M A N U F A C T U R I N G S O F T W A R E
Whenever someone talks of software, it normally conjures up an image of computers. The fact, however, is that software is involved wherever there is hardware, and manufacturing is, if anything, predominantly hardware. Whenever a new unit is being set up or an existing one being expanded, a great deal of effort and planning goes into the acquisition of the latest technology and plant & machinery. Similar effort is invested in designing the plant layout and material flows, selecting material handling equipment and so on. Unfortunately, little, if any effort is made, or thought given, to determine and plan how this hardware is to be administered and run.
For example, even the financial institutions, when they are scrutinising a project report for a new venture, or expansion of capacity, make a lot of fuss about the bona fides / capabilities of the collaborator, assessing whether the technology is new or obsolete, whether the equipment being ordered is “state of the art” or not, whether, if the equipment being ordered is second-hand, it has sufficient life etc. However, no query whatsoever, is made as to whether the project promoters have made similar efforts in drawing up a plan as to how they are going to actually run this huge investment to ensure that they get the maximum output from it.
What does running this investment mean ? It involves very mundane things like determining the manning norms for the equipment, the shift starting and stopping times, development of production and productivity norms, multiple machine operation, inter - changeability of work force, preventive maintenance schedules, proper stocking for spares and, in general, preventing the development of any restrictive or wasteful practices, which can render the entire plant totally idle.
Experienced plant managers know only too well how these seemingly small, innocuous issues can and do bring production to a grinding halt, high technology and foreign collaboration, notwithstanding. The result is that one is rarely able to achieve the rated output and, as a corollary, unit production costs keep on increasing.
This can only be avoided if a conscious and planned effort is made to inculcate correct working habits, right from the beginning - - - a task that is at least as important as that of selecting the right plant and machinery.
How should one go about this task ?
The first and foremost step, in case of a new venture, is to study the practices of the collaborator, if there is one. Determine from him
· which are the bottleneck areas ?
· whether there is a requirement for continuous working without any interruption ?
· what is the kind of flexibility required from different grade / level of workmen who
are going to run the plant ?
· what are the practices which, though innocuous, can radically affect the output from
the system ?
· what is the documentation procedure to be followed, so that there is no hold up on
account of improper / incomplete records ?
· what are the major safety requirements ?
· which are the potential breakdown areas ?
· what should be the back-ups that must be kept ready and available ?
· finally, what is the rated output under different conditions and the highest achieved
output, on a sustained basis, by previously installed plants under normal operating
conditions.
Apart from all this, there are a series of administrative practices which can affect productivity. Take for example the case of shift starting time. There are at last 5 versions of it : Is it the time when the siren blows ? Or is it the time when the bus comes in from the station ? Is it the time when the workmen punch their cards ? or is it the time when the morning tea is served and consumed ? Or is it the time when the work for the day has been allocated / distributed ?
Practising managers know that, in effect, there can be a difference of anything from 15 minutes to 1 hour between the theoretical work starting time and the actual work starting time. Plant capacities are, of course, worked out on the theoretical work starting time --- is it any wonder then, that the effective output, no matter how modern the machinery, always seems to fall woefully short of the projected figures given by the manufacturers or the collaborators.
Consider the question of the classification of jobs in terms of salary grades. In many group operations, if one worker is short, the work simply stops, even if it is physically possible to do it with the reduced strength, although at a lower output rate. In such cases, even if an additional person is provided, many times work does not resume if the replacement is not of the same “grade” or “level” --- thus, a “semi skilled worker” will not come and do the loading/unloading or package labelling work (a task that he is perfectly capable of doing) because that is an “unskilled worker’s” job. Similarly, an unskilled worker will not do any counting or recording job, even if he knows how to do it, unless he is given an allowance for doing a “higher grade” job. In either case, the result is a considerable loss of production till the matter is resolved by either finding the right man or cajoling/browbeating the person available.
Another commonly occurring lapse seems to be in the area of production and productivity norms. Almost all “managements” bemoan the poor output rate and low productivity levels. But, if you were to probe a little deeper and ask them what the production and productivity levels ought to be, you will be confronted with a puzzled reaction ; after they have recovered from the shock of this direct question, at best they will splutter --- “it should be much higher, or course.”
