Issue link: https://industrialengineer.epubxp.com/i/920036
40 ISE Magazine | www.iise.org/ISEmagazine Gain speed by losing tools They suffered from "paralysis by analysis," mak- ing it harder to make the best decisions, yet they held on to Six Sigma tools as the situation deterio- rated. Production operations reports revealed a dra- matic increase in setup times, machine outages and production lead-times (Figure 2). Human resources reports showed a significant increase in absentee- ism, tardiness and safety incidents (Figure 3). "Paralysis by analysis" is also replete, for example, in the medical field. Consider this: At times, two aspirin or Tylenol are the best things for a headache. But if instead we visit the doctor and undergo tests and screenings for blood, urine, stool and maybe a full chest X-ray, odds are something will be found that requires follow-up visits. These visits could lead to countless moments worrying about health when, in fact, nothing is wrong. Too many tests produce false positives (e.g., suspicious spots) that might regress on their own and not require any remedial action or intervention (e.g., biopsy). Many medical experts believe that less healthcare can lead to better health, and, conversely, more healthcare can harm patients. Putting it differently, "dropping your tools" at times and reverting to simple solutions like a balanced diet and moderate exercise might be prudent. Improvement teams face the same challenge. In the cases we have examined, too many initiatives have generated ambigui- ties and redundancies, creating busy work, seriously clogging employees' brains and stealing time from daily work rou- tines. Still, teams held on to Six Sigma tools as the companies pushed simultaneous improvement initiatives such as product engineering, total productive maintenance (TPM) programs, equipment design, Occupational Safety and Health Admin- istration (OSHA) targets, sustainability programs and ERP implementations. Such initiatives require cross-functional teams who spend time in meetings, emailing or on phone calls. This spreads em- ployees thin. For example, in one recent situation, many new product engineering changes involving durable materials needed to be initiated. So, a 12-member team from product engineering, sales and operations was created to update bills of material and generate engineering drawings with precise specifications. Beyond a few initial meetings, sales staff was not needed. However, sales staffers were required to attend. They should have been excused and allowed to perform their daily work routines, such as bringing in new business. Similar stories emerge in other improvement initiatives. The maintenance department initiated a TPM program to im- prove overall equipment effectiveness (OEE), putting together a 16-member cross-functional team from operations, human resources, process engineering and information technology. A CNC machine manufacturer's team was visiting to demon- strate its latest models and new equipment design. The engi- neering department invited personnel from product engineer- ing, process engineering and operations to a daylong meeting. As OSHA published new directives, human resources needed to revise its safety program, so a nine-member team included machine operators and operations supervisors. A new sustainability program team wanted "green," envi- ronmentally friendly manufacturing operations. Since the pro- gram had high priority, its team members came from almost all areas: Sales, operations, accounting, product and process engineering. They created an elaborate, 42-page plan with a 31-slide PowerPoint training program, including audio and video inserts. The information technology group was in the last phase of an ERP implementation, and numerous teams supported ERP juggernauts, with members from sales, human resources, accounting, distribution and operations. To support these simultaneous improvement initiatives, many employees scurried from meeting to meeting all day, as if in school. How can employees get their work done in these circumstances? We may not realize it, but a major culprit in stealing em- ployee productivity is back-to-back meetings, which often re- quire follow-up emails or phone calls. Based on our study, on any given day, employees may spend 25 percent of their time attending meetings, 15 percent responding to emails and 10 percent in returning phone calls. As shown in Figure 4, this puts immense pressure on individuals to complete their daily work routine in just half a day. Too many activities generate too much information, and people become overwhelmed and make mistakes. Take people who want to lose weight. After reviewing an array of the lat- FIGURE 3 Not very resourceful humans Again, Six Sigma showed notable improvements. But better performance in absenteeism, tardiness and safety incidents could not be sustained.