final dissertation re formatted for aiu heading template

8/2/2019 Final Dissertation Re Formatted for AIU Heading Template

1/122

U.S.A.-S.I.

Universal Small-business Approach

for

Successful Improvements

A Dissertation

Originally Presented to the

Faculty of

Kennedy-Western University Just Prior to the Schools Closing

for Ph. D. in Engineering Management

And Now Presented to the Faculty of Atlantic International University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in

Business Management

by

John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Portsmouth, Rhode Island

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.


2/122

Page

Abstract of Dissertation

U.S.A.-S.I.

Universal Small-business Approach

for

Successful Improvements

by

John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Portsmouth, Rhode Island

THE PROBLEM

The problem of improvement in a small business environment is a

problem of limited resources. Small manufacturing facilities do not have

the resource redundancy that can be found in a large corporation. The

conventional techniques employed in Kaizen events, CPI, TQM, and

various other programs is often bypassed, ignored, or, when attempted,

fails in the small business environment because the people involved are


ii


3/122

Page

constantly being pulled into production. Regardless of how worthy a

program or task may be, people in a small business environment have

difficulty dedicating time and energy when it interferes with their normal,

daily, production demands.

METHOD

Managers and leaders in the firm have to digest all of the

concepts and ideas in relation to their individual business situation, and

decide what will work for that situation and the specific management team.

The heart ofUSA-SI (Universal Small-business Approach for

Successful Improvements) starts with identifying what elements will

afford the greatest possibility of success and then to develop the

leadership skills and techniques that a coach or a facilitator would use to

unfold the process within the organization. The first step is to perform

situation analysis. The initial process of successful improvements should

be led by a facilitator and the facilitator must be from top management.


iii


4/122

Page

FINDINGS

The findings, in the researched literature, found in the results of a

survey that was taken, and demonstrated through a practical case study

that was conducted using the techniques of USA-SI, all agreed and

identified the same concerns. The actual techniques, which took the

concerns into consideration and employed elements of Kepner-Treqoe

Problem Solving and Decision Making, Kaizen events, and Continuous

Process Improvement, were simple and easily communicated. USA-SI

was able to be conducted in small blocks of time and kept at a high level

of importance because of the involvement of top management in the team

itself. This, coupled with the techniques themselves, that were simple,

straight forward, and sensible, resulted in successful improvements and a

fully functional improvement team in the actual case study.


iv


5/122

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................viii

LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................ ix

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................... 1

Problem Statement................................................... 3

Purpose of the Study................................................. 4

Importance of the Study............................................ 5

Scope of the Study.................................................... 6

Rationale of the Study............................................... 7

Definition of Terms.................................................... 8

Overview of the Study...............................................11

CHAPTER

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.........................13

The Historical Evolution.............................................13


v


6/122

Page

Japan Organizes the Techniquesand Provides the Discipline.......................................18

USA Focuses on Quality and Improvement...............27

CHAPTER

3. METHODOLOGY. . 43Describe the Approach................................. 44

Identify the Data Gathering Method

and Database of the Study............................................. 45

Comment on Validity of Data.......................................... 46

Comment of Originality & Limitation of Data................... 48

Summary of Chapter 3................................................... 49

CHAPTER

4. THE DATA ANALYSIS SECTION................ 51Introduction .................................................................. 51

The Survey .................................................................. 52

Preparation Phase......................................................... 53

The Case Study............................................................. 54

Choosing the Management Team.................................. 55

Preparation and Training................................................ 57


vi


7/122

Page

Introduction and Explanation of Goals to the Team........ 59

The Second State of the Meetings................................. 71

Set Priority Based on Importance,Urgency, and Growth Potential ................................. 78

Transfer of Functional Authority to Team....................... 83

CHAPTER

5. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary, Conclusions, & Recommendations...........101

Results of the Study .................................................101

Study Supported Previous Research........................104

Study was Conclusive but MoreImprovements are Needed in Firm............................104

The Implications of this Research

the Discipline.............................................................106

Relative Practices Should be Revised whenApplying Techniques to Small Businesses................107

The Findings Support the Hypothesis........................108

REFERENCES ...................................................................110

APPENDIX: Survey Questions and CorrelatedResponses Including Direct Quotations fromRespondents ...... 114 - 130


vii


8/122

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This author would like to acknowledge and thank the management and

employees of International Manufacturing Services, Inc. who cooperated

and provided the case study for this thesis paper.

In particular, this author would like to thank CEO, H. Henry Liiv,

President, Thomas Moakley, and the Improvement Team: Quality

Manager Sharon Benson, Laser Manager Alan Campbell, Screen and

Furnace Manager Daniel Williams, Shop Manager Lori Silva, and

Engineering Manager Scott Durgin. Without their cooperation,

enthusiasm, and hard work, this presentation could not have been

completed.


viii


9/122

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Page

1. Initial memo to members of the Improvement Team

60

2. Second memo to members of the Improvement Team

69

3. Third memo to members of the Improvement Team

73

4. The fourth memo to the team that introduced thefinal steps of the situation analysis process

80

5. Memo from first meeting dedicated to rate and set priority

86

6. Memo to report on the final meeting to rate and set priority

92

7. Team continues to implement improvement items andassignments form the Improvement Team and also reporton results

95

8. Identification of measurable results and comparisons to testin order to confirm the results of the improvements


ix


10/122

Page

implemented

97

9. Team continues to expedite, monitor and measure results

98

10. Summary of Results and Further action recommendationsdiscovered by the Improvement Team & Team continuesto expedite, monitor and measure results

102


x


11/122

Chapter 1

Introduction

The basic techniques and disciplines of good manufacturing have existed for

many years but it was not until after 1912 that the existing Industrial Engineering

techniques began to focus on applying management principles to the manufacturing

organization Kiyoshi Suzaki points out in his book The New Shop Floor

Management that Early in this (20

th

) century, Frederick Taylor published a book

titled Shop Management in which he recommended segregating the planning of

work from its execution. This is also discussed by Philip Hicks in his second edition

of Industrial Engineering and Management. Hicks points out that From 1912 to

1913 a number of leading United States industrial firms also initiated industrial

engineering programs in their plants: Armstrong Cork (now Armstrong Industries),

Dow Chemical, Eastman Kodak, and Eli Lilly, to name a few. Whereas most

attention in the early stages of the development of industrial engineering in the

United States was directed at the production floor, Henri Fayol in France was

concerned with the application of the principles of management throughout an

organization.

Page 11


12/122

It was from this change in focus and Fayols development of the concept of

functional foremanship where the functional organization began to develop in

manufacturing and the functions of operations, planning and development became

defined. This basic organization and the manufacturing improvement concepts have

continued to evolve through such organizations as the Santa Fe Railroad, Western

Electric Company (became A T & T Technologies), Bell Telephone, Bethlehem

Steel, General Motors, Westinghouse, Sylvania, IBM, and General Electric.

All the basics and concepts have always been present in the US companies

old organizations but it was not until the Japanese began to look at the shop floor

as genba kanri (a place where people ultimately add value to their society and

strengthen its foundation) did the powerful and necessary improvement concepts

and techniques become a real and necessary part of manufacturing.

Our American Industrial organizations developed most of the techniques we

see and use today, but the Japanese had the right discipline and culture to

implement to simplify and perfect these techniques into the various systems we hear

about today.