The fact is (however hard it may be to believe) that in almost 90% of the cases, managements themselves do not know (nor are bothered to find out) what the attainable production rate is or what the desired productivity level should be) ; thus, in practice, workmen set the production/productivity norms by default and everyone is quite happy while the going is good. It is only when a competitive squeeze is felt or recession sets in for one reason or another, that everybody wakes up to the need for higher output and increased productivity levels. But even when such a realisation comes, there is a curious reluctance, almost bordering on fear, to spell out and demand from the workmen the production that ought to be achieved, based on machine capacities, and after making due allowances.
Possibly, the reason for this hesitancy is the fact that the theoretically determined production level is much higher than what was being achieved till date ; consequently, managers find it difficult to believe the figures themselves. Asking for this increased production would mean, on the one hand, a tacit admission that they had been accepting and acquiescing in the low output level prevailing so far. On the other hand, they also fear ridicule from the workmen / union for demanding, all of a sudden, such “unrealistically” high production. Under the circumstances, the easiest route adopted is to simply ask for an increase, leaving it to the worker to decide the quantum ; those, who are bolder, specify the universally popular and magical figure of “10 % increase”.
It is easy to see why this cannot and does not work - - - certainly not in the long run. Since the worker’ self-determined rate has been accepted for so long (and this is not because they have deliberately slowed down --- it could be for a variety of reasons like improper/inefficient methods, poor tooling, lack of knowledge of machine capabilities, not using the machine to its permissible limits, etc.), they perceive any ad-hoc demand (or request) for increase as unfair pressure and, therefore, resist it. Even if they finally agree, the effect is only temporary and sooner than later, everything slips down to normal. On the other hand, if the possible output is even 3 to 4 times the current level, but the same is properly explained and demonstrated to the workmen, it is more likely to be better accepted, though it is possible that it will be accompanied by demands for proportionate or, at least, commensurate increase in compensation.
The essential point being made here is that even a plainly obvious matter like determining, specifying and securing the desired production rate and productivity norm is, usually, overlooked in the general pre - occupation with “hardware” ; the consequence is, of course, predictable -- everybody clamours for higher production though nobody knows (or cares) what it ideally should be.
It should be clear from the above examples, and there are many more, that all the investment in advanced technology, sophisticated plant & machinery, new processing methods etc. can come a cropper in the face of such practices, which are more the rule in today’s industrial environment, Hence, unless these “software aspects” are properly understood and tackled, all efforts at securing higher productivity will come to nought.
In short, what is being proposed is that some definite effort and time must be invested in drawing up a list or manual of proper plant practices before a new project is started ; otherwise, the projected production figures are a mere pipe dream.
Based on my experience while working in industry, as well as my consulting experiences for the last couple of years, the following checklist has emerged which covers the major areas that tend to generate wasteful / restrictive practices :
ILLUSTRATIVE CHECKLIST FOR CARRYING OUT A PLANT PRACTICES AUDIT
1. Absenteeism
2. Facilities (Canteen, Co-op Society, PF Loans, Sales of Scrap & Company’s used goods to employees)
- - - Eligibility & Restrictions
3. Factory Timings
4. Housekeeping & Cleanliness
5. Identity Cards/Badges
6. Job Rotation
7. Leave Rules & Administration
8. Machine Cleaning & Lubrication
9. Movement Restriction within the Factory
10. Multiple M/c Operation
11. Overtime
12. Permissible limits of Union activity during working hours
13. Production & Process Parameter Recording
14. Production & Productivity Norms
15. Promotion Criterion
16. Safety
17. Standing Orders
18. Wastage Control
19. Workmen Induction Training
It is suggested that in case of an existing unit, a rigorous “Plant Practices Audit” should be carried out for the above area to determine the shortcomings, bottlenecks and lacunae that are affecting productivity and then necessary corrective action initiated. In the case of new units, the above list can form the basis for drawing up a “Plant Practices Manual” which would aim to prevent the growth and spread of wasteful practices, that would otherwise sprout in the absence of any specific guidelines or policy in the matter.
I would like to emphasise, here, that the purpose of the above proposed “Plant Practices Audit” is not to draw up an ironclad set of rules and regulations in which the workers are to be imprisoned. Far from it.
