Click Button to Log In to Zimmark's Time Trex System
Current Quarter: Q3-2018
Record-able OHSA Events this Quarter
For the week of: Sept 17, 2018
Client Identified Events this Quarter
Opinion is dangerous. Opinion leads to non value add activities. It leads to waste and wasteful activity. It leaves the facility vulnerable to quality problems putting the people and process at risk of an un-managed event.
I was visiting a plant this week that was struggling to consistently meet its quality spec. When we talked about their investigation process it became obvious that opinion not data was driving their decision making.
Opinion from operations, opinion from quality, opinion from maintenance, opinion from management.
Everyone had an opinion, the problem is, no one had data.
So what was decided?
They decided to address the problem by adding a step to the process.
Adding a final stage that was meant to address the thing that was causing the part to fail its quality check.
Now sometimes in the complete absence of data, you are left with only one option, your very best guess.
Everyone shares their opinion, you look for what sounds the most reasonable, has the most consensus and you implement.
Unfortunately, guesses stack upon one another.
They build over time and they create a culture of opinion instead of a culture of data and continual improvement.
World class companies drive opinion based decision making out of their plant.
They focus on building the systems necessary to identify, collect and interpret the metrics and analytics necessary to make decisions based on KPI’s not opinion.
True Data driven decision making is tough, it requires discipline, robust systems and relentless interpretation of the data, but it’s the only way to drive continual improvement and the systematic elimination of waste and wasteful activity.
If opinion and things like time based PM’s drives your culture and your activity, the good news is there’s a step change opportunity available to improve both your OEE and your profitability.
The bad news is it requires a change in culture which can be a daunting task.
If culture change is what you’re after, if you’re frustrated that opinion is driving costs and activity at your plant, then message me and we can start a conversation on how we can help shift the culture at your facility.
If you could outsource 6 pack abs, would you?
Seriously if you get someone to do your sit-ups for you.
Eat the right food for you, wake up at 5 AM and run 7 miles for you and you got to keep the Abs that eventually appeared under your shirt, would you do it?
I think most people would, as illustrated by the quick fix billion dollar Protein shake, home gym markets.
The problem is these promises of easy Abs don't work without serious long term behavior change.
What does this have to do with Parts Manufacturers?
Well many plants try to address problems with shiny new objects, short term solutions that don't address the real root cause.
In most cases it's behavior change that needs to happen, not the latest Widget.
What behavior change am i talking about? Data Driven decision making.
Its about managing the lead metrics that influence the result you are looking to change.
True Plan-Do-Check-Act process management, where data and analytics are used to control the process and identify continual improvement.
Can you outsource 6-pack abs? No.
But you can outsource the non-core processes that are impacting your OEE and introducing waste and wasteful activity to your manufacturing process.
We would love to show you how.
How much reactive maintenance is too much?
This may sound sacrilegious, but every plant should have a certain amount of reactive maintenance.
There are just some processes that are OK to fail and then fix.
But good Reactive maintenance is a decision not an accident.
It needs to satisfy the three rules included in the video.
When those those 3 rules are true, then it probably makes sense to let that process fail.
The problem is, most processes in a parts manufacturing plant don’t satisfy these three rules.
For most processes, consequence of failure can hurt their OEE, it can put the people and manufacturing process at risk.
It hurts the cost per part.
So back to the original question, how much reactive maintenance is too much? Well as soon as your team is reacting to a failure that doesn’t meet the 3 rules outlined in the video it’s too much.
Now the good news is there is a way out, but it requires you to think about your people and your processes a little bit differently.
If you are interested in re-thinking how your maintenance department’s time is being spent, write “Reactive” in the comments below and we will send you a tool to help re-assess how they are spending their time and the results you are getting.
The Skills Gap is hurting your OEE and profitability.
The competition for skilled trades and maintenance staff is fierce in manufacturing plants today.
And that shortage in available skills requires plants to re-think how they are allocating these limited resources.
Limited resources leads to more reactive maintenance, hurts plant efficiency and drives costs up.
When caught in a reactive cycle, the plant never gets a chance to get ahead and implement the sustainable improvement necessary to stay competitive.
There's no time left to build, implement, manage and maintain the proactive systems necessary to control the process variability that leads to events, failures and waste.
We've put together a simplified tool to help re-think how you are allocating your skilled resources.
Its based on categorizing and then profiling the 4 types of tasks we need our skilled trades engaged in each day.
If you are interested in getting copy of this tool, please leave the phrase "Skills Gap" in the comments below.
Trust but Verify, because without data, trust is just an opinion
In the mid 80's when working to reduce tensions during the Cold War, Ronald Reagan famously coined the phrase "Trust but Verify"
Its often referenced when outcome is essential and matters more than the relationship itself
How does this relate to manufacturing?
Well, parts manufacturers should only be using suppliers they trust but verification that the product/service meets specific quality standards over time is essential
The potential impact of an out-of-specification product introduced to the manufacturing process can be significant
And therefore the verification step in the process is an essential aspect for manufacturers looking to reach and achieve World Class performance targets
Without a robust verification process, often the root cause to a quality or HS&E related event is never determined since the out-of-specification product is never detected, and never adjusted for
Help us all understand the impact of out-of-specification products being introduced into the manufacturing process
Can you think of a time where a product supplied by a 3rd party, a trusted supplier, ended up creating a significant event or quality spill at your facility? Leave your story in the comments below
Our World Class Process Audit is designed to identify the small stuff and put the sustainable systems in place to keep those things in control so the big things don't happen and waste and wasteful activity is minimized. If your interested in learning more about our WCPA, following the link.
We were working with a client who was struggling with a problem that’s far too common in todays manufacturing sector.
Another one of their key maintenance guys was retiring and they were extremely concerned about how they were going to replace him.
Production was at record levels, they were introducing new product lines, but their ability to maintain their equipment and keep their OEE within acceptable limits was becoming a real challenge.
They were getting behind on their % Pm compliance and more and more overtime hours were required to hit their targets.
The plant was suffering from what a large number of manufacturers are experiencing today.
An aging work force, a low unemployment rate, high turn over and no time or systems to develop the necessary skills in new workers to meet all the needs of a world class facility.
He wasn’t sure what to do, they had been trying to hire someone with the right credentials for a number of months.
Giving up on the idea of finding a “replacement” candidate, we decided to take a different approach to address the problem.
By treating the entire department as a whole, we were able to come up with a skills vs function matrix.
By categorizing tasks based on Skill required, level of urgency, potential impact on OEE and impact on cost, we were able to map out the functions that could be completely removed from that departments responsibility.
This freed up a significant amount of their time, making the replacement of the individual no longer necessary.
It also allowed their highly skilled resources more time to focus on the tasks they were uniquely skilled to address like process improvement and innovation.
By re-thinking how everyone was spending their time and aligning core capabilities with the task at hand, the facility moved from a reactive environment to one of continual improvement.
If you are interested in getting a copy of our Skills vs Function Assessment Matrix, please put the word matrix in the comments below.