Page 12


13/122

Problem Statement

The problem of improvement in a small business environment, as touched

upon in the overview, is the problem of limited resources. Small manufacturing

facilities do not have the resource redundancy that can be found in a large

corporation. The conventional techniques employed in Kaizen events and various

other forms of tiger teams will not work in the small business environment because

the people involved are constantly being pulled into production. Regardless of how

worthy a program or task may be, people in a small business environment have

difficulty dedicating time and energy when it interferes with their normal, daily,

production demands.

Purpose of the Study

This study focuses on a small US electronic component manufacturing facility

and applies a blend of techniques and concepts from a variety of programs including

Kepner-Tregoe Problem Solving and Decision Making, Kaizen Events, and

Continuous Improvement to accomplish product and process improvements. This

study recognizes the limited resources that are characteristic of a small business

Page 13


14/122

environment and addresses the unique constraints of these limitations with

innovative approaches that utilize existing management and operation personnel

while continuing to conduct business-as-usual. As this paper will demonstrate,

success will require focus on three key elements: 1) Approval and commitment from

top management, 2) An efficient program of Situation Analysis with key management

involvement, to ensure that resources and energy are being focused in the best

direction with the highest probability for impact, and 3) Breaking the total task into

small bite-sized steps that can be accomplished in as little as an hour per week to

allow business and production to carry on as improvements unfold.

Importance of the Study

In business environments, but especially in manufacturing and production

environments the firm must solve problems and improve processes. This is critical

to reducing yield loss, improving quality, reducing cycle time, reducing inventory,

reducing cost, and the overall and ultimate goal, satisfying the customer. H. Henry

Liiv, CEO of International Manufacturing Services, Inc., in his orientation for new

managers, offers the simple description of the three-legged-table. In his description,

the table is the firm and the three legs are Quality, Cost, and Delivery Time. In his

discussion he points out that it is critical that these three legs be constantly

strengthened and improved as the table grows in size and mass, and enters new

competitive markets. He also cautions that if all three legs are not equally

Page 14


15/122


16/122

SPC, SQC, and Benchmarking to name a few. The scope of this case study focuses

on combining techniques of three systems: Kepner-Tregoe Situation Analysis,

Kaizen, and Continuous Improvement. These were combined to affect improvement

within the specific constraints of the small production and manufacturing

environment. It is beyond the scope and limit of this study to analyze all of the

available programs and systems that have been developed to stimulate, manage

and create improvement in manufacturing. These could be topics for further study.

Rationale of the Study

The Rationale of this study is to answer the question: How can improvement

be attained within a small manufacturing and production company, utilizing the same

personnel and resources that exist in the firm but are already dedicated, full time, to

fulfilling the needs of the firm? This is both an important question, and common

need, throughout industry. All the programs, systems, techniques and buzz-words,

that have developed over the past decade all have a common goal of using

organization and teamwork to affect improvement.

Page 16


17/122

Definition of Terms

1. CPI: (Continuous Process Improvement), an ongoing system which increases

value and/or excellence in the quality and condition of the method(s), or steps of a

firms operations.

2. Kaizen: Japanese for Improvement. It has come to be understood as an

event incorporating a cross-functional team of five to fifteen people implementing

improvement ingredients in one area of a plant or firm for one week.

3. Cycle time: The actual time taken by an operator to process a piece of

product. (Imai, Masaaki. Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to

Management. McGraw-Hill, 1997.)

4. Five Ms: A method of managing resources, specifically manpower, machine,

material, method, and measurement. (Imai, Masaaki. Gemba Kaizen: A

Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to Management. McGraw-Hill, 1997.)

5. Five Ss: A checklist for good housekeeping to achieve greater order,

efficiency, and discipline in the workplace, specifically sort, straighten, scrub,

systemize, and standardize. (Imai, Masaaki. Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense,

Low-Cost Approach to Management. McGraw-Hill, 1997.)

Page 17


18/122

6. JIT (just-in-time): A management philosophy aimed at eliminating waste from

every aspect of manufacturing and its related activities. The term JIT refers to

producing only what is needed, when it is needed, in just the amount needed.

(Suzaki, Kiyoshi. The New Manufacturing Challenge: Techniques For Continuous

Improvement. The Free Press, 1987.)

7. Standards: A set of policies, rules, directives, and procedures established by

management for all major operations, which serves as guidelines that enable all

employees to perform their jobs successfully. (Imai, Masaaki. Kaizen, The Key to

Japans Competitive Success.

McGraw-Hill, 1986.)

8.) TQM (Total Quality Management): Organized activities, involving effort toward

improvement, involving everyone in a company managers and workers in a

totally integrated effort toward continuous improvement at every level, ultimately

leading to increased customer satisfaction and success of the business, (Imai,

Masaaki. Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to Management.

McGraw-Hill, 1997.)

9. SPC (statistical process control): Originally developed at SQC (statistical

quality control) by Shewhart in the 1920s, SPC employs statistical sampling against

a chart depicting what is normal. This chart is employed when the goal is to

Page 18


19/122

maintain statistical control of some single variable of interest (e.g., a dimension for a

part or assembly). (Hicks, Philip E. Industrial Engineering and Management, A New

Perspective. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994).

Page 19


20/122

Overview of the Study

Before any alleged problem can be addressed, or solved, it must first be

defined, rated, examined and evaluated. The Kepner Tregoe system was chosen as

a leading, solid, proven, and well-known system of Situation Analysis. Situation

Analysis prevents the tendency to jump to the wrong conclusions, and is an easily

learned system that will allow flexibility and many brainstorming techniques to take

place. This study uses the general Techniques of Situation Analysis plus other

techniques, then moves the resulting rated priority list of problems and goals onto

the improvement teams.

A Small Businesss limited resources often pre-empts the successful

implementation of many of todays improvement systems and techniques. Most

small businesses have a few, multifunctional managers, professionals, and

operational employees. Whenever these individuals are presented with a choice

between completing production goals and deadlines or spending time on

improvement project assignments, the improvement projects become shelved and

put on back burners. In this study, the constraints of the small business

environment were recognized and the techniques employed attempted to neutralize

the scheduling roadblocks and use the existing management of the organization as

effectively as possible.

Page 20


21/122

The front end of this process uses Kepner Tregoe situation analysis and

Kaizen Blitz Event techniques and the final stages and implementation of the

improvements evolve into methods resembling Continuous Improvement. By

assigning Top Management to the front end, the priorities set by the team become

those of Top Management as well.

The final stages of process improvement and improvement implementation

become assigned to subdivision teams, headed by Managers from the original team.

By using techniques found Continuous Improvement systems, the long term

implementation and continuous benefits can be realized.

Page 21


22/122

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

The Historical evolution

As engineering evolved along with the growth of civilization and its

construction, so has the need to create and control its excellence. An almost

universal difficulty that is often identified but seldom solved is how to control and

ensure the form, fit, and function of the structures, and items that man has created

and fabricated. The early engineers were not called engineers but what we consider

craftsmen and their greatest creations were considered works of art. Procedures

were not written down but were pass to the next generation through the apprentices

who served the master craftsmen for many years to learn the skills and techniques.

Seldom was a job repeatable and no two creations were identical. There were no

interchangeable parts, no quality standards, and little or no documentation.

As Philip Hicks describes in his Industrial Engineering and Management, :In

contrast, Sprague de Camp states The story of civilization is, in a sense, the story

of engineering that long and arduous struggle to make the forces of nature work

for mans good. In this sense it is obvious that engineering is as old as civilization

Page 22


23/122

itself. (In the 15th century) we find Leonardo da Vinci who was one of the great

geniuses of all time. He anticipated many engineering developments that were to

follow, such as the steam engine, machine gun, camera, submarine, and helicopter.

