Intelligent Manufacturing € May € 1995 € Vol. 1 € No. 5

Agile: Handle With Care

By David Blanchard
Editor

The topic earlier this month in Detroit at the International Automation Week show was "Restoring Global Leadership Through Manufacturing," a topic that presupposes that the U.S. has somehow lost its global leadership. And perhaps, in a sense, we have. While the U.S. is clearly the world leader in capacity of goods produced and sold, we have been losing the strategic edge in paradigm shifts. Every important manufacturing buzzword that has emerged in recent years - JIT, SPC, TQM - has been attributed to the Japanese, whether they actually originated the concept or not.

As president and managing director of General Motors de Mexico, Gary Cowger has a unique international perspective on what it takes to make a U.S. manufacturer successful worldwide. "There are three ways for a nation to create wealth: grow it, mine it or manufacture it," Cowger reminded the audience. "And yet, here in the U.S., we're deluding ourselves into believing that service jobs can also create wealth. Not so."

Cowger contends that it will require the follwing combination of efforts for U.S. manufacturers to regain their focus:

• Refocusing research and development from products to processes;
• A renewed emphasis on teaching math, science and manufacturing at the university level; and
• Cooperation between industry, academia and government on manufacturing matters.

In regards to the last-named point, Dwight Carlson, president and CEO of Perceptron (Farmington Hills, Mich.), added to the discussion by pointing out, "Research funding for manufacturing are the scarcest dollars in the U.S." All too often, academics are forced to jump through hoops to secure tenure, creating an atmosphere where the pursuit of technology takes a backseat to the pursuit of federal grants.

The keys to global manufacturing success, Carlson believes, are: knowledgeable leadership, empowered teamwork and robust technology.


Shifting Paradigms
Although the panelists assembled at the IA Week plenary session were all discussing global leadership, one of the new buzzwords of the mid-1990s kept coming up, a buzzword which mercifully does not need to be acronymized: agility. Agility, according to Rick Dove, chairman and CEO of Paradigm Shift International (Oakland, Calif.), is "the ability of an organization to adapt proficiently in a continuously changing, unpredictable business environment."

Dove characterized today's emerging business environment as one almost overwhelmed with technology. "Technology is having a fundamental, unprecedented impact," he said, "extending to faster cycles, shorter market windows and hastened obsolescence." At the same time, globalism has considerably widened the competitive arena. And the customer, seeing all of the above, has become more demanding, opportunistic and fickle. The objective for a manufacturer in 1995 that expects to still be in business in the 21st Century is to be adaptable, i.e., agile.

The reality of becoming an agile manufacturer, Dove explained, can be summed up in the formula: "Increasing new product frequency and variety means increasing process change means increasing transition turmoil directly affecting product cost, quality and time."


Change for the Better... or Worse?
"Change," another hot buzzword, is all the rage these days, presumably because it implies an ability to anticipate and quickly react to ever-evolving situations. In keeping with this month's look at the pro's and cons of agile manufacturing, the following two articles will present a pair of case studies. Both the positive and the negative aspects of agility are examined in these two pieces.

The first article, by Bob Turek, looks at the need for companies to cultivate and develop agile employees. These "can do" people are the backbone of a manufacturer's entire operation. With such an agile "change agent" in place, one manufacturing company achieved unprecedented improvements in all areas of the operation.

The second article, by Paul Peyton, argues in favor of stability rather than agility. While acknowledging the need for agile workers, Peyton wonders whether, behind the smoke and mirrors, the ability to change direction instantly has any bearing at all on manufacturing profits. He tends to think not, and cites as his evidence a manufacturer that - by abandoning quick response - achieved a 750% increase in productivity.

The agility debate will continue to rage, but hopefully the points raised in this month's Intelligent Manufacturing will help you determine the direction your company needs to take.