iSixSigma

SPC Implementation

Six Sigma – iSixSigma Forums Old Forums General SPC Implementation

This topic contains 33 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by  Mike Carnell 16 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 34 posts - 1 through 34 (of 34 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31746

    lin
    Participant

    Can anyone suggest a strategy for successful implementation of SPC into an organisation? Assuming senior management have experienced previous implementation efforts that have failed, how could you convince them of its’ benefits? I need to present a report to them so it needs to be concise but eye-opening and convincing. Any ideas?

    0
    #84028

    Jamie
    Participant

    Let me make a guess “it needs to be concise but eye-opening and convincing” means you have to make your case during a senior staff management meeting in 15 to 30 minutes. If this is true maybe what you should do is make your case for a pilot program. What this does is reduce the senior manager’s risk, they probably think in terms of $. It won’t cost much to impliment a pilot program in one department or in one small area. Use the results from the pilot program to make your case for implimenting an oganization wide SPC program. The actual numbers from your organization will mean a lot more to them then if you use examples from other industries.
    The other idea is to use a demo of some sort. Is there a way you can use some product that is specifically set up in an order where there has been a change. Let them take samples, you create the plots as they go and have them tell you when a change happened. Maybe as simple as # of grey vs white marbles in a seriers of jars. Don’t let them see what’s in the jar, just let them reach in and grab a sample. They could collect samples and use a P chart to see if the ratio changes. Now have them contrast this vs 100% inspection of the marbles. Which one of these methods costs less. Warning I haven’t done this so you might want to try it before using it.
    Jamie

    0
    #84032

    Mikel
    Member

    SPC is a tool, not an implementation. Use it where it is appropriate, chart and interpret it correctly, do root cause where conditions show an unexpected outcome, take corrective action.
    You do not need senior management for anything – just do it.
    PS – Most SPC “implementations” are utter failures.

    0
    #84073

    lin
    Participant

    If it is a tool, then surely you have to ‘implement’ this tool to use it. If I don’t have senior management commitment, what power have I got to acquire funds, change procedures and make middle management take responsibility for using control charts and acting on them? Please elaborate.

    0
    #84332

    Sorour
    Participant

    I have to say I come across lots of failed SPC inplementations, as Stan says use it where you need it. As a BB I use it on projects only when we are trying to ‘lock in’ improvements. Don’t forget its not a good idea to ‘implement’ SPC on processes that are not in control. Put the controls in first then add the chart. The process team are likely to buy into the chart at this point because they understand why it is being implemented.
    Hope this helps

    0
    #84336

    Andrew M. Brody
    Participant

    Dig for a process that is wildly out of control (if you have one) or at least out of control.  Chart the process and with the help of the operator differentiate the causes (common/special). Attack the common causes to tighten up the process – keep charting until you start to make a change as you target the problem.  Mistake Proofing may help you with your special causes. 
    This is simplistic, but it worked for me and even won me some kudos from upper mangement. 
    Good Luck,
    Andy Brody