However, he probably had little influence on engineering thought of his time. His

research was an unpublished mishmash of thoughts and sketches. He was an

impulsive researcher and never summarized his research for the benefit of others

through publication. .

It wasnt until the late 18th century, (Hicks, 1994) in 1795 that Napoleon

authorized the establishment of the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris which became the

first engineering school. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, founded in 1824, was the

first engineering school in the United States.

Until 1880 engineering was either civil or military and for all but the last 100

years was both. In 1880 the American Society of Mechanical Engineers was

founded, followed by the American Society of Electrical Engineers in 1884 and the

American Institute of Chemical Engineers in 1908. The American Institute of

Industrial Engineers, representing the last major field of engineering to become

organized, was incorporated in 1948. (note: since then other specialty engineering

societies such as the Biomedical Engineering Society and others have come into

being).

Page 23


24/122

From Adam Smith and his Wealth of Nations in 1776, Matthew Boulton and

James Watt, Jr. and their mechanical improvements to the Arkwright spinning jenny

in the early 1800s, mathematician and Charles Babbage and his early computer, the

analytical engine. All of these brilliant individuals lacked a set of standards and

interchangeability. It wasnt until after the Revolution of 1776 that Eli Whitney first

got the support he needed to develop his system of interchangeable parts for

muskets. This was a breakthrough. The concept of interchangeability became the

foundation for the industrial age. Later, Henry Ford, observing the conveyers in a

slaughterhouse got the idea for the progressive assembly of automobiles and this,

together with the concept of interchangeability, began the evolution to modern

assembly including standardization, processes, procedures, and ultimate the need

for improvement programs.

According to Hicks (1994), it was Frederick W. Taylor who has often been

referred to as the father of industrial engineering. It was Taylor who offered the

concept that it was an engineering responsibility to design, measure, plan, and

schedule work.

In Taylors paper entitled Shop Management we find some very modern

concepts considering it was written over 100 years ago:

1 Methods study

2 Time study

Page 24


25/122

3 Standardization of tools

4 A planning department

5 The exception principle of management

6 Instruction cards for workers

7 Slide rules for metal cutting

8 Mnemonic classification systems for parts and products

9 A routing system

10 Costing methods

11 Employee selection in relation to the job

12 Task idea permitting a bonus if the job is completed in the

specific time

As early as 1912 people like Dr. Frank Gilbreth were conducting scientific

studies in micromotion on bricklayers and developing the concepts of motion like

search, find, transport, empty, preposition, grasp and so on which we now call the

science of ergonomics.

Carl Barth with the Barth batch slide rule and his speed and feed calculations,

and Henry Laurence Gantt and his graphic work schedule production charts (Gantt

Charts) were all pioneers and their contributions have created the basis for our

modern manufacturing systems.

Page 25


26/122

A full study of the history of our modern manufacturing practices and their

evolution through time is certainly beyond the scope of this paper, but it is important

to understand that the basic tools, techniques and foundations came from, and were

largely developed in and by the American Industrial Revolution.

Japan Organizes the Techniques and Provides the Discipline

Dale Compton (Compton, 1997) points out that: Manufacturing often found it

difficult to provide a product with the desired level of quality at the desired cost

objective. The time to bring a new product to market was often excessive. This

description of the environment prevailed throughout much of the U.S. industry in the

decades of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. I would probably have persisted through

the 1980s had U.S. industry not been challenged by more efficient manufacturers in

Japan who had developed an approach that had almost none of the undesirable

features (a company that becomes a collection of groups, frequently with

incompatible goals and objectives and frequently in competition).

The U.S. had the history, materials, education, science, and technology.

What the U.S. lacked was a disciplined approach that focused totally on the

customer. According to Compton (1997), The compartmentalization of knowledge

creates a false sense of confidence. For example, the traditional disciplines that

influence management-such disciplines as economics, accounting, marketing, and

psychology-divide the world into neat subdivisions within which one can often say,

Page 26


27/122

This is the problem and here is the solution. But the boundaries that make the

subdivisions are fundamentally arbitrary-as any manager finds out who attempts to

treat an important problem as if it is purely an economic problem, or an accounting

problem, or a personnel problem. Life comes to us as a whole. It is only the

analytic lens we impose that makes it seem as if problems can be isolated and

solved. When we forget that it is only a lens, we lose the spirit of openness.(Senge,

1990). Compton (1997) goes on to say that, Poor communication, a lack of

common organizational goals, and compartmentalization can have a debilitating

effect on an organization. Product redesigns were often found to be necessary

when it was discovered that manufacturing could not produce the first design within

the cost objectives of the product. Changes in design to modify an attribute were

often found to require changes in other features in order to be compatible.

Engineering change orders (ECRs) were frequent during the launch of a new

product. The control of costs was difficult. Manufacturing often found it difficult to

provide a product with a desired level of quality and the desired cost objective. The

time to bring a new product to market was often excessive.

What Japan did that the U.S. was not prepared to do was to take all the

powerful industrial engineering concepts, most of which were developed by U.S.

companies like General Motors, Sylvania, Westinghouse, General Electric,

Raytheon, Rand Corporation, RCA, Xerox, and IBM, and apply them into the

workplace with top-down management support and discipline. The powerful and

Page 27


28/122

innovative experts like W.E Deming, and J.M. Juran, developed, saw and

understood what was needed, but it was not until the Japanese manufacturers

demonstrated international competitive success did the U.S. manufacturers pay

attention to the need for a new focus and evolution in America.

Alan Robinson and Dean Shroadeder (1993), provide the understanding into

where and how the Japanese came to learn the improvement techniques that have

given them industrial success:

W Edwards Deming, Joseph Juran, and other Americans have rightfully earned

their place in the history books for their significant contributions to the industrial

development of Japan. However, the U.S. Training Within Industries (TWI)

programs installed in Japan by the occupation authorities after World War II may

have been more influential. At least ten million Japanese managers, supervisors,

and workers are graduates of the TWI programs or one of their derivative courses,

all of which remain in wide use in Japan in 1992. TWI has indeed had a strong

influence on Japanese management thought and practice: a number of management

practices thought of as Japanese trace their roots to TWI.

The TWI programs were developed in the Unites States fifty years ago. They

were designed to play a major role in boosting industrial production to the levels

required to win the Second World War. Even though TWI did this very successfully,

Page 28


29/122

after the war the programs usage dropped off until, in 1992, they are hardly used or

even known in the United States.

Dr. W. Dekker, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of N. V. Philips

Gloeilampenfabrieken in his forward for Masaaki Imais (1986) Kaizen: The Key to

Japans Competitive Success, supports this further when he says: If we look back

over forty years following the Second World War, we have seen Japan attain the

status of an world economic power, going through five phases of adaptation to

become a formidable competitor in various product areas. These phases are:

Large-scale absorption of technology imported from the United States andEurope.

A productivity drive of hitherto unseen dimensions

A country-wide quality improvement programme inspired by the ideas ofDr. Deming and Dr. Juran of the United States

A great degree of manufacturing flexibility, and finally

Multinationality

After successfully assimilating foreign technology and then achieving a very

high productivity and top quality, Japanese industries are now focusing on flexible

manufacturing technologies. This means having the capability to adapt

manufacturing in a very short time to changing customer and market requirements.

The key words are mechanization, automation, robotisation, and related systems.

