Consistency is the first step

Consistently using the same processes in manufacturing is the first step toward a high quality product. 

In 1999, I was responsible for the operation of a self-contained manufacturing cell.  Our team produced one complete piece of stretch wrapping equipment every 28 minutes.  If we operated at 100% efficiency, we would produce 17 machines every production day.  

The problem was we rarely met that target.  

Who am I kidding?  

We never met that target.  There were always problems that were discovered in the run-off stage, the final production step.  We often had to stop the line to fix the problem(s) that were discovered prior to moving the finished piece to the shipping area.  This meant stopping the line where a “fire drill” would ensue.  The run-off people would troubleshoot the problem, the assemblers or fabricators from the area where the problem occurred would correct the deficiency, and we would muscle that piece through to shipping.  

The good news was every piece we shipped exceeded our quality standards.  However, we were confused.  Actually, we were more than confused.  We were frustrated and concerned what would happen if we did not catch the deficiencies and one machine left our building. How much pain would our customers would feel as a result?  We had developed detailed “standard work” instructions for each stage of the process.  How could we be creating these problems?

It was at this point that I read an article from the September-October 1999 Harvard Business Review titled “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System” by Steven Spear and H. Kent Bowen.  The purpose of the article was to stress the consistency with which each person on the Toyota production lines performed the same processes the exact same way each time. I suggest giving the article a read.  It is 22 years-old, but the lessons still apply today.  https://hbr.org/1999/09/decoding-the-dna-of-the-toyota-production-system

The proverbial light went on in my brain as I remembered the relentless adherence to the Jump Master Personnel Inspection (JMPI) sequence that was drilled into our heads in Jump Master School at Fort Bragg, NC.  Strictly following the JMPI sequence perfectly was the only path to graduation and, more importantly, ensuring that the private on his sixth jump, the SFC with 20+ years of experience, and the O6 focused on the upcoming mission all donned their equipment correctly.  We knew the areas that were the highest risk when exiting an aircraft while in flight and we worked to minimize these risks.  

(Everyone reading this who went through Jump Master School just started mentally taking their right hand and wiping across the front edge of the Army ballistic helmet checking for any sharp edges.  Now you will be dreaming about JMPI all night.  You’re welcome.)

Were we really following the standard work manufacturing steps we had so carefully laid out?  The team leaders and I set out to determine what was happening.  We did this by taking copies of the standard work instructions and observing our people as they worked through the steps.  What we found is that though our people were following the sequences mostly, they were not following the sequences CONSISTENTLY.  The results of deviating from the process were creating our problems. This is not to say that anyone was doing this with ulterior motives.  No.  Everyone meant well.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, wanted to hit that magic number of 17 successfully completed machines.  

What we found was interesting.  In one case, there were two workers in adjacent work areas assembling different parts of the same component.  The two workers shared a torque wrench.  If the wrench was available, the first worker would use it and move to the next step.  If the wrench was not available because the second worker was using the wrench, the first worker would move to the next step with the intention of coming back to that step.  

Guess what happened?

Yep, the step would sometimes be skipped altogether resulting in a missed operation that would be discovered in final run-off.  

Face meet palm.

Once we discovered this practice, we did two things.  First, we instructed the assemblers that if they came to that step and the wrench was not available, they were to wait until the wrench was available.  Yes, we might run over the 28-minute takt time, however, we would follow the standard work process and supply a machine that passed run-off at the final step.  Following the processes CONSISTENTLY became the most important part of manufacturing. As it turns out, the worker was trying to avoid being the last person to finish up causing us to fall behind our takt time.  The assembler was working to beat the clock.  The 28-minute takt time was both a standard to work to and a cruel task master.  

To fix the problem long-term, we added a second torque wrench to the cell so each assembler had their own wrench and could easily follow the standard work process.  This part of the problem was solved and we accomplished this change by the end of that shift.  

To our defense, we were in the mid 90% range for following standard work, so this is good, right?  No.  As an example, consider a theoretical situation of five steps in a production process and those five steps are completed at 95% accuracy at each step.  The result is a 77.4% overall success rate for the entire process.  Do the math yourself.  (0.95 * 0.95 * 0.95 * 0.95 * 0.95 = ???)  See the point? Is a 77.4% pass rate acceptable?

The same need for consistency applies to the manufacturing processes of perishable PCD tooling, or any special perishable tooling for that matter.  If the same process is not followed every time the tool is manufactured or repaired, the performance of the tool will not be consistent.  As with the case above, yes, we certainly want to provide the tool on time.  However, we also know that if the tool is provided on time, but corners are cut in the manufacturing process, those deficiencies will cost you, our customer, more time as the tools are sent back to their manufacturing facility to be re-worked or made new altogether.  

Let’s put it this way.  You, the customer, have invested on average $2000 for each tool.  In order for the purchase order to be generated, you had to get approval of the purchase requisition.  This requisition likely now goes to the plant manager or CFO for approval due to the Covid-19 cash crunch.  Next, you waited one to two weeks until the approval drawing showed up in your inbox, you signed your name on the approval drawing and returned it to your supplier.  Then, you waited between 6 and 14 weeks for the tools to be delivered.  

You went through the ordeal of getting the tool to run successfully, which, by the way, should not have been an ordeal but a defined process (more on this in the coming weeks).  Now, the tool has been used and needs to be repaired.  The last thing you need to worry about is if the same tool coming back to you after repair will perform as it did in a new condition.  

This is the reason you need to have confidence in your supplier to perform each production step consistently to include using the same manufacturing processes, the same materials, the same inspection methods, the same dimensions of part packaging, the same labels in the same directions with the same font, the same laser marking method in the same location in the same direction and other details that have not been considered.  

Is my OCD showing yet?

Why is this so important?  For all of the components in your production steps, you need consistency.  With special perishable tooling this is especially true due to their custom nature, their higher costs, and the lead times to produce them.  Consistency is the key.  77.4% is not a passing grade with quality.

In sales, we are often taught to let negative situations simply roll off our backs.  This is one area that I refuse to do allow a sub-standard tool to simply roll off my back and you should not allow your technical salespeople working with you to do it either.  Dealing with special tooling in particular requires that the customer and the supplier work closely with each other, to trust each other.  This type of selling is at the “hyper-relational” end of the scale as Anthony Iannarino teaches.  Often, you are willing to pay more to work with this supplier than other lower price suppliers because of this level of trust. I have been known to drive eight hours on Easter Sunday to be at my customer’s plant first thing Monday morning because there was a questionable tool in their possession. This may sound fanatical, but is it really?

In coming articles, we will show you what to look for on the tools that will reveal the processes used to manufacture and inspect the special PCD tools you depend on daily as critical components to keep your manufacturing operating as it should.  All of which are details that the technical sales representative that visits and works with you should know and should be prepared to explain to you. As the saying goes, "the devil is in the details."

Somewhere, there must be a “Black Hat” Jump Master Instructor chuckling.  

Send me a message if you want more in depth training than what is revealed in upcoming articles.