The Phx Way

Managing Through Processes

wiley — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:39:18 +0000

You are dedicated to being successful. You know your department’s processes ‘inside and out’. You should, after all, you designed these processes to address challenges or opportunities as they revealed themselves over time. You’re not the first person to focus attention on processes: in the first half of the 1900′s, Dr Deming told the world that systems and/or processes are responsible for the great majority of results.

But there is a missing piece. Performance doesn’t match the quality of your processes. Process execution is irregular.

Read this interesting article by Bill Shinskey and you’ll learn an insightful alternative to managing through processes.

120129 Managing Through Processes Blog
Contributing authors Bill Shinskey and Kirk Wiley

Life Cycle Assessment

wiley — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:35:56 +0000

The stereotype players in the fight between industry and environment include a hardnosed manufacturer motivated to build more vehicles on one side, and an unemployed society drop out willing to ruin the economy on the other. Today, those stereotypes have largely disappeared, as most people blend concern for our environment with economic growth.

Attempts at reducing the environmental impact of automobiles have sometimes delivered terrible unintended consequences. George Coates describes the latest effort to accurately measure environmental impact allowing policy makers, manufacturers, and consumers to make better decisions.

Phoenix Systems provides resources like George Coates to an organization named WorldAutoSteel, working closely with AISI’s Steel Market Development Institute to develop technical case studies and messaging that have influenced the EPA to consider Life Cycle Assessment when measuring impact. Follow the link to read more.

120129 Life Cycle Assessment

Contributors include George Coates and Kirk Wiley

Blending Organizational Structures For Results

wiley — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:10:14 +0000

The difference between problem solving and process execution is significant, each benefiting from a specific approach to organizing the workforce. Bill Shinskey explores the notion of blending organizational structure to improve corporate results, including a description of when to employ each structure.

120129 Blending Organizational Structures for Results
Contributing authors Bill Shinskey and Kirk Wiley

Trim Scrap Analysis

wiley — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:26:17 +0000

Down the scrap chute it goes, exactly as planned. But the skilled Tool and Die professional can learn many things if given the opportunity to view engineered scrap trimmed off a draw shell. Die gauging, blank size, material flow are among the contributing variables this tool will lead you to address. Follow the link to read our description of this powerful tool.

120125 Trim Scrap Analysis

Contributing authors George Coates, Wil Fras, Bill Shinskey, Timothy Smith, and Kirk Wiley

Sheet Metal Lubricant Analysis

wiley — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:14:26 +0000

A 1990 Taguchi Study conducted by Phoenix, along with a major stamping manufacturer, found three primary sources of variation within the stamping process. These sources were blank size/shape, blank location and lubrication. Observation suggests these findings to be relevant today.

Sheet Metal lubrication is an input to the forming process critical to material flow. Analysis of this input strives to understand the impact of specific lubricant variables on the current forming output. Follow this link to read step by step description of our approach to measuring this important variable.

120125 Sheet Metal Lubricant Analysis

Contributing authors George Coates, Wil Fras, Bill Shinskey, Timothy Smith, and Kirk Wiley

Sheet Metal Displacement Analysis

wiley — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:56:12 +0000

So much of being successful forming sheet metal products is related to seeing the ‘invisible’; knowing how material moves during the forming process. We’re continually on the lookout for tools that provide the average tool and die professional simple access to information they can use.

The attached document describes one approach to measuring sheet metal displacement quickly, simply, and without need of any expensive equipment.

Download file: 120125 Sheet Metal Displacement Analysis

Contributing authors George Coates, Wil Fras, Bill Shinskey, Timothy Smith, and Kirk Wiley

Blank Variation Analysis

wiley — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:54:47 +0000

As an input to the forming process, we strive to understand the impact of specific blank size and shape variables on a forming output. Alternatively, this analysis tool can be used as an output measure of a blanking operation. Click the link to se The Phoenix Way to analyze blank variation.

Download File: Blank Variation Analysis

Contributing authors Wil Fras, Bill Shinskey, Timothy Smith, and Kirk Wiley

Constancy of Purpose

wiley — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:33:20 +0000

William Edwards Deming (October 14, 1900 – December 20, 1993) was an American statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and consultant. He is perhaps best known for his work in Japan. There, from 1950 onward, he taught top management how to improve design (and thus service), product quality, testing and sales (the last through global markets) through various methods, including the application of statistical methods.

Deming madea significant contribution to Japan’s later reputation for innovative high-quality products and its economic power. He is regarded as having had more impact upon Japanese manufacturing and business than any other individual not of Japanese heritage. Despite being considered something of a hero in Japan, he was only just beginning to win widespread recognition in the U.S. at the time of his death.