As Imai (1986) himself points out: In trying to understand Japans postwar

economic miracle, scholars, journalists, and businesspeople alike have dutifully

studied such factors and the productivity movement, total quality control (TQC),

Page 29


30/122

small-group activities, and suggestion system, automation, industrial robots, and

labor relations. They have given much attention to some of Japans unique

management practices, among them the lifetime employment system, seniority-

based wages, and enterprise unions. Yet I feel that they have failed to grasp the

very simple truth that lies behind the many myths concerning Japanese

management. The essence of most uniquely Japanese management practices

be they productivity improvement, TQC (Total Quality Control) activities, QC (Quality

Control) circles, or labor relations can be reduced to one word: KAIZEN.

KAIZEN in an umbrella concept covering most of those uniquely Japanese

practices that have recently achieved such worldwide fame:

Customer orientation

TQC (total quality control)

Robotics

QC Circles

Suggestive system

Automation Discipline in the workplace

TPM (total productive maintenance)

Kamban

Quality Improvement

Just-in-time

Zero defects

Small-group activities

Cooperative labor-management relations

Productivity improvement

New-product development

Kiyoshi Suzaki (1993) finds the same need for organization transformation:

In todays business, competitive challenge is everywhere. Thanks to the free market

system and the principle of survival of the fittest, businesses that offer obsolete or

Page 30


31/122

uncompetitive products, services, concepts, or systems will become extinct. The

same is true for management concepts. There are many fashionable concepts, but

competition will weed out the one without much substance.

Michael Regan, (2000) points out some of the same ingredients common to

both kaizen events as well as continuous improvement:

Setup reduction

Workplace organization and cleanliness

Standard work Teams of employees who think and take initiative

A significant element in all of the research is the team. Regan describes

Jangbus Map which is a demonstration of a the difference between a team and a

collection. In his description:

The collection has:

creator - Traditional Supervisor

a.k.a. - Babysitter

whose goal is - Enforce Rules

members treated or behave like - Children

members become - Dependent

Page 31


32/122

The Team has:

Creator - Leader

a.k.a. - Team Builder

whose goal is - Self-Directed Teams

members treated or behave like - Adults

members become - Interdependent

Dr. William Hitt (1993), calls his core leadership function coaching and

provides the insight: When it comes to coaching, the effective leader understands

and applies Confucius philosophy of teaching:

The ideal teacher guides his students but does not pull them along; he urges

them to go forward and does not suppress them; he opens the way but does

not take them to the place (Lin Yutang The Wisdom of Confucius)

Dr. Hitt lists his outline for coaching which can be summarized as follows:

Take time to build a personal relationship with each of your staff members.

Give special attention to each staff member at the beginning of a new jobassignment.

Use work assignments effectively as a primary means of staff

development. Master the art of delegation.

Give honest feedback on a timely basis.

Use performance appraisal as a means of teaching, not exhorting orpunishing.

Page 32


33/122

USA Focuses on Quality and Improvement

Armand Feigenbaum (1991) has a very similar view from his Total Quality

Control perspective: Recent years have seen the growth of an unprecedented new

kind of world marketplace of volume, of variation, and quality. It is a marketplace in

which the rising expectations of buyers whether consumers or industrial

corporations couples with the changing role of government have greatly intensified

the demands upon business management.

The breadth and complexity of these demands embrace a whole spectrum of

management problems.. Effective solutions to many current problems are no

longer matters of traditional management and engineering methodology. They are,

instead, matters of critically important new management and engineering substance,

such as:

Managing to make the businessperson, the scientist, and the engineer asum rather than a difference.

Managing to approach product consumerism positively rather thannegatively.

Managing to confront the necessity for energy and materials conservationand waste reduction and improved resource utilization.

Managing in international terms rather than only as national managementslooking outward to other markets..

Page 33


34/122

Nowhere is this need for improvement more clearly evident than in the area of

the quality of products and services. This is a situation with which industry is vitally

concerned and one calling for the new systems and technologies of total quality

control.

One of the most concise and useful understandings of how Continuous

Improvement are related is found in Winning Manufacturing by James A. Tompkins,

Ph.D. (1989). Dr. Tompkins uses the term requirement of Success for winning

manufacturing, and describes it as follows: The most consistent definition of

quality in Japan is satisfying the customer. The most consistent definition of quality

in the United States is the conformance to requirements.

The Japanese definition is good because it defines the customer as the judge

of quality, but it is weak because it does not lead to a method for evaluating quality.

The United States definition offers a method of evaluating quality, but its weakness

is that it does not state that quality can only be obtained when the customer

establishes the requirements.

The combination of the Japanese and the American definitions leads to the

best definition of quality: Quality is the conformance to customer requirements.

Page 34


35/122

David Garvin in his book Managing Quality: The Strategic and Competitive

Edge, presents the following elements of quality for which a customers

requirements should be recorded, using a car as an example:

1. Performance. The operating characteristics of the product (acceleration ofa car)

2. Features. Secondary characteristics that supplement the productsoperating characteristics (air condition in a car)

3. Reliability. The anticipated failure rate of the product (length of time to thefailure of a cars starter)

4. Conformance. The lack of defects in the product when delivered (fitting ofthe trunk, hood, and doors of the car when delivered)5. Durability. The useful life of the product (number of years before a car

deteriorates to the point where it should no longer be repaired)6. Serviceability. The ability to obtain satisfactory repair (availability of

engine parts and ease of installation of these parts)7. Aesthetics. The customers feelings about the appearance of the product

(how the customer views the styling of the car).8. Perceived quality. The customers overall feeling about the product

(subjective judgment of the customer as to which is the best car)

Customer requirements should be established for each of these eight

elements. The product that best conforms to these requirements is the highest-

quality product.

In order to understand quality, you must understand the terms quality control,

quality assurance and total quality control. These terms are not synonymous.

Quality control is the design of the product and processes so that the conformance

of the product to customer requirements is achieved. Two principles of quality

control that must be understood are:

Page 35


36/122

1. Quality cannot be inspected into a product,

2. Quality cannot be built into a product.

Quality can only be designed into the product and the processes that produce it.

Quality assurance is not the design of products or processes, but the ongoing

activity that ensures products conform to customer requirements. Therefore, quality

control is a design activity that occurs before production, and quality assurance is an

auditing activity that takes place during production.

The combination of quality control and quality assurance is known in the

United States as total quality control and in Japan as company-wide quality control.

For all products, first the proper design must occur to control quality and then

manufacturing processes must be audited to assure quality. The combination of

quality control and quality assurance is a Requirement of Success for winning

manufacturing.

What Dr. Tompkins concisely describes is a universal theme found

throughout the acronyms, programs, and quality and improvement-oriented systems.

This common thread in all of the modern thinking, whether Japanese Kaizen, or

United States based improvement programs is that quality has to be designed in.

This means that improvements must come from all functions starting with design.

Page 36


37/122

George Robson, in his book Continuous Process Improvement (1991),

outlines some excellent techniques for Problem Solving which parallel those found in

Kepner Tregoes plan for Situation Analysis, Problem solving and Decision making

program. Robson offers the following: Two basic types of techniques are used to

solve problems, judgmental and analytical. The judgmental technique is used when

detailed data is not available; analytical techniques are used with quantifiable

information and data available. Judgmental techniques are used to get the process

started by helping the tam exercise their thought process and come to consensus on

where to begin and what to do. The analytical techniques are introduced to enable

the team to dialogue with the process and help verify initial judgments. By linking

the two, you will see the process come to life. One team member referred to CPI as

A living organism that became part of their business.

