most in need of improvement. Inevitably, no matter how great the investment in new technology, a manufacturer ends up with the reality that a philosophical shift in mindset must occur among its employees. And that's when the fun begins.

Christopher Barnes, a senior engineer with manufacturing consultancy Tompkins Associates Inc. (Roswell, Ga.), described an experience he had coordinating a self-directed work team at a Fortune 500 company. "The months leading up to the creation of the self-directed team were filled with chaos and strife between a few assembly workers and the assembly supervisor," he explained. "In the short period I had served as the engineer in the area, I barely had a chance to understand the products, let alone establish (or refine) work standards and/or production rates for the various products. In all, there were well over 50 stock-keeping units (SKUs) differing in both size and final assembly operations. Although these differences existed, when I started there were only two line speeds: fast and faster."

Barnes continued, "A few of the assemblers realized that some of the products were too large or had too many operations to run at the 'fast' speed. When the issue was brought to the attention of the supervisor, the response was basically, 'I have been here for 20 years, and I know how fast the line should run. Go back to work.' I was eventually asked to coordinate a self-directed work team in this troubled department, and was given the charter to make things better."

This continuous improvement work team included every employee in the final assembly department, which then chose a leadership committee to devise action plans. According to Barnes, "The trials and tribulations resulting from jumping into a self-directed work team reads like a list of the top 10 things not to do in implementing teams." He explained each of the mistakes:

10) Lack of a Teaming Champion. "The lack of experience that I possessed as the self-directed team leader put the overall team at a disadvantage. Although the ambition was there, I had not yet had the opportunity to prove myself to the managers and supervisors, let alone gain the trust and confidence of the other members of the team. Without followers, a leader is not a leader. And without a leader, a team is not a team."

9) Lack of Supervisory (Management) Training and Involvement. "The people on the assembly line didn't understand the production or quality standards against which they were measured. I got the entire work team together and reviewed the charts and numbers with them. Later that day, the supervisor gave me an ear full for causing a commotion in his department. He informed me that he was the supervisor and he would determine what and when information would be shared." In the absence of communication or training for supervisors, they will inevitably feel threatened and attempt to undermine the success of the team.

8) Lack of Team Member Choice. "If you worked in the department, you were automatically on the team." Some individuals remained involved with the team, while many others were simply interested in doing their job, leading to resentment between the two groups.

7) Train, Train, Train. The training took place before the team had actually been formed. As a result, "by the time the team had been formed, most of the information from the training sessions had been set aside and classified as lost inventory. When the information and lessons provided in the training were needed, most, if not all, had been forgotten."

6) Lack of Team-Based Organizational Structure. "The absence of an effective communication system via a good Communication Team slowed the growth of plant-wide employee buy-in to the teaming process. Expecting the work teams to perform on both a micro and macro level restricted the reengineering potential of independently chartered design teams."

5) Team Development Process Shorted. "The team was given very little direction regarding goals and expectations, so the team was essentially functioning as a self-directed team. Regardless of the expected end results, the group was never given the opportunity to evolve and never fully developed the true characteristics of a team."

4) Lack of a Charter. "The absence of leadership-defined information flows, thrust of teams, time frames, constraints, evolution of team authority, team support structure and deliverable expectations placed the teams in a state of chaos and disarray."

3) No Model of Success. "An effective Model of Success will establish a constancy of purpose by: providing a clear vision of the future of an organization; outlining the path to reaching for the vision; defining those key areas that will make the organization successful; describing the values and principles shared by the organization; and providing some measure of effectiveness to assure the organization is moving toward its vision."

2) Lack of Management Commitment. "Employees and managers alike need to trust in the new commitment to organizational culture change. Without this trust, managers will be unwilling to give up their traditional 'control' roles and will not provide the freedom necessary for teams to develop. If employees do not feel enlightened to a cultural change, they will view 'teaming' as a new trick to get more work out of fewer people, and be less likely to take risk and express their opinions."

1) Lack of a Culture Change. "The fundamental underlying philosophy of a culture change is a shift in attitudes from 'What can we do to employees so they will contribute in the ways we see as most useful?' to 'What can we do to facilitate peoples' individual and joint contributions to their own and to their organizations' well being?' Barnes sees this culture change as the most important factor in allowing a continuous improvement team to live up to its fullest potential.

"Although there are hundreds of people who have stories of failed team programs, an organizational culture founded on team-based continuous improvement is the only viable alternative to successfully compete in the next century. Growing, thriving and learning organizations of the future will use teaming processes that are leadership-driven and employee-powered," Barnes concluded.

Click here to return to Table of Contents for the Intelligent Manufacturing January issue