    0
    #84340

    Marc Richardson
    Participant

    Bill,
     
    I have led many SPC implementations in the past twenty-five years. Some have been successful, some have not. Here are some success factors:
    Strong management support (yes, everyone says this and there’s a good reason: it’s true). In the absence of management support, you can try a stealth project. Choose a process that has caused problems in the past and live with it. Beat all the variation out of it you can and then show management the tangible results: increased machine uptime, decreased scrap, etc.
    Early successes from pilot applications (choose the right application).
    Have applications prepared for the people who will be doing the charting prior to beginning training. Have them begin using the skills immediately after training. This stuff has a short shelf life.
    Follow training with strong support on the floor. This is where the real learning begins. By support I mean you live on the floor with the chart during the initial data gathering phase. When the process gives signals of special cause variation, help the operators find out what’s causing it.
    During training, look for people who catch on quickly and show an interest. If possible, groom these people as your floor leaders. Make additional training and resources available to them (for example, computer based training).
    Do not get suckered into mass training. In my opinion, this disperses resources too thinly across the organization, guaranteeing lack of ability to follow up with floor support and the inability to keep track of what’s going on.
    Set up an administrative infrastructure before you start. Keep track of numbers of charts and their status (stable/not stable, capable/not capable). Especially important for securing senior management support: keep track of successes and publicize them. Own up to failures and learn from them.
    Don’t just teach the operators to chart the process and tell them to “find the causes of non-random variation when they occur.” Give them tools that will help them discover the causes of non-random variation such as Cause & Effect diagramming, stratification and concentrating diagramming.
    Stan says don’t implement SPC and I agree with him. SPC is a way of thinking about your processes, not a program you implement. It recognizes that the process exists within and is effected by a system. It recognizes that when management gives the operators processes that produce nonconforming product, they shouldn’t penalize them when they discover they have a mountain of non-salable product on their hands. Most importantly, it teaches us to understand the nature of variation and how it affects the process.
    Marc Richardson
    Senior Quality Assurance Engineer

    0
    #84342

    Vikram Ramprasad
    Member

    One will have to make people understand the necessity of SPC and the benefits of the same..The strategy would be to focus on one area and implement the same..after analysing the benefits of SPC techniques..one may extend the concept to other areas.
    SPC is the best technique to control any process that has a variable measure.  Though one needs to be careful in understanding the reading of the charts!

    0
    #84349

    RF
    Participant

    I have done over 100 SPC implementations over the past 10 years.
    I found that management does not understand statistics, and lack interest in understanding SPC. So don’t call it SPC, call it Variation Reduction or something.
    Start small and build on success. Measure the before and after results. When you can quantify the results, then go to management and explain to them why you should expand the program. 

    0
    #84350

    Richard
    Member

    I’m just about to roll out my second dose of SPC Implentation and as a recognised quality of any Black belt ( FUN ) in moments of extreme frustration I have found it beneficial to explain that SPC actually stands for Sausage Peas and Chips!!
    It worked for me.

    0
    #84370

    Jackey
    Participant

    yes, I also want to introduce SPC into our company. But few people understand it, I think I have to train them at first. Do you think so? Do you have any advice?

    0
    #84391

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Bill,
    I may be redundant since I didn’t have time to read all the other posts.
    You need to understand why it has failed in the past. If nothing has changed you should expect the same result (reference Jack Nicholson line from One flew Over the Cuckoos Nest).
    You need to understand putting SPC on everything that moves create wall paper. Charts that are used to do anything. Charts that people don’t react to are what we call “Industrial Tourism” – charts that are great snapshots of where you went on your last trip.
    You need control on leverage variables. Leverage variable identification is a consequence of a SS project. There are those who advocate using it on the front end but you get the same shotgun blast that creates wall paper.
    SPC charts are a last option to Elimination and Mistakeproofing. Not because it is less effective but because most of use don’t have the self discipline to use them correctly or install the either. This will get me blasted by quite a few responses but for the most part SS fails because it is easy for people to install head back to their office and never really put the effort into making it work – that belongs to the other people.
    I don’t know your process or situation but it sounds like you are walking into a mess. You need to look at some options and really understand the past failures.
    The last problem you have is that you now have a workforce that has seen it come and go. There is always that small jaded faction that will be waiting it out through Malicious Compliance waiting for it to go away again.
    How did you arrive at the conclusion that SPC was the answer? Do you really understand the question?
    Good luck.

    0
    #84417

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Bill,
    Senior management should have better things to do than grant you permission to install a SPC Chart. It is probably the job they hired you to do. Asking permission to drop in a chart and change procedures adds a new definition to empowerment. I can’t imagine what a chart would cost that would require senior management approval. As far as middle management taking responsibility – welcome to the world of change and that is your job.
    Good luck.

