4
N THE near future the already overburdened production execu9roduction tive will have to devote part of his time to the layout of new procedures. Our present discussion is intended to give
from discreditin the layout immediately after encountering t h e first objections fgrom roduction. It would be unwise, however, to consider these di&culties as a natural adjunct of a new procedure and expect them to be self-adjusting. Changes must b e made uickly and efficiently by both the person who designs the origin3 la out and the person responsible for the installation of the proce&re. Emphasis is placed on the cooperation of both parties. The writer recommends the abolishment of the freuent practice of handin$ a layout to someone down the line to ’take care of the details Procedures handled in this manner are often doomed before th’ey are put into operation and, at best, will represent a poor facsimile of the originator’s plans. Resistance encountered from production when installing a new procedure cari frequently be disposed of by informing.emp1oyees in detail of the reasons for the procedure. The w u m tion that the very nature of a system will indicate to employees t!e,reasons for the establishment is erroneous. Anyone familiar with psychology will admit that these employees will connect a change of working conditions with something affecting themselves unless they are otherwise informed. Here are some remarks which may sound familiar to production men: “This system W&S installed to make us work harder.” “The new setup,is intended to ive management an opportunity to evaluate us. “This procefu?? will restrain the foreman from bossing us around as he pleases. It is not infre uent that the foreman in the shop raises objection to the inst&ation of a new procedure. It would be wrong to conclude hastily that this constitutes lack of good will. It is considered good practice to listen to him and to have him sugest other means to bring about desired results: On the other f m d , if he objects on general principlesto the installation of a procedure decided upon by management or cannot furnish any other objections than to state that the procedure “is not practical”, it must be considered a waste of time to indulge in lengthy discussions.
fim assistance in carrying out this task by calling to his attention some of the important points he will have to consider. It is common practice to separate the layout of a procedure from its execution and to assign each phase to different personnel. This has the advantage that responsibilities are clearly defined. However, it does not take into consideration the necessity of convincing production that the proposed method is feasible, and considerable time may have to be s ent adjusting minor inaccuracies in the original layout. Faiyure to give sufficient consideration to these phases has caused many a well-planned procedure to fail. Furthermore, in order to ensure proper o ration, new procedures must be close1 followed up until the E v e become routine. This work shourd always be consideredras part of the installation of a procedure. The writer has made it a practice to approach new procedures in the followin three phases: (1) layout; (2) obtainin cooperation from profuction and revising original layout to i t production requirements; and (3) supervision until the procedure has become routine.
JQyopcLc
Most people are inclined to consider improper layout the most common cause of the failure of procedures. The writer had adhered to this theory for .many years. However, a study made to determine wh production procedures had not worked out, revealed that onyy in a few instances was improper layout to blame. The reasons for failure due to improper layout are iven herewith in sequence according to the frequency with whi% they occur: 1. Inability to explain or write up procedures properly. 2. Interference with existing procedures. 3. Improper estimates of equipment performance. 4. Improper estimates of personnel performance. Employes awi ned to the layout of procedures are usually well qualified an8 do not ordinarily commit these errors. However, where basically new procedures have to be laid out or where the ori inator of a procedure is not entirely familiar with the details okproduction, i t is~essentialto consult the people who will have to do the work. I n these instances the writer usually calls a meeting which is attended by foremen and key workers. He develops with their cooperation, work flow charts on a blackboard. because it is not always possible to draw immediately, in chronological sequence, all the phases involved in the procedure, i t may be necessary first to wnte on the board the important phases as they come to mind and later to arrange them in proper numerical sqquence. It is ood practice to combine several phases of the same nature unter one heading in order to indicate more clearly the major steps. It is also possible to make a draft of written instructions by writing on a piece of paper the suggestiona received and by identifying the papers according to the numbers on the blackboard which correspond with the phase under discussion. Later the work flow chart can be drawn and displayed in work rooms. The numbers on the flow chart will correspond with the finished numbered instructions which will also be issued; employees tben will be able quickly to ain knowledge of how to perform a job in the event they siould have forgotten verbal instructions.
7-
4zcaiw
Objections dealin with the time factor have to be dealt with is often believed that sufficient time wjll most commonly. not be available for compliance with the re wrements laid out in the new procedure. This is due to the fact &at the foreman overestimates the effort necessary to brin about 8 job performance rnder normal operating conditions; %e lacks the knowledge to udge how much a time cycle can be reduced after the employees have become used to the new procedure. The statement that “things will get better, as time oes on” is not sufiicientl tonmethod which usually %rings vincing to satisfy a foreman. good results is to chart graphically the time neceasary to an operation from the beginning of a new procedure to it has become routine, and to show the foreman the graph. This will convince him quickly that his present objections may not be justified a week later. Sufficient time must be given for the adjustment of personnel. This obvious fact is mentioned because production executivea occasionally forget that a reported increase m labor hours was due to the installation of a new procedure and therefore asked the foreman for an explanation. This tends to make the foreman hesitant in willingly accepting new procedures, Occasionally the time factor is overstated by the foreman in order to avoid additional work or responsibility. The weter views with suspicion the statements that additional recordm s cannot be made because of lack of time. If records are pro e& desiqned, entries can be made m t h httle effort and loss o?production time. However, no one should expect the forema? to lay out forms; this is the job wigned to the person responsible for the ori ‘nal layout. The %ct that the procedure has been (Continued on page 84)
ft
fi
4-4@+
Regardless of how carefully a procedure has been designed, difficulties must be expected when i t is fist put into operation. Recognition of this fact is important because i t will not discourage the erson responsible for the installation if everything does not wort out according to plan. Furthermore, i t will prevent him 83
tc?g
laid out completely does not necessitate its entire installation at one time. Contrary to common belief, procedures are most successfully put into operation by retaining initially all the phases of the old procedure which do not interfere with the new priniple to be applied. This reduces the number of factors to be changed at one time and gives employees an opportunity for gradua adjustment. Use of this method is recommended where the full cooperation of production employees cannot be obtained at the start of a procedure or in the event the new procedure contains a great number of phases unfamiliar to workers. It is advisable to keep in mind that the original layout can be changed extensively to fit roduction requirements without departing from the principle Kid down. This applies especially to the change of names commonly used in production. The writer does not hesitate to incorporate in written instructions terms which are used in the shop although they might not be entirely correct from the chemist’s point of view. Consideration should also be given the fact that the requirements of a new procedure may have to be adjusted to fit standards prevailing in the shop. If it should be found, for instance, that the original layout calls for the accumulation of time in quarter hours, but the time clocks record in tenths of hours, instructions should be changed accordin ly. The theory that matters of this nature do not have to %e adjusted because employees, for example, have no choice but to record their time in tenths of hours, is faulty; no consideration has been given the fact that workers sooner or later will point to this instance in an attempt to prove that instructions cannot be carried out.
