Issue link: https://industrialengineer.epubxp.com/i/920036
42 ISE Magazine | www.iise.org/ISEmagazine Gain speed by losing tools Lessons learned Three lessons stand out from this study. First, applying Six Sigma tools (e.g., ANOVA, DOE or SPC) often creates un- necessary information overload by requir- ing extensive training and excessive data and analysis interpretations. Many trainees, some of whom struggle with basic algebra, pore over hundreds of pages of training material that cover statistical concepts that they barely understand. This can create brain overload in workers who must simultaneously deal with the daily complexity of their operations where chaos and confusion often prevail. People end up thinking more about im- provements rather than making improve- ments, or paralysis by analysis. Over time, data and analysis completely bog them down. As production performance slips and safety issues surface, employees regress to the old ways of working. In contrast, executives need to apply simple lean tools (e.g., 5S – sort, straighten, shine, standardize, and sustain), which cut down on information overload and require less training and less data manipulation and analysis. Workers spend more time making improvements than analyzing data. Eventually, opera- tional processes get streamlined or simplified. The second lesson is that too many simultaneous improve- ment initiatives (e.g., Six Sigma, ERP, TPM or sustainability) create unnecessary busy work. Cross-functional improvement teams are created. While it is reasonable to expect employees who attend these meetings to respond to emails or phone calls, they often end up serving on too many teams. This makes it impossible for them to complete their daily work routines. The executives think that they are getting more return on their payroll investment by running many parallel initiatives, but the opposite is true. Too many initiatives gener- ate ambiguities and redundancies and clog employees' brains. While each initiative is unique in many ways, there is signifi- cant commonality among these initiatives. For a given business process, a re-engineering project under ERP is not that much different from a black belt project under Six Sigma. At the core of these initiatives, the objective is the same –eliminate waste or reduce variation. Executives need to simplify or consolidate initiatives into one or two core initiatives that drive improve- ments without stealing employee productivity. The third lesson is that small improvements made frequently are significantly better than a big improvement made every now and then. Simple examples from everyday life can lend support to this lesson. Lasting and happy marriages are created by putting a little daily effort into the relationships, not by giving the biggest bouquet on Valentine's Day. Raising children is also the same way. Providing tender loving care daily beats minimal daily attention followed by a big trip to Disney World. Likewise, maintaining good health or becoming a world-class athlete or musician depends on small improvements every day. The bottom line is that small things do make a difference. And those small things can quickly add up to make a big im- pact. Executives need to encourage small improvements from their employees. Cultivate thoughtful companywide sugges- tions for improvement programs, but do not install impersonal suggestion boxes on the walls, where many employees spiteful- ly discard their chewing gum or leave inappropriate messages. In order to motivate employees to participate, provide com- pensation, because the cumulative effect of suggestions for improvements from everyone (or "return on investment") is huge. It is a simple but powerful concept that can enhance em- ployee's productivity, improve existing operations and increase market competitiveness. Satya S. Chakravorty is Caraustar Professor of Operatio s Ma age- me t at Ke esaw State U iversity. His Ph.D. i productio a d op- eratio s ma ageme t is from the U iversity of Georgia. He is a certified fellow i productio a d i ve tory ma ageme t, a Jo ah i theory of co strai ts a d has a lea ix Sigma master black belt. His research has bee ublished i our als that i clude MIT Sloan Management Review, The Wall Street Journal, APICS Magazine, Quality Progress a d Industrial Engineer. FIGURE 5 Magnitude vs. frequency When deciding whether to continue improvement programs, executives should consider both the magnitude of and frequency of successes.