Tampering Can Be Costly

Tampering Can Be Costly?

Getting from a troubled and underperforming situation to one that is settled and productive is not easy.? Problem-solving, planning, and realization take effort and time.? So, there is an overwhelming temptation to fiddle with process inputs and operations with the expectation of improved efficiency.? This innate meddling is called tampering—making well-meaning but offhand corrections.?

Here are a few recognizable examples:

• Continually changing work standards—requiring new levels of output—to reflect increasing demands on the work process without changing the means for generating that level of production.?
• Requiring a worker to continually adjust a process based on the characteristics of the last item produced.? Item uniqueness is the result of conditions at that moment in time. Changes can have a consequential impact on additional items being produced.?
• Rewarding managers and employees during years when sales and revenue are high; however, this practice fails to recognize that prosperity may not result from being effective and efficient, just general economic activity.
• Reacting to a downturn in monthly sales by exhorting salespeople to make more calls the following month without recognizing the impact of economic conditions, supply chain conditions, or a particular customer’s circumstances. ?

Adjustment without knowledge—understanding why conditions are what they are—will only produce inadvertent results. ?All these actions are reflexive and intuitive but fail to consider how natural process variation can be unintentionally multiplied to create distortions and unintended consequences.??

A continual challenge for someone in a management position is understanding cause-and-effect relationships.? Discernment starts by having the courage to let the system or process run without tinkering so a baseline can be discovered.? Then, using what has been noted as the launching pad for problem-solving. ?

Recognizing whether the fluctuations displayed are the result of normal variability or errant instability, a special cause, so attention can be directed toward improvement that removes problems or reduces variation.? Both situations present an opportunity.? One corrects and maintains a predictable status quo while the other moves the process toward a new level of capability.? The type of action required in each case becomes evident because there is knowledge based on data, not guesswork, intuition, or hunches.????

The sources for ebb and flow are based on the inputs and activities that generate process outputs.? Typically, these influences are categorized as financial, material resources, equipment, methods, people, or social/political forces.?? All exert pressure and create fluctuations that can be measured, tracked, and studied to assess stability or instability.??

Consequently, a judgment can be made that decides whether variation results from common cause or special cause influences, and the appropriate remedy applied. Stable processes get improved and unstable processes get fixed.? Either type of action, however, requires leadership that has a pragmatic and long-term perspective.?Instead of an approach shaped by instinctive conclusions grounded in point-to-point comparisons, thus encouraging overreaction and continual adjustments that further destabilize the process.???

Tampering is costly because it wastes time and resources that do little to fix or improve process and system realities.? It provides a sense of false security that something of value is being done.? There is action but the same problems reoccur several months later.? Meetings are called, the customers are calmed, the returns are fixed, and the crisis is subdued, but the complaints start again after a brief period.?

The continual sense of urgency keeps people scrambling, but improvement is elusive because there is no meaningful learning, problem-solving, or upgrading.? Workers have the exercise memorized and robotically spring into action when the alarm is sounded.? After the emergency, people retreat into a humdrum routine waiting for the next fire call.

Here, for example, is a familiar scenario.? The Vice President of Sales routinely exhorts manufacturing to complete open orders and push shipments out the door before the end of each business quarter.? Then, everyone is baffled when complaints and returns rise during the next several months.? In addition, manufacturing is charged with a negative labor variance for overtime, must deal with larger-than-normal rework, and answer issues related to quality. All this activity, although justified because quarterly shipments appear consistent, has accomplished nothing.? Costs are routinely over budget, corrective actions increase, customer complaints increase, and the workforce views management as disordered and uninformed.?

So, What?

Managing is all about making things happen and doing what needs to be done with the help of others.? But managing also means doing the right thing and doing that correctly.? Deciding what is right can be intuitive or it can be considered.? In either case, something gets done; but is it correct more than 50 percent of the time or just a roll of the dice???

Managers who want to improve their odds have learned to use data and can read the signals that data produce when charted in relationship to time.? The technique is not new and has been applied to manufacturing operations where definable measures and attributes can be readily obtained.? However, all processes produce measurable characteristics. That when analyzed can be used to assess how a process is operating.?

The goal of measurement is informed decision-making that reduces the chance of mistakes and lowers costs.? Considered judgment is possible when the decision maker can distinguish between the sources of variation—whether the process is running normally or being impacted by a special cause.?? Understanding these distinctions is important when making improvements.? The approach in each case is different.??

Special cause variation requires problem resolution and corrective action.? Common cause variation, on the other hand, involves breakthrough thinking that will move a process to a new level of proficiency.? Both types of variation involve study, experimentation, and implementation.? But resolving a special cause influence merely fixes a problem, while addressing common cause consequences can create progress.? In either case, the likelihood of success has increased because outcomes are driven by knowledge, not guesswork.? The right things get done and they get done right.?

Although a process may be operating under the influence of common cause variation—it’s repeatable and predictable—should not mean practices can’t be changed or adjusted.? When all is going well, the goal should be improving business functions where customers and stakeholders are better served.? The objective in this case becomes continual advancement—breaking new ground—by reducing common cause variation and by purposely working to tilt the trend line in a positive direction.? However, this will require more than simply setting ambitious targets.??

A substantial and focused effort is required to change the underlying forces that drive process and system outputs.? This means looking at and upgrading those factors that influence customer service—responsiveness, reliability, assurance, empathy, and tangibles—or changing those factors that improve product quality—materials, methods, machinery, people, and workplace surroundings.?? In short, investigate and upgrade those things that make current operations difficult, less productive, less effective, or less efficient.? Answer the question, “How can we do this better?”