The idea behind suggesting the above “Audit” is that a deliberate and conscious effort is made to study the practices that are in vogue (or need to be instituted) so that instead of various working habits developing by default, proper and correct working practices are adopted which are in consonance with the requirements of the job in the overall organisational context.
Many of the “default practices” may be harmless in themselves ; however, by their very nature, they tend to be individualistic and, collectively, have a discordant and disruptive effect on work output and productivity. On the other hand if the “correct” practices are stipulated and underlined right from the beginning, it gets internalised as a part of the job and there is no feeling of being unduly pressured which is what the workmen feel when there is a move to change habits/practices of years in an effort to increase productivity.
In sum, it can be appreciated that the question is not so much about the workmen having a “right attitude”, as it is of the management effectively discharging its own responsibilities of (a) determining the right work practices and (b) teaching and imparting that knowledge to each workman right from the beginning, as an integral part of their training. The tragedy is that most managements are too lazy to do the first and, consequently, ill - prepared to do the second.
In case of existing units, which are expanding, the task is, both, much easier and far more difficult. It is easier because the wasteful practices are already known and, therefore, can be identified and their solution thought of or planned for. It is difficult because it is virtually impossible to break an existing practice. Examples abound in plenty about the most professionally companies falling victim to these wasteful / restrictive practices. A recent case in point is that of the Hindustan Lever unit at Sewri, Bombay.
However, when such existing units are having expansion programmes at a different location then it is incumbent upon the people in - charge of the project to ensure that such wasteful practices do not take root in the new location. However, once again, the reality is that planning is only done for the hardware part. There is increasing focus on how to reduce manpower by automating or mechanising or resorting to use of sophisticated material handling equipment etc.
What is lost sight of in this approach is that while certain manpower reductions can definitely be achieved, manpower, as such, cannot be totally eliminated. Therefore, the way to solve this problem is not merely by reducing manpower. Rather, the effort must be to install systems that do not give an opportunity for these restrictive practices to creep in.
For example, one of the major headaches faced on any shop floor is worker mobility / flexibility to shift from one job or machine or location to another. In case of a new unit, this problem can be tackled by instituting a system right from the start of operations at that unit that every worker will have a one or two year’s training period, during which he will work on several possible jobs that can be performed in his particular grade or skill level. Further, he should be asked to perform such different jobs (be it on a different machines or at a different location) as a matter of course. Once this practice is instituted from the very beginning, it will, hopefully, not give any cause for resistance or resentment later on.
It is not that the workmen, per se, are unwilling to perform different jobs. The fact is that if they have been working on just one job for years together and, then, they are suddenly asked to move, they naturally perceive this as a threat and encroachment upon their rights and get a feeling of insecurity. It is this that causes them to react with a sullen refusal which then gets unfairly and wrongly (though, not surprisingly ) interpreted as indiscipline or unreasonableness.
On the other hand, if there was a regular practice of job rotation or operator mobility, as per the exigencies of work, there would be no cause for alarm in a worker’s mind when he is asked to do a job different from the one he is currently engaged in.
Yet another example is the case of whether or not, if at all, an operator of a machine should maintain the machine himself. Today, the operator simply operates the machines ; the cleaning around the machine is done by a sweeper or cleaner. Its oiling and greasing is done by another person from maintenance department. Once again, shop floor managers know that this kind of work segregation is carried to ridiculous lengths.
For instance, if a belt slips from a pulley, the operator will sit idle for hours, till the maintenance man comes and remounts the belt on the pulley -- a job the operator could well have done in a couple of minutes !
Therefore, while starting a unit at a new location, these aspects could be built in as part of an operator’s job ; for example, he may be asked to clean his workplace at the end of the shift, regularly oil and grease his machine and he could also be asked to take care of certain, well defined minor faults himself (for which, of course, he needs to be provided proper training). As a result of the above, work interruptions on this count would drastically reduce and this would show up in a dramatic increase in productivity.
For far too long, these aspects have been ignored, as if by shutting one’s eyes to them would make them disappear. Every practising manager complains of these problems, but no systematic effort is being made to tackle them at the root. If we wish to see significant improvements in productivity, there must be a shift from hardware - obsession to software - concern.
