Issue link: https://industrialengineer.epubxp.com/i/905872
10 ISE Magazine | www.iise.org/ISEmagazine Trending @iiSe What's in our mailbag this month? Read this member's point-counterpoint to an article in the October issue of ISE about engineered labor standards. Agree or disagree? ISE is always eager for you to write in and give us your opinion. Talking about feedback, have you participated in the new member-only online portal IISE Connect? Engage, communicate and grow at connect.IISE.org. Mail The deep downside of engineered labor standards Most of us industrial engi- neers cringe at the prospect of developing engineered labor standards. In my early career as a wet-behind-the- ears practicing IE, I lucked out by never having to engage in stopwatch work, though I did participate in setting standards by the less despised (by the labor force) work sampling method. Today, contrary to points made in "Good Eats with Engineered Labor Standards" (ISE, October 2017), I would like to point out why most uses of time standards have, or should have, fallen by the wayside. The main reason is that today's process improvement concepts and methodologies give us much better ways to manage the labor force and to improve operations, including raising labor productivity. A more specific reason, which I'll address first, is that judging operator per- formance through the use of labor standards is unfair. That is simply because most of what goes wrong in the workplace cannot, fairly, be pinned on work- force members. W. Edwards Dem- ing's well-known proviso is that 85 percent of problems are attributable not to the employee but to manage- ment-system failures: poor tools and equipment, poor maintenance, poor materials, poor instructions – and poor training of the hapless operator