    0
    #84422

    Anonymous

    The chart is not the objective. It is but a means to an end, with the end being continual process improvement.  Who authorizes the improvements and funds them?  Who is responsible for up to 95% of the variation?  Who was it that that insisted that senior management has a role in SPC and continual process improvement by “implementing” the PDSA cycle?
    I agree that there are things you can do that do not require “permission,” but this also falls within the pervue of management to define “empowerment” in very specific terms, including financial and improvement scope and boundaries.
    As far as resources required for charting, the key resource consumed is people’s time.  Done properly, the operator should be the ones taking, plotting and analyzing the control charts, not some weenie from the front office that’s “here to help.”  If you believe otherwise, please refer back to the first paragraph and do further research.

    0
    #84426

    Dewayne
    Participant

    Bill, I too had been faced with the same need at times in the past; you might consider the following to help influence management’s opinion.      (1) The test suggestion is good. Pick cases in which SPC will obviously do some good  (2) The report should show benefits of the SPC action on some (most) instances used, and limited benifit on others; the point is that it can/will/should be an effective tool when used for a reason (3) you should be able to convince the operator and production supervisor that using SPC is in their best interest; to test tolerances, to spot trends and therefore define causes; etc., this can significantly aid you in selling the use to management if production sees value in it. (4) One more point that is not kosher, but works. The new ISO 9001:2000 spec adjusted for firms not using statistical techniques in the way the 1994 spec intended, so they inserted the key requirement to monnitor”  production processes, SPC is one of the most effective ways of complying with this, through either attributes or variables monitoring. Good luck with your efforts.  – Dewayne  

    0
    #84430

    Andrew M. Brody
    Participant

    Marc;
    That was an excellent exposition of implementing SPC.  My response lacked that detail which I should have included but I was under a time constraint.  When I initiated the program at my last job, that is exactly how I did it.
    Well Said.  I hope Bill gets this.
    Andrew M. Brody
    Quality Systems Manager
    Marcus Paint Co.
    Louisville, KY

    0
    #84438

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    No Name,
    You can spend your life waiting for Top Management to step up and deliver such an ultimatum that you could have a cocker spaniel do the job. You can run around with your tail tucked between your legs and make excuses about why it won’t happen.
    Figure out how to make it happen. That is what people pay you to do. It can be about a chart. About being smart enough to pick an application that is visible and matters and selling it from that point not waiting for someone to hand you the keys to the kingdom.
    Good luck.

    0
    #84439

    Gabriel
    Participant

    Cocker spaniels can do pretty much than that, indeed.
    I had one that could bring back stones dropped into water 1 ft deep and sticks thrown 50 ft away from the shore into the lake!!!
    He liked water diving, just as you! :-)
    Welcome back, we (or I at least) missed your SME comments in this forum.

    0
    #84442

    Anonymous

    Mike:
    Please tell us the long term benefits (5+ years) of your “Just Do It” approach to SPC.  Have any of them gotten acceptance and application throughout a company, or do you just have some “pockets of excellence?” In your experience, how many have effectively reduced common cause variation without management support?  Can you validate your approach with data, or do you have only annectodal stories?
     

    0
    #84448

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Gabriel,
    I was hoping that was still you when I saw your posts.
    Things have been a little busy. I have spent some time in SA. with one of your neighbors. Beautiful place but the air can get pretty thin. We need to talk.
    Blew up the computer and lost the address book. Can you send me your email address again please?
    Take care.