Brainstorming is a judgmental tool used to generate ideas to support the

storyboarding process. Storyboarding in turn is used to:o Stimulate creativity

o Organize judgmental problem solving

o Visually display individual ideas

o Develop team consensus

o Create and organize a plan

Process flow diagramming (PFD) is a very powerful analytical techniqueused to visualize the steps, events, and operations that constitute aprocess. Most team members and coaches say this is truly the heart ofCPI. It makes the process come to life, develops consensus, and builds

teamwork. I have referred to it as the spinal cord or skeletal structure. Analytical data charting is a graphical tool used to display data to:

o identify problem areas

o Interpret information

o Pinpoint and isolate activity

o Use data rather than storing it until its too late or youve forgottenwhere you put it.

Page 37


38/122

Control charting is a simple, but very powerful tool used to:o Let you dialogue with your process

o Recognize trends

o Avoid producing bad products or serviceso Prevent problems rather than react to them after its too late

George Robson, (1991) also lays out some ground rules, which provide an

excellent set of ground rules for starting a team:

1. Be open. Dont be afraid to share an idea. Remember, its yours and itrepresents an expression of yourself. As you listen to other peoplesideas, be open, supportive, or passive. Never attack! It kills ideas and

erodes trust.2. Be supportive and noncritical. When someone expresses an idea, be

supportive and youll be surprised how it is returned. Contribute in anoncritical manner. Remember, criticism kills ideas. Open supportnurtures and encourages participation and builds trust.

3. Be positive. After listening to an idea or comment, respond positively. Tryforcing yourself to say something like, I like that idea becauseRemember, around every donut hole there is a donut.

4. Be willing to share your thoughts and feelings. Express your ideas nomatter how insignificant or dumb you think they might be. When youshare your thoughts and feelings you make yourself vulnerable. You will

discover that when you are vulnerable, most people will want to help.Open sharing is a great team-building activity.

5. No finger pointing. Never be threatening. Remember to check your handto see how many fingers are pointing back at yourself when you point atsomeone else.

6. K.I.S.S. (Keep it straightforward and simple). This is a cardinal rule ofCPI. If you are tempted to try to make something complex, dont. If youare attempting to solve a complex problem or address a complex process,break it down to its simplest form, then proceed.

7. Have fun. When people have fun together, stress level goes down,defenses go down, and creativity is enhanced. Never take yourself too

seriously. I still hate to hear my wife tell me to lighten up. But it alwaysworks. Learn to laugh at yourself or a bad situation. Remember, only youcan control your attitude and outlook.

Page 38


39/122

When the details of Robsons Storyboarding techniques are examined

closely, they are found to carry much of the same principles and framework found in

Kepner and Tregoes Problems Solving and Decision Making core techniques.

Robsons Storyboarding steps are as follows:

You may find it helpful to post a copy of the list to help youre your team on

track.

1. State the problem.

2. Develop the purpose.

3. List the benefits of solving the problem.

4. Identify headers if appropriate. Otherwise, let the brainstorming

results generate the topics.

5. Brainstorm and post all ideas.

Once the board is filled or ideas begin to dry up, take time to clean up the

board by eliminating redundancies and by grouping cards as naturally as possible.

Remember not to force anything.

6. Review each card to ensure the team agrees on its meaning.

7. Clarify and rewrite the cards if necessary.

8. Eliminate irrelevant or redundant cards. Cards may be removed

only with team consensus.

9. Identify your top three or four ideas.

Page 39


40/122

If team consensus can be reached on the list, then step 9 is complete.

However, if consensus can not be reached, then you should use the multivoting

process as explained in step 10.

10. Multivote for consensus. Each team member selects ideas from

the list and votes as follows:

* 4 votes for first choice

* 3 votes for second choice

* 2 votes for third choice

* 1 vote for fourth choice

If a tie exists for any choice, vote again using only the top four ideas,

including those causing the tie. Continue the process until prioritization is complete

and no ties exist.

11. Examine each topic or header card and if necessary restate it

as an action item. In other words, replace the noun with a verb.

If the topic is too broad, break it down into bite-size pieces you

can work with. Remember the K.I.S.S. rule.

12. If subtier actions are necessary, post them under the header

card. If there isnt enough room, use an adjacent space and

make the link with color-coded cards, string, yarn, or numbers

on the cards. Use your imagination and whatever tools you

have on hand.

Page 40


41/122

13. Assign a completion date to each appropriate item. Its

important that the person responsible for the item agrees with

the date.

14. Post dates and the name of the responsible person on either

side of the action card. Should responsibilities or dates change,

the cards should be adjusted accordingly to maintain the

accuracy of the board.

15. Sequence action items by date. This step is optional. It does

require additional effort to move cards around on the board, but

ordering events chronologically helps manage the

implementation and completion of the projects.

16. As items are completed or become overdue, it is recommended

that a color-coding system be used to indicate project status,

such as green for complete and red for overdue.

According to Dr. Hitt, good team building will result in a very highly productive

team with the following attributes:

1) The members have a common mission.

2) The members have a common vision.

3) The members have a common set of values.

4) The members have a common strategy.

5) The members engage in honest and open communications.

Page 41


42/122

6) The members feel free to express their individual opinions.

7) The members deal openly with their conflicts.

8) The members collaborate in solving problems and

making decisions

9) Once a decision is made, everyone supports it.

10) The team IQ is greater than the average IQ of the members.

Many of the premises of Charles Kepner and Benjamin Tregoe parallel and

support both George Robson and his CPI techniques as well as Dr. William Hitt and

his Model Leader. Kepner and Tregoe (1981) provide a very solid plan and

framework for problem solving and decision-making as well as the techniques for

facilitating a successful team. Their techniques are simple, structured and easy to

follow. The basic premise is that before one jumps to solving a problem or making a

decision, they must first recognize the situations that exist, separate them and

simplify the complex into their individual parts, set a priority and determine what to

do first, and then perform the correct action on each element of the situation.

Kepner and Tregoe (1981) identify three possible actions: 1) Decision Analysis, 2)

Problem Analysis, or 3) Potential Problem Analysis. They also identify another

related category 4) Opportunity Analysis. Referring to the Management team,

Kepner and Tregoe (1981) answering the question What kind of method (should be

used) for coordinating their efforts? One consisting of simple, common, sensible

guidelines and procedures expressed in a commonly understood language:

Page 42


43/122

guidelines and procedures that bridge the differences within the team and its

individual functions, guidelines and procedures the team can use jointly to carry out

responsibilities without inhibiting individual contributions or adding new, unessential

tasks. Kepner and Tregoe also point out that: For years social scientists have said

that humans resist change and so they do. But they resist only those changes

they do not understand, are suspicious of, or consider to be against their interests.

Humans embrace change that seems good for them or for the world they live in and

care about.

The best approach then would be one that acknowledges human nature, and

works to improve upon the elements of human nature that exist. Kepner and Tregoe

recognize this by recognizing that managers have four basic questions already in

their minds and these are:

Whats going on?

Why did this happen?

Which course of action should we take?

And What lies ahead?

From Whats going on? Kepner and Tregoe develop the action of

clarification. From Why did this happen? they focus on cause-and-effect thinking.

From Which course of action should we take? they focus on the choices that must

Page 43


44/122

be made. From What lies ahead? they look at assessing what problems might

happen or what decision might be necessary down the road.

