Effectiveness. Efficiency. Excellence.

My name is Alan. I'm an engineer. Not a Ceramic Engineer. Well, maybe on paper (gratuitous plug for Penn State in picture below). I declare that, by the power vested in me by myself, and by practice (and by writing all of this I am wondering if my English teach Mr. Whalen would cringe at my sentence structure and length; what was I saying? SQUIRREL), I am a Quality Engineer and an Industrial Engineer. Sometimes an Industrial Engineer and a Quality Engineer. But these days, not a Ceramic Engineer, that's "so 1991."

Anyway, forgive my digression. It could be worse, I could have tried to worm a song into your brain, like the Hokie Pokie. That's not what it's all about. Let's move onto three questions.

Q1: Does this “equation” (E+E=E) bother your sense of algebra?

Q2: Did my cool “quick bait” picture entice you to read the article?

Q3: What song is going through your head right now? (oh no, back to that)

Q2 Answer

Yes, if you’re reading this.

Rambling about Q1?

Anyway – I struggle with writing out this “equation” above. It’s nonsensical from an algebraic point of view. It reminds me of the packaging of a recently bought set of paper towels, in which the label declared that “12 = 22” or something like that, trying to say that one is now getting nearly 2X for their money. Yeah, right. It also reminds me of when people say stuff like “40 is the new 30” (or wait, is it “30 is the new 40”…. I can never seem to sort that out!). Is this whole (x-1)*n*10 is the new (x)*n*10 thing linear? Let me know if you find out. Smiley face emoticon. I’m perfectly okay with saying “32 base 16” when referring to “50 base 10” – makes me feel younger and, oh by the way, is algebraically and numerically correct.?

Does it bother you that I answered Q2 first? If so, this may say something about your personality type and your neuroses. Or not. I’m not a psychologist after all.?

Q3, Song??

Feel free to comment below.?

What’s My Point – We will get to that soon, I promise.

So – what’s my point? Well – after a lot of thought while walking the dogs, I have come to the conclusion that my work DNA has two engineering strands, and one of them is not Ceramic Science and Engineering, as is displayed on my BS diploma (easy on the BS jokes, especially you Ohio State people). I am, through experience and on-the-job training, a hybrid engineer:?

1. Quality Engineer (QE)
2. Industrial Engineer (IE)

These are probably in the right order although I tend to spend more time on IE-related issues.?However, my heart is in QE land. You know, the old “head and heart” thing; I tend to be better at IE and spend more time on IE, but my head is with QE. I oddly find RCA work oddly gratifying, for instance.??

And yes (oh no, Mr. Whalen will not like how I started this sentence), the picture is blurry. I don't want someone on the internet to steal my 1989 diploma and start running round claiming to be a Ceramic Engineer from PSU with High Distinction honors (shameless plugs).

OK, here’s my point.

After 367+ words, the suspense must be overwhelming. Let’s break down the E plus E equals E.

EFFECTIVENESS plus EFFICIENCY equal EXCELLENCE

• E equals Effectiveness
• E also equals Efficiency
• E also equals Excellence

See what I did there? Effectiveness plus Efficiency equals Excellence. As it turns out, in my esteemed opinion, the order is indeed correct. I would argue that before one tries to improve a process, for instance, it is important to make sure that process is effective – thus effectiveness is a prerequisite to efficiency. In this context, I am actually really thinking about Quality and Speed (Velocity) as my E and E respectively. Before you speed up a process, you must be sure that it does not have a lot of rework or rejected by-products, else you will be accelerating the output rate of defects to your client or customer. I again have borrowed (ummmm stolen) material from Jack Overacre. The net is - irrespective of the order of the E and the E, one cannot have Excellence in business operations without these two Es.

By the way, Jack said, “If an operation if unstable, stop all changes. Once the process is stabilized, resume change slowly, and odds are you will not only get an improvement in effectiveness (for instance, a lower rate of change failure), but you will likely be able to also ramp the output.”??Effectiveness first, then efficiency. Quality then Speed. Quality Engineering then Industrial Engineering.

But, not so fast. Think of a process that has to first be fast before it can be effective. For instance, if a product upgrade takes way too long, and market share is lost, its quality / effectiveness may become obsolete.

So, my assignment to you is - please discuss in the comments this interplay of effectiveness and efficiency, which not so surprisingly are the core elements of Quality Engineering and Industrial Engineering.

When possible, I like to include a picture of me from the '80s with a cheesy mustache, so here you go (see below). Ironically, when I got this pin, it's shocking that I did not toss it out. Also, at the time, I didn't realize the offset of the printing, which interestingly is "not so excellent." But it reminds me that, at that time, I was not a trained Quality Engineer. I was not even a Ceramic Engineer.