Deming developed the sampling techniques that were used for the first time during the 1940 U.S. Census. During World War II, Deming was a member of the five-man Emergency Technical Committee. He worked with H.F. Dodge, A.G. Ashcroft, Leslie E. Simon, R.E. Wareham, and John Gaillard in the compilation of the American War Standards (American Standards Association Z1.1-3 published in 1942)and taught statistical process control (SPC) techniques to workers engaged in wartime production. Statistical methods were widely applied during World War II, but faded into disuse a few years later in the face of huge overseas demand for American mass-produced products.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

Time is a great lens that clarifies the past. Think about managers running companies at the end of WWII: euphoria runs rampant, America is validated as a superior fighting force and economy, and this national pride distills down to pride in their company.

Demand for American products is exploding around the world. You can sell anything you make. Given their understanding at that time, why would anyone risk limiting those sales by emphasizing quality efforts?

How quickly we find these companies on the ‘slippery slope’ toward mediocrity. Within a few years after WWII, all evidence of the statistical process control efforts had disappeared from companies that successfully employed them during the war. Once again, we find a gap between what a company knows and what it does.

Dr Deming identified The “Seven Deadly Diseases”, the first being Lack of constancy of purpose. Many writers have expanded this concept elsewhere and I encourage you to gain a firm understanding. I wish to explore the relationship between the knowing-doing gap and companies that lack a constancy of purpose.

Those business leaders that saw great short term opportunity at the end of WWII lacked the constancy of purpose that could have led to great long term success. Some of those companies, the lucky ones that survived their indiscretion, returned to statistical process control decades later as competitors were taking away market share and profits. But alas, their lacking constancy of purpose led to predictable shifts in strategy with the next turn in the business cycle.

A manufacturing center manager employing in excess of 1000 people recently stated that running his business is ‘a grind’. His words shouldn’t be perceived in a negative light. He is conveying his attention to detail; It requires daily attention to systems, daily leadership of the troops executing the same, and a willingness to be the source of system discipline for the entire group.

When a failure occurs, his investigation centers on the system instead of the individual. His leadership team learns while observing his behavior and re-doubles its efforts to properly use systems. Eventually, every employee has a sense that these systems are really important and ‘how we do business here’. And we never purchased a single banner to extol the virtues of the system. People respond to leadership.

Once a system is being effectively operated the leader is free to devote his attention elsewhere – new systems, new challenges. But be wary of back sliding; remain vigilant to each system’s effectiveness.

Effective Leadership has constancy of purpose. Effective leadership closes the knowing-doing gap. Effective leadership drives business success.

The Phoenix Group and Its member companies Phoenix Systems, Phoenix Services, Phoenix TEQ Ashland, Phoenix TEQ Cincinnati, and Phoenix TEQ Rockport have been closing the knowing-doing gap for 20 years. Through consulting projects we teach manufacturers and professional organizations. Our contract labor resources execute today’s business strategies with the highest integrity, focused on customer success. And our business process outsourcing has provided us an opportunity to deliver on the principles we’ve taught others.

Jeffrey Pfeffer coined the phrase “knowing-doing gap”. His blog Rational Rants.

Kirk Wiley, Chief Operating Officer, The Phoenix Group Kirk at LinkedIn

Go and See

wiley — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:39:32 +0000

You’ve seen street artists draw caricatures. They exaggerate someone’s characteristics for humorous effect. The characteristic is true, but the exaggeration creates a false impression, or at least a distorted perception. In this environment, this is a harmless exercise.

During the golden age of sport, the best athletes were larger than life heroes and supporting cast were thought of as dedicated defenders of the community’s interest. Sports writers and radio broadcasters, through word or image, created a caricature of reality. They might build the person up or tear them down. They could convince you someone acted saintly or with great evil in their heart.

Even today, people use caricature to influence public opinion. Both drawing and photo were created as Barry Bonds approached the home run record. Desiring to influence people to take a particular opinion of the alleged steroids abuse, the artist drew the caricature, overstating Bonds’ steroids induced muscularity and the growth of his head (note the hat doesn’t fit). The artist’s rendition could distort your notion of reality.

Back at work

Now apply this concept to the work place. You assemble your team in the conference room to understand why the organization failed to meet last month’s performance metrics. You’re interested in each of their opinions, hoping to develop a better understanding of the constraints interfering with performance. You pay each of these people to be subject matter experts:

Production, responsible for operating equipment,
Maintenance, responsible for fixing equipment,
Quality, responsible for monitoring product quality,
Engineering, responsible for designing processes and equipment,
Management, responsible for coordinating all activity.

The conversation starts slow, but soon the dominate players take over. Well intentioned, they begin ‘drawing’ a picture of the facts they find most compelling. After all, they want to influence a decision be taken to remedy the problem as they see it. What is the predictable outcome?

Is evidence trustworthy?