With investigation, one can see that the manufacturing and industrial

engineering techniques, developed during the industrial revolution, perfected by the

giant U.S. corporations, and re-written with a new simplicity and discipline by the

Japanese, offer an excellent basis for improvement. There are many seminars,

books, video courses, and consultants available but the concepts and techniques

revolve around a few common concepts.

Page 44


45/122

Chapter 3

Methodology

As a manager and leader, one has to first digest all of the concepts and ideas

in relation to their individual business situation, company, or SBU (small business

unit) and then decide what will work for that situation and the specific management

team. The heart of USA-SI (Universal Small-business Approach for Successful

Improvements) starts with identifying what elements will afford the greatest

possibility of success and then to develop the leadership skills and techniques that a

coach or a facilitator would use to unfold the process within the organization. The

first step is to perform situation analysis. The initial process of successful

improvements will be led by a facilitator and the facilitator must be from top

management.

Page 45


46/122

Describe the Approach

The research first focused on an evaluation of others experience with

improvement programs in order to identify elements that increased success as well

as elements that contributed to program failure in order to focus on the good points

and avoid the failures. This was done through a survey, which was conducted using

the Internet and voluntary participation of mid-career college degree candidates, and

others who responded to the URL (Universal Resource Link).

The second portion of the research focused on combining elements from

Kepner and Tregoe situation analysis, decision making, and problem solving,

together with leadership and coaching techniques. These were combined with

selected Kaizen Event elements and CPI (Continuous Process Improvement)

techniques. This researcher served as the corporate facilitator, formed an

improvement team and instructed the team on the analysis and improvement

techniques that were to be used. Once the team itself had developed its own

synergy and was sufficiently trained to continue on with the improvements, a

facilitator was chosen from the team and the team was empowered to continue on

its own. The goal was to identify and select the best product line to improve first and

then to carry out improvements to that line. Once this was accomplished, the team

would continue on its own as a regular continuous process improvement entity for

the company.

Page 46


47/122

Identify the Data Gathering Method and Database of the Study

A simple questionnaire survey was created using an internet company called

Insiteful Surveys. There are several services available online which allow the

creation of a survey and provide a URL address that can be offered to potential

survey participants. The address provides a direct hyperlink to the survey itself, and

after the participants complete the survey, the data is compiled by the internet

survey company until an appropriate time or number of participants is achieved.

This was the exact method used to gather the information on reasons for success

and/or failure of Improvement Programs.

Additional data gathering was in the form of a review of literature on forming

teams, kaizen events, Gemba Kaizen, CPI, problem solving and decision-making

techniques, leadership and coaching skills, total quality, and improvement methods

of industrial engineering. In addition a case study was performed by an actual and

practical application of the techniques that were extracted and compiled to create an

innovative approach which was useful, successful, and completed valid process

improvement to a major product line of the company.

Finally, the USA-SI program was applied and tested by applying the

techniques to a real-life problem improvement opportunity at International

Page 47


48/122

Manufacturing Services, Inc., a small chip resistor manufacturing company in

Portsmouth, Rhode Island.

Comment on Validity of Data

The data from the survey is presumed valid since it was truly a random

gathering of 61 separate individual inputs from employees and former employees of

various sized companies from all over the United States. The majority of the

participants voluntarily participated in the survey through an invitation on the

Kennedy-Western University general newsgroup site called The Pub and

Business-Minded. These participants were largely mid-career professionals who

are seeking their Bachelor, Masters and Doctorate degrees and they provided high

quality input to the survey.

The data from the review of the literature is valid from the standpoint of the

repetitive concepts that were common between authors and the various techniques

and approaches.

The data from the case study was a valid and the actual accomplishment of

improvements to a major product line of a small U.S. chip resistor manufacturing

company with a national and international customer base. The company,

International Manufacturing Services, Inc., was incorporated in the State of Rhode

Page 48


49/122

Island in 1974. The facilitator, this author, is VP, Operations. The team consisted of

the QA Manager, Screen Process Manager, Laser Process Manager, and Shop

Manager.

All the steps in the improvement process and the actual improvements to the

product line of the case study were documented.

Comment of Originality & Limitation of Data

The survey was created by this author. It was entirely original including: the

questions, the order of the questions, and all the data was taken during the period of

the preparation of this paper to be used only for this paper. All work was new, fresh

and original. The survey is qualitatively sound but not a intended to be a complete

quantitative statistical sample. Its purpose was to document some of the reasons for

success and failure in various companies with the concept of Kaizen and other forms

of improvement. Although it fulfills this purpose adequately, it is limited and not

intended to be a quantitative statistical analysis tool

The literature review was extensive but within the limitations of the authors

time and abilities to digest the available information. Certainly, new publications are

Page 49


50/122

being produced daily and it would not be possible for this author to research all the

available information.

The case study was also subject to the limitations of the author and his ability

to not only serve as the initial facilitator and trainer for the improvement team, each

of the members of the team possessed their own limitations which varied with each

team member. The whole focus of the team approach for creating improvements

was to reduce the individuals limitations by combining the strengths of each

individual and harvesting the best thinking and most enthusiasm of the group in total

Summary of Chapter 3

When looking at the kaizen event or kaizen blitz alone, it possessed

limitations in its magnitude and the need to commit a block of time from a group of

employees of a small workforce. In a small business environment, where resources

are limited and production is already JIT (just-in-time), it is impossible to sacrifice a

group of employees away from the daily production needs. On the other hand, CPI

(continuous process improvement) techniques call for a long-term commitment from

all employees and before the process can be started the initial management teams

need training and time to develop the top-down approach necessary.

This researcher was able to schedule weekly improvement team sessions,

limited to one hour, and accomplish successful improvements while at the same time

Page 50


51/122

training a team that could either continue in the mode of creating gradual,

methodical, improvements, or form the basis of a full CPI program.

CHAPTER 4

THE DATA ANALYSIS SECTION

Introduction

This data analysis first focuses on the qualitative survey that was taken to

document some of the experiences that companies have had with successes and

failure with the concept of Kaizen and other improvement processes.

In addition the data analysis will also focus on the case study conducted by

this author together with the managers of International Manufacturing Services, Inc.,

Portsmouth, RI. During this study, the actual techniques used were elements of

Page 51


52/122

established techniques extracted from Kepner & Tregoe problem solving and

decision making, Kaizen events, and Continuous Process Improvement. The

techniques were combined, applied, and the specific combination of the techniques

and sequence of events, this author has named USA-SI (Universal Small-business

Approach for Successful Improvements).

The Survey

The survey was conducted through the use of an internet service called

Insiteful Surveys. The service allowed the creation of a questionnaire. Once

created, the questionnaire could be accessed by the potential participants through a

URL that was provided by the service.

There were six questions on the survey (in the APPENDIX). The first three

questions were designed to determine the size of the participants company and

number of human resources the company had. Question #4 was to determine if the

participants company had any improvement program experience. Question #5 was

designed to solicit a measure of the success of the participants company

improvement program. The final question, question #6, was open-ended and

Page 52


53/122

allowed the participants to provide their opinion on the success or failure of the

program. This question was the most insightful. The responses, found in appendix

A have been correlated to the profile of the respondents ascertained from the

questions in the beginning of the survey

Preparation Phase

One universal lesson found BOTH in the literature researched and in the

Survey is that one must first obtain the commitment, support and enthusiasm of top

management before any program or system can be successfully implemented. It

was probably best said by Masaaki Imai in his book Gemba Kaizen (1997) referring

to the three most important conditions for successful implementation of any program

including Kaizen Improvement:

The first condition is top management commitment. Unless top

management is committed, and renders full support, nothing will succeed.