    0
    #84449

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    If you believe you will drop in anything and it will be the same in the next 5 years you are living in the wrong century. The rate of change is changing things so quickly that a program, initiative, etc runs its course quicker than that.
    The question was not longevity it was SPC implementation. Why is that you think you need to get someones permission to do your job. If you were hired as a process engineer, quality engineer, sustaining engineer, etc. That is what the job is.
    You add a chart why would you need someone’s permission unless you are so weak you can’t pull off a chart. If that is the case get another job. You use a successful chart to demonstrate results. You sell it on results.
    If you have no chart and you have no results – you are selling faith. You want to sell faith get a job on Sunday morning television. Earn your place in the organization don’t sit and wait for an executive to do your job for you.
    Have I had the long term programs – yes. You can read about one in Mario Perez-Wilson’s book “Six Sigma.” At the time I left Motorola it was the only program that had won the CEO quality award twice and the quality award from the Navy. How about you?
    Good luck.

    0
    #84453

    Caveat Emptor
    Participant

    So, Mr. Carnell, are you saying that you subsrcibe to the “flavor of the month” approach.  That’s interesting.
    CEO Quality Award.  Sounds like senior mangement support to me.  And you think control charts will not be needed five years into implementation?  May I ask, is Motorola still using control charts?  Or have they moved on to the next fad that you will espouse for them?  Your response not only shows short sighted thinking, but a fundamental lack of true application understanding.  Now I wonder if you were just there to put your hand out for an award that someone else earned and you were affiliated with it.  Take all the bows you want, but as Dr, Deming said, there are a lot of hacks out there.  Buyer beware.  Maybe your approach works for you, but it is defintiely short term thinking and the results will always be truncated.  No wonder some people’s implementations are not successful – they really don’t “do it.”  Post the charts and sell it?  What are you selling, the chart or continual process improvement.  And what about that 95% that the worker is powerless to affect without management taking ownership for their processes and their systems?
    My concern is not what you do.  You have your own business and I do wish you well.  My concern is that others will follow your advice.
    A Deming Disciple

    0
    #84478

    Gabriel
    Participant

    “Bill”, “[empty]”, “Caveat” or whoever you are. At least, Mike uses his own name, he ussually post his e-mail, and we know who he is: He worked several years for companies in quality issues and implementing six sigma both as an employee (including Motorola, for example) and later as a consultant. Also he has books written.
    Does I mean that everybody should undisclose his identity to post here? Absolutely not. But when someone does, we can know better how much attention does he diserves.
    Does all this make Mike allways right? Absolutely not. “Right” just does not exist in most cases. It is not “Either you are with us, or with them”. But if my point of view does not coincide with Mike’s, I would be willing to think about that more than if it was just someone’s “don’t know who he is” point of view. When you chalenged Mike about his success, he replied. The he asked you a question you don’t answered: “What about you?”
    Now, Mike: I agree partially with both of you (what means that I don’t fully agree with either of you).
    For us, implementing SPC in a process is just as easy as to rwrite down “SPC” in a suitable column of the control plan. The organization is ready to react on that. There are defined responsibilities for making the study, defining the limits, plotting the empty chart, taking and measuring the samples, plot the points, react on OOC signals (on line), review the filled charts (off line), and review the suitability of the control chart.
    In all this responsibility chain, the Management is not involved. More over, I agree with NN that most of the variation is (I know you dont like the diferenciation) “common causes” based. And that the management is typically involved in reducing it. But SPC charting address “special causes” variation reduction. You detect an OOC signal, you identify the cause, you eliminate it to avoid recurrence. And this is typically a front line responsibility. The loop is closed because the stability and capability status of the processes is reported periodically in the Management meeting.
    However, the run from “no SPC” to “just type SPC in the control plan” was long. And I can’t imagine that run had we lacked of Management involvement and support. In our case it was easy. It was a “Mr Number 1” desicion. Yet, I agree that a way to get that organization-wide involvement is to run a “pilot” programme in one process (you only need one local middle manager involved) and then sell the results.
    Then, you need management involvement to keep SPC running in a way that it has some value. The following story is based in my own experience, but it is exagerated to show better my point of view.
    I was developping some changes in the SPC procedure to go one step farther with it. While doing that, I walked the factory and watched the SPC process live. Last week I went to the Quality Manager and told him “I was thinking about these improvements in our SPC” “This is very good! You should begin to make some training material and prepare a presentation of this”, he said. “No” I replied. “Now I think we should put all this on hold at least, or even stop using SPC. Why would we improve something if we don’t want to use it in this state first? And why to continue using something that adds no value (except that we can tell the auditor that we have SPC implemented)?
    I took him to the factory and showed him one control chart. The Xbar was a perfec saw. Up, down, up, down…. The ranges were all 1 or 2, but not even one 0 or one 3. 100% of the ranges were below Rbar. The scales in the chart were wrong. It was impossible to match the lines with the numbers (example, 7 lines between two integers). The limits had been defined several years back, and after that the process had had several improvements but the control limits had not been reviewd. Taking the variation used to draw the control limits, the process had a Cpk of more than 2, but looking at the on-line inspection device at the exit of the machine I would say that the PPM was closer to 4300 rather than 4.3. And it was not an isolated case, we went to other machines and reviewd the file and found more or less the same in may (or most) cases. And finally, we didn’t saw even one point OOC, even when this should happen by chance from time to time even if no special cause was pressent. I think that this level of missusing can not be achived unless, at least, the management doesn’t care about SPC. In other words, I think that that would not happen if the Mangement was involved and thought that SPC was of any value. I am sure that at least some managers were aware of this situation and did nothing to correct it, because it was comfortable that way.
    I feel that the management was involved in implementing SPC, but then they lost theire interest in it.
    Management involvement is needed, not to put a chart in a process, but to get value from SPC. This is my point of view.