Bombay
November 29, 1989
Whenever someone talks of software, it normally conjures up an image of computers. The fact, however, is that software is involved wherever there is hardware, and manufacturing is, if anything, predominantly hardware. Whenever a new unit is being set up or an existing one being expanded, a great deal of effort and planning goes into the acquisition of the latest technology and plant & machinery. Similar effort is invested in designing the plant layout and material flows, selecting material handling equipment and so on. Unfortunately, little, if any effort is made, or thought given, to determine and plan how this hardware is to be administered and run.
For example, even the financial institutions, when they are scrutinising a project report for a new venture, or expansion of capacity, make a lot of fuss about the bona fides / capabilities of the collaborator, assessing whether the technology is new or obsolete, whether the equipment being ordered is “state of the art” or not, whether, if the equipment being ordered is second-hand, it has sufficient life etc. However, no query whatsoever, is made as to whether the project promoters have made similar efforts in drawing up a plan as to how they are going to actually run this huge investment to ensure that they get the maximum output from it.
What does running this investment mean ? It involves very mundane things like determining the manning norms for the equipment, the shift starting and stopping times, development of production and productivity norms, multiple machine operation, inter - changeability of work force, preventive maintenance schedules, proper stocking for spares and, in general, preventing the development of any restrictive or wasteful practices, which can render the entire plant totally idle.
Experienced plant managers know only too well how these seemingly small, innocuous issues can and do bring production to a grinding halt, high technology and foreign collaboration, notwithstanding. The result is that one is rarely able to achieve the rated output and, as a corollary, unit production costs keep on increasing.
This can only be avoided if a conscious and planned effort is made to inculcate correct working habits, right from the beginning - - - a task that is at least as important as that of selecting the right plant and machinery.
How should one go about this task ?
The first and foremost step, in case of a new venture, is to study the practices of the collaborator, if there is one. Determine from him
· which are the bottleneck areas ?
· whether there is a requirement for continuous working without any interruption ?
· what is the kind of flexibility required from different grade / level of workmen who
are going to run the plant ?
· what are the practices which, though innocuous, can radically affect the output from
the system ?
· what is the documentation procedure to be followed, so that there is no hold up on
account of improper / incomplete records ?
· what are the major safety requirements ?
· which are the potential breakdown areas ?
· what should be the back-ups that must be kept ready and available ?
· finally, what is the rated output under different conditions and the highest achieved
output, on a sustained basis, by previously installed plants under normal operating
conditions.
Apart from all this, there are a series of administrative practices which can affect productivity. Take for example the case of shift starting time. There are at last 5 versions of it : Is it the time when the siren blows ? Or is it the time when the bus comes in from the station ? Is it the time when the workmen punch their cards ? or is it the time when the morning tea is served and consumed ? Or is it the time when the work for the day has been allocated / distributed ?
Practising managers know that, in effect, there can be a difference of anything from 15 minutes to 1 hour between the theoretical work starting time and the actual work starting time. Plant capacities are, of course, worked out on the theoretical work starting time --- is it any wonder then, that the effective output, no matter how modern the machinery, always seems to fall woefully short of the projected figures given by the manufacturers or the collaborators.
Consider the question of the classification of jobs in terms of salary grades. In many group operations, if one worker is short, the work simply stops, even if it is physically possible to do it with the reduced strength, although at a lower output rate. In such cases, even if an additional person is provided, many times work does not resume if the replacement is not of the same “grade” or “level” --- thus, a “semi skilled worker” will not come and do the loading/unloading or package labelling work (a task that he is perfectly capable of doing) because that is an “unskilled worker’s” job. Similarly, an unskilled worker will not do any counting or recording job, even if he knows how to do it, unless he is given an allowance for doing a “higher grade” job. In either case, the result is a considerable loss of production till the matter is resolved by either finding the right man or cajoling/browbeating the person available.
Another commonly occurring lapse seems to be in the area of production and productivity norms. Almost all “managements” bemoan the poor output rate and low productivity levels. But, if you were to probe a little deeper and ask them what the production and productivity levels ought to be, you will be confronted with a puzzled reaction ; after they have recovered from the shock of this direct question, at best they will splutter --- “it should be much higher, or course.”