The second, I begin, then pause a moment and watch out of the corner of

my eye as members of the audience pick up their pens to write down my

words in their notebooks. I finish my sentence by saying, is top management

Page 53


54/122

commitment. By then, they stop writing and begin to smile. When I end by

saying that the third condition, too, is top management commitment, the room

fills with laughter.

When I mention these three most important conditions, I am in fact

serious, as I know that nothing gets done without top management

commitment

The Case Study

In this case study, three steps were conducted to ensure top management

commitment. First, assurances were obtained that the C.E.O. was enthusiastic

about initiating a team improvement strategy. Not only was he enthusiastic, he had

been subtly encouraging the idea for some time. Second, this author, who is VP,

Operations of the company, and the company President met to analyze and discuss

the best area and product for the Improvement Team to initially focus upon. Finally,

this author served as the initial facilitator, through the steps of situation analysis

which demonstrated the real top management support to the management team,

and also created the enthusiasm and synergy to initiate the process.

Choosing the Initial Management Team

Page 54


55/122

One of the greatest difficulties in assembling a team or task force in a small

business, is deciding how to remove key people from the daily routines and still

manage to make the necessary production commitments. In a small business,

(electronic component manufacturing business in the case study), managers and

key personnel are scarce and usually overburdened with multiple tasks,

responsibilities and assignments.

It may be that some time has to be created by top management. In this case

study, top management was ready to temporarily re-organize production schedules

and other priorities to make the time necessary for the team. This is a very

important reason for having top management commitment from the beginning. No

improvement team can succeed if they are penalized and reprimanded for directing

time away from their other functions to participate in an improvement effort.

Time was also initially limited to 45 minutes per week for the Situation

Analysis, and, as long as the team was progressing, there was no pressure placed

on the team to complete their improvements in a defined block or time. This was

necessary because when the team first began its work there was a rapid growth

period taking place in the company. Later, economic conditions flattened production

and the team was able to dedicate more time to completing and implementing the

improvements.

Page 55


56/122

The actual team itself consisted of the Quality Manager, the Screen Process

Manager, the Laser Process Manager, and the Shop Manager, with the VP,

Operations serving as initial Facilitator. In addition the new Sales Engineering

Manager audited the teams sessions in an effort to learn more about the

manufacturing process.

This team was the core of operations for the company and each member bore

multiple functions in the company as is characteristic of most small companies. The

45 minute per week initial plan was chosen over a block of time as is done in a

Kaizen Event because the members of the team could not be drawn away from their

daily duties for a block of time and still perform the other necessary functions. The

alternatives: 1) stop or slow production or 2) make up a different team excluding the

key managers, was not acceptable. In later stages, once the situation analysis was

complete, other teams could be formed but the initial situation analysis which

identified the key elements, determined the importance and urgency of each

element, and set the priority for the improvements, must be the key management.

Just as the key management needs top management commitment, the individual

departments needs key management commitment and enthusiasm.

Preparation and Training

Page 56


57/122

Before successful improvements can be accomplished, the team and its key

members need to be trained. Many courses are available which range in price from

zero to many thousands of dollars. Some of the best courses are available from the

professional societies: American Society for Quality, Institute of Industrial

Engineers, and the Society of Mechanical Engineers, to name a few. Local chapters

of the professional organizations often offer small dinner-meeting courses, as well as

full certification and training, often in conjunction with local colleges and Universities.

In addition there are many private firms and consultants who specialize in teaching

the skills and techniques and, for a fee, will bring an entire program into the

company.

In this case study, the training took several forms. In the past, this author had

attended a full week-long training on how to be a facilitator for the Kepner-Tregoes

Problem Solving and Decision Making Process. In addition, just prior to the

formation of the Improvement Team, members of the team attended a presentation

on Kaizen improvements together. This presentation was sponsored by a local

professional society chapter. In addition this author and the Quality Manager

attended additional courses covering several improvement topics through a local

reputable college: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, including: Implementing the Five

S System, Developing Lean Manufacturing Work Cells, How to Implement Kaizen

Events at Your Company, Improving Cycle Time Through Setup Reduction, and

Page 57


58/122

Poke-Yoke Mistake-Proofing. This was all necessary so that the key facilitators

would have the skills necessary and the members of the team would have some of

the basic ideas of brainstorming, organizing thoughts, and working in a team

approach. Equally important, this also provided time prior to the initial meeting to

discuss the topic together from the same platform.

Introduction and Explanation of Goals to the Team

The first meeting was planned and announced. The introduction, agenda,

goals, and team assignment was communicated. Figure 1 is the initial memo that

introduced the assignment to the team and set the focus and agenda of the first

meeting. This portion of the Improvement focus is using the techniques of Kepner

Tregoe problem solving and decision making situation analysis. Other techniques,

like George Robsons Storyboarding could have been used instead of the Kepner

Tregoe techniques, but this author, who was trained as a facilitator in the Kepner

Tregoe techniques believed it to be the best system available.

Page 58


59/122

(Figure 1: Initial memo to members of the Improvement Team. The names of theteam members have been changed to protect individual privacy)

RC3(C)0402 Product and process improvement Team

We have been talking for some time about establishing an improvement team andtaking the 0402 pull through product as a good place to start to make improvements.

Looking at some of the recent presentations we have had on Kaizen, ContinuousImprovement (5 Ss), Lean Manufacturing, and other techniques, I believe we havesome valid tools available to create some good improvements at IMS.

Ultimately, I believe we can use a combination of Kepner-Tregoe problem solvingand decision making, Kaizen and CPI or the 5S system to implement ourimprovements, but first we need a forum to perform the Gap Analysis (Determinewhere we are starting from (baseline), where we want to go), and get a feel for thetime, resources and ease of improvement implementation.

We will handle the front-end planning by the Improvement Team using sometechniques I learned from Kepner Tregoe which give us a framework but doesntstifle any inputs and gives everyone an even playing field.

Ted and I selected the Master Team consisting of Dave - Screen Process Manager,Lara Shop Manager, Albert - Laser Process Manager, and Shelly QualityManager. I am scheduling our first two meetings on Thursday 4/26/01 at 2:00 PM 2:45 PM and Wednesday 5/2/01 at 2:00 PM 2:45 PM. I will act as facilitator anddo my best to facilitate rather than participate. The meetings are limited to 45minutes.

This system starts with Situation Appraisal.

Page 59


60/122

In situation appraisal, we go in the following order and try hard to not jump aheadtoo soon:

1) Identify Concerns

This first step may seem so obvious that its legitimate to ask why we need it. Theanswer lies in a tendency to react to situations, or firefight, rather than think ahead.Its easy enough to recognize concerns that arrive at our desks a failed lot, or ascream about a late delivery, but it takes conscious effort to seek out opportunitiesfor improving the effectiveness of the work environment itself

Recognizing concerns is a systematic surveying of the work environment for threatsAND opportunities and the result is a comprehensive list of areas needing our

attention now and in the future.

Please be prepared in our first meeting to List Concerns:

- This is done by Questioning to the Void, meaning asking What Elseand What Changed until NO ONE has any more ideas.