    0
    #84479

    Gabriel
    Participant

    Ok, I will send you an e-mail. Is your e-mail adress the same it was?

    0
    #84514

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Gabriel,
    I agree with your position that none of us are right just by pure definition. We all gun whatever situation we are in through our experience and it always colors our perception.
    If you have a management team that has seen it fail you probably want to see who was running the operation when it failed. There is a good chance they were the line management when it did. If not they have been at some other location when it did. Soliciting their help based on logic is going to run counter to their experience. Faith is a long stretch.
    Results is always harder to argure with. When you are hitting the bottom line with results you force the person to be introspective. If you are getting results the discussion isn’t does it work? It becomes can it work on a larger scale or better yet how do we make it work on a larger scale.
    If they have taken a position against SPC rather than address just the issues associated with SPC you probably won’t make the transition anyway.
    Thanks.

    0
    #84515

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Emptor,
    If you have ever been in a room with Deming for more than a nano second you are aware he was not the personality type that asked permission to do his job.
    The CEO quality award is given after you get results as was the Navy Quality award. The job was a done deal.
    The leap to program of the month is a strange piece of logic.
    Good luck.

    0
    #84526

    Charles H
    Participant

    Dr. Deming didn’t need permission to do his job because he had already established a link directly to the Top Management of his clients. His approach to working with clients is defined in Out Of The Crisis in his Advice to Consultants.  If Dr. Deming didn’t have access to go anywhere and do anything he felt necessary, he’d walk and not look back.  As he would say, “New knowledge only comes into an organization from the outside, and only by invivation.”  This invitation could only come from top management.  Thus his first point in his “Advice to Consultants and Companies” (OOC pg 472, 1986 reprint):  “The invitation to work with a company must come from top management.”  Once the invitation was extended, he defined the things a company must do in order for him to work with them.
    In point four of his advise, he makes it clear that he would go wherever needed, whenever needed throughout the company as his judgement dictated. No need for permission as he had already defined it and made top management responsible for supporting and leading the effort.
    In Figure 61 of OOC, he datails his organizational strucuture necessary for success.  Note the link of the “Leadership in Statictical Knowledge” to the top management and the dotted lines to the rest of the organization.
    If memory serves me, and please correct me if I’m wrong, when Dr. Deming first went to Japan in the early ’50s, he required the top management of Japanese companies to attend.  “They came, they learned”
    As for anecdotal stories (Emptor) – well – they do have their place.  And remember, there are more than one way to “skin a cat” (apologies to PETA and BillyBob’s possums!).  In my experience, you are correct that it is much easier with the support and commitment of top management – but it can be done and benefit received by the Ninja approach: assess targets of opportunity and go do it in a “stealth” mode.  You may have to get permission for resources for improvement (and I agree it will be necessary for the common causes – not necessarily so for the removal of special cause variation), but if you have done the job well, the control charts will tell the story.  Find your pockets of acceptance and go there.  Plant the seed and make it grow.
    I will take issue with the engineers are responsible, but I may be misreading your intent, Mike.  The control charts should be in the hands of the operators and front line supervision.  The engineers can help in application and analysis, but the charts belong to the individual operators.  They should not be shown to top management – allows for micro-management, tampering and meddling.
    Charles H