The fact is (however hard it may be to believe) that in almost 90% of the cases, managements themselves do not know (nor are bothered to find out) what the attainable production rate is or what the desired productivity level should be) ; thus, in practice, workmen set the production/productivity norms by default and everyone is quite happy while the going is good. It is only when a competitive squeeze is felt or recession sets in for one reason or another, that everybody wakes up to the need for higher output and increased productivity levels. But even when such a realisation comes, there is a curious reluctance, almost bordering on fear, to spell out and demand from the workmen the production that ought to be achieved, based on machine capacities, and after making due allowances.
Possibly, the reason for this hesitancy is the fact that the theoretically determined production level is much higher than what was being achieved till date ; consequently, managers find it difficult to believe the figures themselves. Asking for this increased production would mean, on the one hand, a tacit admission that they had been accepting and acquiescing in the low output level prevailing so far. On the other hand, they also fear ridicule from the workmen / union for demanding, all of a sudden, such “unrealistically” high production. Under the circumstances, the easiest route adopted is to simply ask for an increase, leaving it to the worker to decide the quantum ; those, who are bolder, specify the universally popular and magical figure of “10 % increase”.
It is easy to see why this cannot and does not work - - - certainly not in the long run. Since the worker’ self-determined rate has been accepted for so long (and this is not because they have deliberately slowed down --- it could be for a variety of reasons like improper/inefficient methods, poor tooling, lack of knowledge of machine capabilities, not using the machine to its permissible limits, etc.), they perceive any ad-hoc demand (or request) for increase as unfair pressure and, therefore, resist it. Even if they finally agree, the effect is only temporary and sooner than later, everything slips down to normal. On the other hand, if the possible output is even 3 to 4 times the current level, but the same is properly explained and demonstrated to the workmen, it is more likely to be better accepted, though it is possible that it will be accompanied by demands for proportionate or, at least, commensurate increase in compensation.
The essential point being made here is that even a plainly obvious matter like determining, specifying and securing the desired production rate and productivity norm is, usually, overlooked in the general pre - occupation with “hardware” ; the consequence is, of course, predictable -- everybody clamours for higher production though nobody knows (or cares) what it ideally should be.
It should be clear from the above examples, and there are many more, that all the investment in advanced technology, sophisticated plant & machinery, new processing methods etc. can come a cropper in the face of such practices, which are more the rule in today’s industrial environment, Hence, unless these “software aspects” are properly understood and tackled, all efforts at securing higher productivity will come to nought.
In short, what is being proposed is that some definite effort and time must be invested in drawing up a list or manual of proper plant practices before a new project is started ; otherwise, the projected production figures are a mere pipe dream.
Based on my experience while working in industry, as well as my consulting experiences for the last couple of years, the following checklist has emerged which covers the major areas that tend to generate wasteful / restrictive practices :
ILLUSTRATIVE CHECKLIST FOR CARRYING OUT A PLANT PRACTICES AUDIT
1. Absenteeism
2. Facilities (Canteen, Co-op Society, PF Loans, Sales of Scrap & Company’s used goods to employees)
- - - Eligibility & Restrictions
3. Factory Timings
4. Housekeeping & Cleanliness
5. Identity Cards/Badges
6. Job Rotation
7. Leave Rules & Administration
8. Machine Cleaning & Lubrication
9. Movement Restriction within the Factory
10. Multiple M/c Operation
11. Overtime
12. Permissible limits of Union activity during working hours
13. Production & Process Parameter Recording
14. Production & Productivity Norms
15. Promotion Criterion
16. Safety
17. Standing Orders
18. Wastage Control
19. Workmen Induction Training
It is suggested that in case of an existing unit, a rigorous “Plant Practices Audit” should be carried out for the above area to determine the shortcomings, bottlenecks and lacunae that are affecting productivity and then necessary corrective action initiated. In the case of new units, the above list can form the basis for drawing up a “Plant Practices Manual” which would aim to prevent the growth and spread of wasteful practices, that would otherwise sprout in the absence of any specific guidelines or policy in the matter.
I would like to emphasise, here, that the purpose of the above proposed “Plant Practices Audit” is not to draw up an ironclad set of rules and regulations in which the workers are to be imprisoned. Far from it.
