Plant manugement
Janraarg 1952
Well-written work instructions will prescribe procedures for many unusual situations rather than set forth everyday practices in great detail
P
plant practices into writing is often believedall that is needed to straighten out production difficulties in chemical plants. It is not always realized that recording a practice does not make it sound and that some practices exist more in the minds of supervisory personnel than in the plant. Before intelligent working instructions can be composed, it is necessary to investigate existing practices to determine that they are economical and comply with principles of sound industrial engineering. This means that someone must record step by step what workers are doing in the plant and that certain adjustments will have to be made before written working instructions canassume a real meaning. Failure to do this can only lead to disappointments. UTTING
Recording ex2et2ng practice8 It is generally not necessary to make time or motion studies or to analyze various jobs in detail according to flow of work or important components. In most chemical plants all one has to do is to follow a worker and make a record of his actions. The findings may then be discussed with foremen, supervisors, and preferably department heads who will call to the investigator’s attention any violations of existing rulings or unsafe practices. The next step is to determine the cause of the violations. This is one of the most important steps in achieving good working instructions. Carelessness on the part of employees should never be assumed since this would defy the very purpose of finding flaws in prevailing practices. It is imperative that the employee who, in the opinion of his superiors, violated a certain ruling, be given the opportunity to explain why he has taken this action. It has been the writer’s experience that willful violations of existing rulings or plain carelessness constitute only a minor part in an employee’s failure to follow good working practices. I n most cases it will be found that a worker was either not properly informed, that changes had taken place which made it impossible for him to adhere to certain rulings, or that his equipment or tools were not in order. January 1952
Here is a typical example: The writer once conducted such an investigation and found that a machine had been unattended for as long as 20 minutes, five times during a working period, and that a n employee had failed t o shut down the machine when making minor repairs. Reporting this instance, he was toid by supervisory personnel that these were gross violations of existing rulings and that the employee in question would be dismissed immediately. The writer’s request to interview the employee was refused on the grounds that two major violations called for automatic dismissal. A few days later, however, it was found that the employee had left his working place twice on the foreman’s insistence that he come to the office, twice to take his rest period for which the foreman had failed to provide relief, and once to help a fellow employee as he was told to do by the foreman. The reason the employee had not shut down the equipment when making minor repairs was that the foreman had told the employee frequently not to hold up production because of minor difficulties. This brings out two important points. First, supervisory personnel is too intimately involved in the execution of managerial practices to judge whether undesirable or unsafe practices are due to negligence of employees, poor arrangements, or physical inability to carry out instructions. Secondly, only actual observations and interviews with the employee who does the work make it possible to establish what is actually going on in the plant. Some chemical plants go somewhat further with investigating by establishing a list of “problems,” which is intended to serve two purposes. First, to obtain a clear-cut picture of the measures t h a t are necessary before good working instructions can be written, and secondly, to be able to follow up needed improvements. It must be realized that the knowledge that certain changes are needed does not mean that management is always in a position to make the necessary improvements immediately. If, for example, it is found unsafe to
lubricate a machine while it is in motion, but at the same time it is impossible to shut down the equipment because of the damage which would result to the product, this finding would be listed as a “problem.” Not until the problem was solved would written working instructions be issued. It is sometimes claimed that this method should not be used because i t puts management on record as knowingly violating sound and/or safe practice. The writer does not quite agree with thip point of view. He admires anyone who has the courage to face situations with frankness and prefers this approach to giving meaningless instructions. Furthermore, the fact that there exists an undesirable condition, which cannot be remedied immediately, does not prevent management from taking special precautions, such as warning employees personally or installing special signs. Large chemical manufacturers usually prefer to postpone writing working instructions until manufacturing standards have been established in detail. This is undoubtedly best; however, it is costly and time-absorbing. Furthermore, it is not always possible to establish strict manufacturing standards on new projects or new manufacturing methods, and thus it is often necessary to choose between postponing issuance of the written instructions or establishing them quickly in the plant by observation and discussion with workers and supervision. The effectiveness of establishing working instructions on the latter basis is sometimes underestimated by people who are used to time and motion studies but this procedure should b-e given consideration even in large chemical plants when quick action is needed.