    0
    #84534

    Felix
    Participant

    Just over three decades ago, quality and process improvement were not considered as being important in the manufacturing sector. It took quality ‘gurus’ such as Deming, Juran, Crosby etc to stress its importance in (a) reducing quality costs i.e the cost of not getting it right first time – warranty costs, litigation costs, complaints costs etc (b) capturing an increased share of the market and (c) assuring a high level of consistency in the quality of products produced. Before these men of foresight came, an assessment of the quality of products was left until the end when the final product was completed. Then, the inspection process  involved “accept” or “reject” decisions. The rejected products cost money and these were passed onto customers. Imagine, producing an expensive car only to have it scrapped.
    So, on came the Japanese to took Deming’s (He was an American) principles on board. The Americans rejected his concepts prior to the second world war. So what did Deming preach? – Build quality into the process. Build quality into every stage of the production process and empower the operators or supervisors to take corrective action on quality issues. The Japanese did this with their cars and it was not until they started capturing larger shares of the markets in Europe, United States, Africa etc did several organistions wake up and ask “What are they doing that we are not doing?” Initially everyone blamed the sucess of the Japanese on their culture. “They always do as they they are told”
    The United Kingdom invited the Japanese to bulid two car assembly plants. The cars produced were $1000 to $2000 cheaper than models produced by other car manufacturers. The public (i.e customers’ bought more of those products. Others had to wake up.
    SPC enables you to build quality into your process, to achieve consistency in the the high level of quality of products and save costs. The gentleman that says you do not need senior management commitment may be right where you, as the middle level manager, have acces to the funds and resources you need. (You need to train staff in the use of SPC) Otherwise, you need to get their support and commitment else you fail. Tell senior management that their products will be cheaper to produce on the long run and that if they do not want to lose business to their competitors they should apply SPC. Give them a few examples.
    Lastly, a friend of mine in the US told me a few days ago that A Japanese firm was asked by an American company to produce not more than one defective product in 100 produced. The Japanese firm responded “We will gurantee not more than 1 defective product in 10,000”. He said “You should have seen the looks on my managers faces.” Tell this story to your managers.
    Good luck.     
    Felix

    0
    #84536

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Felix,
    My first control charts were used about 20 years ago. it sounds like you have read about some of the times that we (I am sure there are several of us on this site that were implementing back then) were actually implementing in. Perhaps that is the difference in the attitude about asking permission. If I would have asked permission I still wouldn’t have done one. I do appreciate the information.
    The amazing part about the story about your friend is that he (gender neutral) was requesting material that wasn’t even 3 sigma. Why would he do that? Perhaps you need to convert the 1 in 10,000 to a ppm so you can see what sigma level you are at. If the management is surprized they can get 1 defect in 10,000 then that is probably why they are still willing to accept 1 in 100.
    Good luck.

