You are on page 1of 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.

Page

ii

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

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Page

iii

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

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Page

iv

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.

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

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

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Page

vi

Japan Organizes the Techniques and Provides the Discipline.......................................18 USA Focuses on Quality and Improvement...............27

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY. . 43 Describe 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................ 51 Introduction .................................................................. 51 The Survey .................................................................. 52 Preparation Phase......................................................... 53 The Case Study............................................................. 54 Choosing the Management Team.................................. 55 Preparation and Training................................................ 57

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Page

vii

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 More Improvements are Needed in Firm............................104 The Implications of this Research the Discipline.............................................................106 Relative Practices Should be Revised when Applying Techniques to Small Businesses................107 The Findings Support the Hypothesis........................108

REFERENCES

...................................................................110

APPENDIX: Survey Questions and Correlated Responses Including Direct Quotations from Respondents ...... 114 - 130

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Page

viii

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.

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Page

ix

LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. 60 2. 69 3. 73 4. 80 5. 86 6. 92 7. Team continues to implement improvement items and assignments form the Improvement Team and also report on results Memo to report on the final meeting to rate and set priority Memo from first meeting dedicated to rate and set priority The fourth memo to the team that introduced the final steps of the situation analysis process Third memo to members of the Improvement Team Second memo to members of the Improvement Team Initial memo to members of the Improvement Team

95 8. Identification of measurable results and comparisons to test in order to confirm the results of the improvements

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

Page

implemented 97 9. 98 10. Summary of Results and Further action recommendations discovered by the Improvement Team & Team continues to expedite, monitor and measure results Team continues to expedite, monitor and measure results

102

2002 John J. B. Silvia, Jr.

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 (20th) 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

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

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

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

strengthened then the ignored leg will crumble, and regardless of how strong the other two legs are made, the table will still fall. This lesson is absolutely true. Unless Quality is improved, Cost is reduced, and Delivery Time is constantly shortened, the firm will ultimately succumb to competition as customers turn away when products fail and cheaper products find their way into the marketplace.

Scope of the Study

The Scope of this study is limited to the width and breadth of the resources of this researcher coupled with his 19 years of experience in the manufacturing and production environment. The experiences, beliefs, biases, and limitations have been supplemented by historical research.

The Case Study itself is also another limitation since it involves one firm, with a single location and the possibility exists that some of the reactions and successes achieved may have evolved differently in a firm with other styles, characteristics and personnel relationships. The historical research does indicate that many of the

traits encountered by the researcher in this study are generally characteristic of similar size production and manufacturing entities. Since the subject of improvement is quite large, there are many other programs that exist that could be analyzed. These include techniques in Lean Manufacturing, 5 Ss, TQM, 5 Ms,

Page 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 2 Methods study Time study

Page 24

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Standardization of tools A planning department The exception principle of management Instruction cards for workers Slide rules for metal cutting Mnemonic classification systems for parts and products A routing system Costing methods Employee selection in relation to the job 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

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

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

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

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 and Europe. A productivity drive of hitherto unseen dimensions A country-wide quality improvement programme inspired by the ideas of Dr. 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

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, senioritybased 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

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 a.k.a. whose goal is Traditional Supervisor Babysitter Enforce Rules Children Dependent

members treated or behave like members become -

Page 31

The Team has: Creator a.k.a. whose goal is Leader Team Builder Self-Directed Teams Adults Interdependent

members treated or behave like members become -

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 job assignment. 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 or punishing.

Page 32

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 a sum rather than a difference. Managing to approach product consumerism positively rather than negatively. Managing to confront the necessity for energy and materials conservation and waste reduction and improved resource utilization. Managing in international terms rather than only as national managements looking outward to other markets..

Page 33

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

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 of a car) 2. Features. Secondary characteristics that supplement the products operating characteristics (air condition in a car) 3. Reliability. The anticipated failure rate of the product (length of time to the failure of a cars starter) 4. Conformance. The lack of defects in the product when delivered (fitting of the 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 highestquality 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

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

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 technique used to visualize the steps, events, and operations that constitute a process. Most team members and coaches say this is truly the heart of CPI. 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 forgotten where you put it.