The idea behind suggesting the above “Audit” is that a deliberate and conscious effort is made to study the practices that are in vogue (or need to be instituted) so that instead of various working habits developing by default, proper and correct working practices are adopted which are in consonance with the requirements of the job in the overall organisational context.
Many of the “default practices” may be harmless in themselves ; however, by their very nature, they tend to be individualistic and, collectively, have a discordant and disruptive effect on work output and productivity. On the other hand if the “correct” practices are stipulated and underlined right from the beginning, it gets internalised as a part of the job and there is no feeling of being unduly pressured which is what the workmen feel when there is a move to change habits/practices of years in an effort to increase productivity.
In sum, it can be appreciated that the question is not so much about the workmen having a “right attitude”, as it is of the management effectively discharging its own responsibilities of (a) determining the right work practices and (b) teaching and imparting that knowledge to each workman right from the beginning, as an integral part of their training. The tragedy is that most managements are too lazy to do the first and, consequently, ill - prepared to do the second.
In case of existing units, which are expanding, the task is, both, much easier and far more difficult. It is easier because the wasteful practices are already known and, therefore, can be identified and their solution thought of or planned for. It is difficult because it is virtually impossible to break an existing practice. Examples abound in plenty about the most professionally companies falling victim to these wasteful / restrictive practices. A recent case in point is that of the Hindustan Lever unit at Sewri, Bombay.
However, when such existing units are having expansion programmes at a different location then it is incumbent upon the people in - charge of the project to ensure that such wasteful practices do not take root in the new location. However, once again, the reality is that planning is only done for the hardware part. There is increasing focus on how to reduce manpower by automating or mechanising or resorting to use of sophisticated material handling equipment etc.
What is lost sight of in this approach is that while certain manpower reductions can definitely be achieved, manpower, as such, cannot be totally eliminated. Therefore, the way to solve this problem is not merely by reducing manpower. Rather, the effort must be to install systems that do not give an opportunity for these restrictive practices to creep in.
For example, one of the major headaches faced on any shop floor is worker mobility / flexibility to shift from one job or machine or location to another. In case of a new unit, this problem can be tackled by instituting a system right from the start of operations at that unit that every worker will have a one or two year’s training period, during which he will work on several possible jobs that can be performed in his particular grade or skill level. Further, he should be asked to perform such different jobs (be it on a different machines or at a different location) as a matter of course. Once this practice is instituted from the very beginning, it will, hopefully, not give any cause for resistance or resentment later on.
It is not that the workmen, per se, are unwilling to perform different jobs. The fact is that if they have been working on just one job for years together and, then, they are suddenly asked to move, they naturally perceive this as a threat and encroachment upon their rights and get a feeling of insecurity. It is this that causes them to react with a sullen refusal which then gets unfairly and wrongly (though, not surprisingly ) interpreted as indiscipline or unreasonableness.
On the other hand, if there was a regular practice of job rotation or operator mobility, as per the exigencies of work, there would be no cause for alarm in a worker’s mind when he is asked to do a job different from the one he is currently engaged in.
Yet another example is the case of whether or not, if at all, an operator of a machine should maintain the machine himself. Today, the operator simply operates the machines ; the cleaning around the machine is done by a sweeper or cleaner. Its oiling and greasing is done by another person from maintenance department. Once again, shop floor managers know that this kind of work segregation is carried to ridiculous lengths.
For instance, if a belt slips from a pulley, the operator will sit idle for hours, till the maintenance man comes and remounts the belt on the pulley -- a job the operator could well have done in a couple of minutes !
Therefore, while starting a unit at a new location, these aspects could be built in as part of an operator’s job ; for example, he may be asked to clean his workplace at the end of the shift, regularly oil and grease his machine and he could also be asked to take care of certain, well defined minor faults himself (for which, of course, he needs to be provided proper training). As a result of the above, work interruptions on this count would drastically reduce and this would show up in a dramatic increase in productivity.
For far too long, these aspects have been ignored, as if by shutting one’s eyes to them would make them disappear. Every practising manager complains of these problems, but no systematic effort is being made to tackle them at the root. If we wish to see significant improvements in productivity, there must be a shift from hardware - obsession to software - concern.
Bombay
November 29, 1989
No comments:
Post a Comment