    0
    #84537

    Charles H
    Participant

    Back in the good old days when I was at General Dynamics Convair, we went rummaging around through some of the old WWII documents of the B-24 Liberator and PBY-Catalina.  We found a bunch of old stuff on Deming and SPC – even found some of the old charts of drilling, countersinking and riveting, all greasy and smudged from their use on the floor.  One of the old timers that had been working at Convair back then told us that they had successfully used SPC during the war, but when all the men came back and pushed Rosey the Riveter out of their jobs, and with the military industrial complex downsizing drastically, they didn’t “need it anymore.”  Just thought this would be an interesting anecdote.
    Charles H

    0
    #84538

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Gabriel,
    Same place SixSigmaAp@aol.com or http://www.SixSigmaApplications.com.
    Looking forward to hearing from you.
    Regards,
    Mike

    0
    #84539

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Charles,
    Great story. Intersting comment about the grease and smudges. That is a pretty good indicator they were actually used. next time you walk through a factory take a look at how many of the charts are stshed in the control chart prophylactics (sheet protectors) and hung on the wall all nice and shiny and clean. Probably not used much.
    The program demise was associated with what type of change in the work force? So if you want to institute change you hire which gender?
    When Shewhart was developing the first control charts, Deming and Juran putting them in for the first time, actually the first time for most anything who do you suppose they asked permission from?
    Thanks for the story.
    Good luck. 

    0
    #84543

    Charles H
    Participant

    Mike:
    My last on this tangent.
    I think (or at least I hope) that the male attitude has changed in the past 60 years.   Yes and no, I guess, as I’m sure many will attest.  
    I think part of it, too, was that the aircraft industry, and Convair in particular, began to view themselves as more of an engineering company than a manufacturing company (due to the new missile technologies and the “jet age”).   Thus, they probably had an engineering mindset in most that they did after the war.   They’re ultimate demise in the commercial aircraft industry (DC-10 and MD-11 fuselage assemblies aside) is testimony to this, I believe.  Their product designs definitely missed the needs of the market – but they were engineering marvels for their day!
    The B-24 and PBY were pretty mature products by the end of the war.  The focus was to get them out the door, with high levels of quality (“heaven help us if one of our mistakes causes one of ‘our boys’ their life!”).  They built over 18,000 Liberators – not sure on the numbers for the PBY, but I think it’s around 8,000 to 9,000, but I could be wrong. The lines were on a one hour, synchronized move.  One B-24 every hour, on the hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Roll it out, flight test it, correct any problems and deliver it.  Maybe we could learn something from those days.
    Today when I tour plants, I often see “The Monument” full of useless control charts, all pretty and nice in a glass covered case.  Lots of stratified data, special causes and such.  Usually a month or two old.  When I asked one company why they posted them, the answer was, “To show to our customers.”  We had a long heart-to-heart discussion after that.  Show me the charts that are smudged and dirty, eraser marks and cross outs on them and I’ll show you a place that is really doing it. 
    Take care and best wishes.
    Charles H.
     

    0
    #84559

    Mike Carnell
    Participant

    Charles,
    Thanks for the history. It sounds like first hand experience which is always enlightening.
    Just one quick story similar to yours. It was my first week in a factory(Motorola) in Schaumberg, Ill. There had just been an audit. We were in a conference room for the exit review. Dr. Martin “Marty” Rayl was the Director of Quality and he was presenting the findings. We were called for no SPC. The Production Manager pointed to the wall behind Marty and asked what that was (a wall completely covered in control charts – remember we were in a conference room). The review continued for about 15 minutes while Marty read the charts. Marty sat down and looked the Production Manager in the eye and said “It’s wall paper.” The production Manager said “Thanks Marty I make those charts.” Marty said “It’s nice _____ wallpaper.”
    It took time but we got the program on track.
    Thanks for the story. You sound like you are the kind that actually wants to make a difference. We need a few more.
    Good luck.

    0
Viewing 34 posts - 1 through 34 (of 34 total)

The forum ‘General’ is closed to new topics and replies.