w&nu-rcp. I n order to stress the importance of the follow-up, the writer once installed three rocedures in different sections of a department and assignexone foreman to follow them up. The foreman w&s instructed to check procedure 1 daily for one week, every second day the followin week, and once weekly from then on. Procedure 2 was checkecf once weekly, .and procedure 3 remained unchecked. The number of violations were observed, recorded, and later charted. This was the finding: PROCEDURE 1 was in force at the time the test was completed
(3 months).
PROCEDURE 2. During the first weeks, violations increased from day t o day, declined after the weekly check, only to increase again shortly thereafter. Total number of violations decreased from week to week. However, the procedure was not functioning properly after 3 months. PBOCEDURE 3. Violations increased quickly. After 3 weeks the procedure was practically nonexistent. After 3 months the majority of employees claimed the procedure was never installed. This test may not be entirely conclusive; nevertheless it revealed several interesting facts: (1) New procedures will not function properly if no follow-up is made. (2) It is important that frequFnt checks are made a t th.e.beginning. (3) By roperly selecting the intervals of supervision the number of cl?ecks can be reduced. (4) For best results the time between each check should be increased gradually. Occasionally one hears the remark that roduction executives cannot devote their valuable.time to the Follow-u of new production procedures. Executive supervision can [e performed with little effort and in a very short time if the correct method is used. I refer to control by exceptions. This system is based on the belief that the executive is not interested in what is ri ht; he wants to know what is wrong. Therefore, he establishesglimitations which, when exceeded, will have to be reported $0 him. The report, however, indwates only the extent of the violation above or below the limits set. Applying this system to the fol!owup of new procedures, production executives should have little dfficulty in obtaining information regarding the status of newly installed procedures. In conclusion, the writer would like to call attention to a simple but, nevertheless, effective means of promoting interest among workers for new procedures: use of sketches or photographs in place of symbols for all major steps on the flow chart. It is not uncommon to see a group of em loyees gathered in front of such a flow chart. Although it is t\e original intention to criticize the sketch or photograph, conversations usually end up in a discussion of the new procedure.
84
of the tightest situations in the entire material picture is in plastics. This is specially true of those based in part dn formaldehyde. Little relief is expected in the near future. Methanol production h w given way to ammonia because of the stepped-up munitions program. I n the strictly natural raw material field, linseed is one of the biggest headaches, or rather’the lack of adequate supplies is the big headache to paint manufacturers. NE
* *
The second, or January, “whisky holiday” produced some 52 million gallons of beverage spirits, but the distillers are not too happy since nearly half of this is in the form of bourbon and hence not ready for immediate use. The 25 million gbllons of neutral spirits, of course, can be used to assist in stretching out existing supplies. I n the August holiday no bourbon was made because corn ww not available to the distillers.
*
Washington is a spot where almost any set of figures can be obtained to prove a point. Whereas the cutback after Germany is defeated was described three months ago as likely to be as heavy as 40%, the figure now being bandied about is 17%. Probably it will be somewhere between-possibly nearer 407&
*
The 1944 production of rayon in the United States totaled 742 million pounds, made up of 571 million pounds of filament yarns and 171 million of staple fiber. Acetate production amounted to 23% of the total rayon output; cuprammonium, slightly over 1%; and viscose, about 72%. Aralac, nylon, Binyon, etc., the newer synthetics, accounted for about 4%. Rayon Textile Monthly points out that the term “rayon” has now had 20 years of wide acceptance. Time does march on, for it seems only a few years ago that this WELS a red-hot editorial subject. j , Insecticide manufacturers and others have been advised that DDT will be released only for experimental and research purposes. Compounders of insecticides will have to get along with the old stand-by products and should place orders promptly. Controls on penicillin for civilian use are likely to be lifted soon. Military supplies are being built up a t an encouraging rate. There is some doubt in Washington that the heavy demand for phthalic anhydride can be met unless a still more ambitious plant expansion program is adopted.
* * * *
According.to reports from abroad, Germany’s monthly output of synthetic oil is 100,000 tons or less a month, as compared with 500,000 tons which used to flow from some eighty plants. Considerable stress has been brought to bear in many and varied quarters on the desirability of the United States “LendLeasing” scientific and technological assistance hither and yon in the postwar era. Latest to belabor the point is Vice Chairman Batt of WPB who suggested to the Engineering Society of Cincinnati that “one way the United States can help Britain back to her feet after the war is by lending her technological help”.
*
Old Man Winter took a toll of chemical production in the Niagara frontier area during the past two months. Failure to receive raw materials and shortages of tank cars hurt the record of thi5 important chemical producing area. 134