Let’s take a closer look at the photo above. I used the photo to demonstrate the artist’s exaggeration, but the photo isn’t the perfect record of truth either. Could an observer conclude that Bonds swings the bat one handed? A bit of a stretch, but you could have a very healthy (and uninformed) discussion about where in the hitting stroke his hand comes off the bat. A critical fact if you’re a member of a baseball coaching staff debating the best hitting technique.

Photos can distort perception. Video can distort perception. So can production reports, pareto charts, employee or company rankings and all of the other tools used to summarize performance.

Gemba – Go and See.

Gemba, A Japanese word, pronounced gem-baah, and sometimes spelled genba. It’s translated several ways: the real place, where the action is, where value creating work actually occurs.

Get the team out of the conference room. Go to where the value creating work really occurs. Now ask Production to show the constraints on performance. Ask Maintenance to point to repairs and adjustments. Ask Engineering to demonstrate how specific equipment should operate. The key is to be inquisitive.

Now you have a better understanding of the problem and potential solutions. As solutions evolve from ideas to concrete plans, revisit gemba to confirm assumptions, test beliefs, envision the future state, and measure impact.

The following tools should always include gemba visit:

Problem solving
Value Stream Map
Ishikawa’s fishbone diagram
PDCA
Formability Analysis
Risk analysis or FMEA

Principle 9 of the Toyota Production System: Genchi Gembutsu – Go and See for Yourself to Thoroughly Understand the Situation. -From: The Toyota Way, Liker, 2004, McGraw Hill.

Kirk Wiley, Chief Operating Officer, The Phoenix Group Kirk at LinkedIn

Where facts are few, experts are many.

wiley — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:14:52 +0000

I was unable to uncover the origins of this quote, but it is always attributed to Author Donald R Gannon. Donald is mystery, at least to the people at Google and Wikipedia that collect such information. Regardless of my ignorance on these matters, I am completely intrigued by this quote.

I work with clients that face difficult technical challenges. At times, the number of variables involved surpass 100. People involved in solving the challenge have a wide range of experience, age, education and creativity. The pressure to resolve the challenge quickly is immense. Difficult. Technical. Challenges.

In the rush to resolve simple challenges, a skilled employee applies proven solutions and experiences acceptable results quickly (Though not cohesive). The crisis is averted, management is able to refocus its attention to other areas, and the individual is rewarded for her expertise. Even when the challenge recurs, all are comfortable with the application of the proven solution.

This approach may make sense to many. How is this approach modified when we face difficult technical challenges? Do we switch gears and apply scientific measure and observation to holistically understand the problem prior to developing a solution? Many times the answer is No. Time and again I’ve observed manufacturing professionals grasping at solutions before they’ve even set eyes on the completely defined problem.

Where facts are few, experts are many. The individual responsible for solving the problem proceeds with great confidence in the application of her solution. She may even make permanent changes to tooling that are difficult and time consuming to reverse. She may implement a second and third solution, each stack upon one another, until she experiences (or stumbles upon) the outcome desired. This manufacturing process will begin to experience a long list of symptoms and failures. Eventually the operators will decide the problem existed from the beginning with bad design.

Where facts are few, experts are many. When a group is responsible for solving a challenge we add a human dynamic to this difficult technical challenge. In typical human fashion, we take two typical paths.

Some express their ideas with great confidence and demand others follow their lead due to their expertise. The volume and intractability of your argument is accepted as a measure of your expertise.
Some retreat into their mind, either acquiescing to the more aggressive individuals or, refusing to be ‘run over, sit silently resentful’. Regardless of the data or information they hold contrary to the experts approach, they refuse to take the risk needed to interject their knowledge.

Where facts are few, experts are many. After the challenge has been resolved, a rewriting of history takes place. Many involved state with great certainty they knew all along which resolution would be successful. This seems harmless and is accepted behavior. Overlooked is the long term, decay on your team’s willingness to participate in future problem solving. Does your team always yield to certain personalities, regardless of their knowledge of details?

Where facts are many, problem solving is often reduced to simple resolution selection. Individual experts fade and the team’s capacity is revealed. Solutions are more effective; the frequency or repeat challenges are reduced.

Where facts are many, the team is observed collecting data and information about the challenge. The team spends a majority of its time understanding the problem and a minority of its time arguing over solution selection.

Perform a self assessment this week. As challenges reveal themselves in the normal course of business, allow yourself to monitor and measure your teams approach.

Does problem identification happen immediately or take time to unfold?
Do one or two individuals have all of the answers?
Is the team prepared to ‘un-do’ or reverse the chosen solution?
What is the measurement of the challenge?

Kirk Wiley Chief Operating Officer, The Phoenix Group, Kirk at LinkedIn

Bill Shinskey Director, Organizational Development & Training, The Phoenix Group, Bill at LinkedIn