Technique I n the preparation of written working instructions, it is customary to break an operator’s job down according to its important (Continztrd on page 100 A )
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
99 A
Plant Management components and to describe the various tasks in the sequence in which they are performed. It has been the writer’s experience that it is often better to disregard the sequence of the various tasks and to divide operations into normal operations, starting-up operations, and shutdown operations. This is especially of value where continuous manufacturing operations exist and where start-ups and shutdowns constitute an exception rather than the norm. Generally, written working instructions in chemical plants can be broken down as follows: 1. Normal operations 2. Start-up 3. Shutdown 4. Safety instructions 5 . General instructions and company policies Within each of these categories the major phases of a job are again grouped-for example, mixing, preparing, delivering, etc. Although an attempt should be made to describe the various tasks in logical sequence, one should not hesitate to depart from this procedure if certain operations are almost identical or logically belong together. For example, i t is better to describe the operation of one entire system than to insist on flow of work and t o distribute the operation of the system throughout the instruction book. In some instances i t may even become necessary to describe the operation of a system and to mention certain parts of the operation of the system again. The fact that a certain task has been mentioned once before should not exclude the possibility of mentioning it again if this will contribute toward better understanding. It is not always fully understood that good working instructions must give employees the opportunity to learn what to do when trouble arises. I n fact, the description of actions to be taken when exceptions arise is more important than describing well known practices in too much detail, which can often make written working instructions look ridiculous. h frequent mistake is to describe more than one task on one instruction sheet in order to limit the size of the instruction book. This is false economy. Working instructions must be designed so they can be changed quickly and lengthy descriptions often make i t impractical, and sometimes impossible, (Continued on page 102 A ) to retype
instructions on short notice. Qperators, foremen, and executives who try to beat tape” by crossing off words and numbers and replacing them with pencil entries should realize that this practice is the beginning of thc downfall of effective working instructions. Most chemical plants keep one issue of the instruction book on the job, use one copy for the foreman to check instructions, and maintain one copy in the office. Unless the mechanics arc set up to make changes in the three books simultaneously, instructions may contradict each other. The simplest way to keep all three books alike is to have new working instructions or revisions of working instructions written by one person who does not write any revision until all three copies have been collected. It should be m:ttle clcnr to everyone who uses an instwetion Imok thnt any page which shows :I peiicil nxuik is t o lie considered as voitl. The usc of this system may require t1i:tt pages Le t:iI.rcii froni the books, leaving the plxiit withotit cei.tain instructions. ‘l’hc writer c.:iiinot I vCali one instance wilere a inissing pagcb has caused troublc. Sonic imple IJClieve that too t n ~ i c l iclet:iil i r i irist,ructioiix is not practical I ~ c c : i ~toci e nxiiiy wvisioris are neoess:iry. T o tliis tlie writer. would like to say that :my cli:uil?;e\voitli making should be woith putting intci writing. Super\+ory I)et,sonnclof lowel. level should not be :dloi\-ed to cha,ngc ) I )y working instruct ions I i nl ess ~ p lroved the department licnd. ?’lie \ w y f:wt that a change must be ~ l p p i ~ o inakcs ~ul supervision think twice befoi,c (lecitiinn on the need of doing things in a different way-a valuable by-product for est:iI)lishing written instructions. Management’s confidence in haviiig established well-written wot,king instructions can best be expi,essed by telling workers and supervision that employees will not be held ixspoiisible for :iny inishap in the plant which does not constitute a violation of n written working instruction. Anyone responsible foi. writing working instructions who is not willing to take this risk has either done a poor job or has knowingly made request)s which cannot be carried out. Employee morale can be greatly improved by giving protection against unreasonable demands and issuing well-written working instructions. Correspondence concerning this column will be forwarded promptly if addressed to the author, yo Editor. I s ~ u 3 T R I a rA N D ENGINEERINQ CHEU.\I-.. Washington 6, D. C.
102 A