RULE #1. At this state ALL input is valid, nothing is ignored, no idea is bad or wrongor dumb. Too often gems are missed because they are discarded too soon.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER BEFOREHAND:

1- What deviations are occurring?2- Where are we not meeting expectations and dont know why?3- What needs attention?4- What opportunities exist?5- What actions need to be taken?6- What decisions or choices need to be made?7- What plans should be implemented?8- What future changes in product/customer requirements are

anticipated?

2) Clarify Concerns (Clarify and Separate) First or second meetingdepending on how much time is needed

As concerns are listed we may know exactly what we mean by each concern. If theconcern is clearly stated, we are ready to proceed to the next appropriate stephowever, the list of concerns will include broad or general issues (the production

problem, the morale problem) or only a few words describing an area of concern

Page 60


61/122

but giving little indication of the action required. We need to know more specificallywhat is meant by the concern to make further progress.

Clarifying concerns does NOT mean listing everything we know about them. We willdo that later when identifying all the relevant information as part of ProblemAnalysis, Decision Analysis or Potential Problem Analysis save the details forlater.

Questions to Consider during the Clarification step:

- What: Re-state vague or general concerns

- Why: To better understand the nature of each concern

- How: Ask separating and clarifying questions

-What do you mean by____?

- What exactly is ______?

- What else concerns you about ______?

- What evidence do you have?

- What different deviations, decisions, or plans are part of this concern?

- Is this a group or basket of concerns, can you break them out?

Best test - Do you know if this needs a decision, or is a problem, or apotential problem?

Concern is clear when there is a commonunderstanding

Concern is clear when it states a single actionableissue

SECOND MEETING AGENDA, Details will follow:

IF we have enough time to complete the List and Clarification of our concernsduring the first meeting we will move ahead, otherwise we will continue duringthe second meeting.

Next Agenda will be to:

Set priority: Seriousness, Urgency and GrowthPlan next steps: Determine Analysis & subgroup teams neededPlan involvement: Identify who Does What and When

I ask the following from everyone:

Page 61


62/122

KEEP AN OPEN MIND, FEEL FREE TO SPEAK OPENLY BUT TRY TOATTACK ISSUES NOT PEOPLE, DONT TAKE CROSS-DEPARTMENTALINPUT, IDEAS, AND SUGGESTIONS PERSONALLY SINCE WE SEE

THINGS IN OTHER AREAS MORE CLEARLY THAN IN OUR OWN. ALLINPUTS ARE IMPORTANT AT THIS STAGE.

When done correctly and seriously this process is very effective and can befun since the resulting improvements can be extraordinary.

John Silvia, VP, Operations4/19/01

Although the first meeting felt awkward and everyone appeared somewhat

uneasy, the group pulled together and there was a huge amount of work

accomplished. Forty five separate concerns were identified in the initial

brainstorming.

As facilitator, this researcher had the difficult task of keeping his thoughts and

natural desire to manage the outcome away from the process and strive only to

listen and keep the group on task rather than jump to his own conclusions. Often

the largest contribution to failure is to allow the facilitator or a dominant or top

management individual who may be part of the team, to overpower the team or

become an intimidation or bully to the process. The key is to establish the ground

rules in the beginning that NO idea will be criticized and ALL ideas are valid.

Page 62


63/122

The second challenge, is to keep a good sense of humor and keep the

discussion on a positive note. Robson (1991) highlights this in his Ground Rules

as noted earlier in the Review of Literature: Have fun. When people have fun

together, the stress level goes down, defenses go down, creativity is enhanced.

Never take yourself too seriously. It is important for the facilitator to keep things

light and prevent domination, attacks, finger-pointing, and criticism. This is

especially important at this stage. Later the team will be assigned to scrutinize each

concern.

Another critical element is to make the process and work visible. There are

many tools available including PC and laptop projectors, and very expensive digital

white boards. Although these tools are innovative and interesting, a simple

overhead projector and some transparencies, together with a grease pencil will

suffice.

It is important to have everyone on the same playing field. The facilitators

primary function is to keep everyone to the program agenda, prevent the team from

jumping ahead, and to write everything down in a visible format. To prepare, a

grid with headings was created. The grid table was pre-numbered to save steps

when it was used. The key is to write down everyones ideas and input. It is very

important and worth repeating: The facilitator must not judge, or pre-judge any of

Page 63


64/122

the inputs. Every input has equal weight and equal opportunity to become part of

the initial list. (Figure 2)

Figure 2, adapted for this paper, is the second memo the team. This memo

quickly followed the first meeting in order to keep the completed work very visible,

and to keep the improvement program alive, fresh and active in the minds of the

team until the next meeting. In many situations, but especially in a small business,

the real-time duties and tasks that build up when key managers are away from their

departments often take immediate priority once they have left their meetings and

sessions. Often, the same top managers and facilitators instantly switch gears and

begin asking their streams of questions and making requests about the daily

production assignments, pushing the improvement team tasks and assignments

further down their list of priorities. The memos, reminders, and discussions between

the team sessions, that come from a top management facilitator concerning the

improvement program, help to keep the program important and active in everyones

mind. This is another important function of the facilitator and another good reason

the facilitator should be part of top management or working directly for, and with, top

management.

The Memo illustrated in Figure 2 actually does several things:

Page 64


65/122

1) It gives encouragement and support for the work completed during the first

session. This feedback is very important and reinforcement with positive

feedback for good progress and accomplishments is necessary.

2) It provides a reminder of the time and place for the next meeting. Meetings

may move or need to be re-scheduled, but reminders are necessary

nonetheless.

3) It provides the list of Concerns generated in the first session. This list needs

to be actively in the hands of all of the team members. At this stage it is the

most important product of the improvement team.

4) Finally it reminds everyone about the next step and the next meeting with a

brief description of what they can expect. They already received the details

of the actual procedure in the first memo.

It is important to note that the second meeting and as many more meetings

as is necessary, can be solely for the purpose of completing the initial list of

concerns. Before actually moving to the second stage, the eight initial questions

need to be reviewed more than once and the overriding question what else needs

to be repeated until there is nothing more that the team can add to the list.

Once this is accomplished, the finalized list is then shared among all the

members of the group by the facilitator and the second stage begins.

Page 65


66/122

(Figure 2: Second memo to members of the Improvement Team.)

RC3(C)-0402 Product Improvement Team

Session 1, Situation Analysis List Concerns

This was an Excellent session and six pages (45 concerns) were listed. To help uskeep everything visible and in focus I am listing the items below (typed .therefore now legible) but unchanged from how they were listed. If any otherconcerns come to light before the next meeting on Wednesday 5/2/01 @ 2:PM 2:45, please forward them to me so I can add to list and re-distribute.

1) Resistor spreads in different directions2) Printing in valley 3) Sawtoothed edge4) Perimeter of plate different from center5) Only holding on outside with vacuum6) Cover glass prints with sawtooth7) Low squeegee pressure = thick prints8) Increase pressure migrates paste before bake

Page 66


67/122

9) Small chip screens dont wear well10) Three different screen people & variations11) Vacuum not well controlled vortex?

12) Not tried stones may need filter too13) Have to thin silver14) Sales pushing tighter tolerances all the time15)


68/122

We will take as many meetings as needed to complete this next step since one itemcan sometimes become several separate concerns and we will have at least 45 tolook at.

Thank you all for your participation and enthusiasm so far.

I am scheduling the third meeting for Wednesday 5/16/01 @ 2:00 PM 2:45 PM sowe can plan ahead of time. I am intentionally sk

final dissertation re formatted for aiu heading template

Documents