Page 37

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 services o 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 it represents an expression of yourself. As you listen to other peoples ideas, be open, supportive, or passive. Never attack! It kills ideas and erodes trust. Be supportive and noncritical. When someone expresses an idea, be supportive and youll be surprised how it is returned. Contribute in a noncritical manner. Remember, criticism kills ideas. Open support nurtures and encourages participation and builds trust. Be positive. After listening to an idea or comment, respond positively. Try forcing yourself to say something like, I like that idea because Remember, around every donut hole there is a donut. Be willing to share your thoughts and feelings. Express your ideas no matter how insignificant or dumb you think they might be. When you share 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. No finger pointing. Never be threatening. Remember to check your hand to see how many fingers are pointing back at yourself when you point at someone else. K.I.S.S. (Keep it straightforward and simple). This is a cardinal rule of CPI. If you are tempted to try to make something complex, dont. If you are attempting to solve a complex problem or address a complex process, break it down to its simplest form, then proceed. 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 always works. Learn to laugh at yourself or a bad situation. Remember, only you can control your attitude and outlook.

2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7.

Page 38

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. 2. 3. 4. State the problem. Develop the purpose. List the benefits of solving the problem. 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. 7. 8. Review each card to ensure the team agrees on its meaning. Clarify and rewrite the cards if necessary. Eliminate irrelevant or redundant cards. Cards may be removed only with team consensus. 9. Identify your top three or four ideas.

Page 39

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

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) 2) 3) 4) 5) The members have a common mission. The members have a common vision. The members have a common set of values. The members have a common strategy. The members engage in honest and open communications.

Page 41

6) 7) 8)

The members feel free to express their individual opinions. The members deal openly with their conflicts. The members collaborate in solving problems and making decisions

9) 10)

Once a decision is made, everyone supports it. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Figure 1: Initial memo to members of the Improvement Team. The names of the team 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 and taking 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, Continuous Improvement (5 Ss), Lean Manufacturing, and other techniques, I believe we have some valid tools available to create some good improvements at IMS. Ultimately, I believe we can use a combination of Kepner-Tregoe problem solving and decision making, Kaizen and CPI or the 5S system to implement our improvements, but first we need a forum to perform the Gap Analysis (Determine where we are starting from (baseline), where we want to go), and get a feel for the time, resources and ease of improvement implementation. We will handle the front-end planning by the Improvement Team using some techniques I learned from Kepner Tregoe which give us a framework but doesnt stifle 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 Quality Manager. 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 and do my best to facilitate rather than participate. The meetings are limited to 45 minutes. This system starts with Situation Appraisal.

Page 59

In situation appraisal, we go in the following order and try hard to not jump ahead too soon: 1) Identify Concerns

This first step may seem so obvious that its legitimate to ask why we need it. The answer 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 a scream about a late delivery, but it takes conscious effort to seek out opportunities for improving the effectiveness of the work environment itself Recognizing concerns is a systematic surveying of the work environment for threats AND 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 Else and 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 wrong or dumb. Too often gems are missed because they are discarded too soon. QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER BEFOREHAND: 12345678What deviations are occurring? Where are we not meeting expectations and dont know why? What needs attention? What opportunities exist? What actions need to be taken? What decisions or choices need to be made? What plans should be implemented? What future changes in product/customer requirements are anticipated?

2)

Clarify Concerns (Clarify and Separate) First or second meeting depending on how much time is needed

As concerns are listed we may know exactly what we mean by each concern. If the concern is clearly stated, we are ready to proceed to the next appropriate step however, 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

but giving little indication of the action required. We need to know more specifically what is meant by the concern to make further progress. Clarifying concerns does NOT mean listing everything we know about them. We will do that later when identifying all the relevant information as part of Problem Analysis, Decision Analysis or Potential Problem Analysis save the details for later. 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? Do you know if this needs a decision, or is a problem, or a potential problem? Concern is clear when there is a common understanding Concern is clear when it states a single actionable issue

Best test -

SECOND MEETING AGENDA, Details will follow: IF we have enough time to complete the List and Clarification of our concerns during the first meeting we will move ahead, otherwise we will continue during the second meeting. Next Agenda will be to: Set priority: Seriousness, Urgency and Growth Plan next steps: Determine Analysis & subgroup teams needed Plan involvement: Identify who Does What and When I ask the following from everyone:

Page 61

KEEP AN OPEN MIND, FEEL FREE TO SPEAK OPENLY BUT TRY TO ATTACK ISSUES NOT PEOPLE, DONT TAKE CROSS-DEPARTMENTAL INPUT, IDEAS, AND SUGGESTIONS PERSONALLY SINCE WE SEE THINGS IN OTHER AREAS MORE CLEARLY THAN IN OUR OWN. ALL INPUTS ARE IMPORTANT AT THIS STAGE. When done correctly and seriously this process is very effective and can be fun since the resulting improvements can be extraordinary. John Silvia, VP, Operations 4/19/01

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

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

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

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

(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 us keep everything visible and in focus I am listing the items below (typed . therefore now legible) but unchanged from how they were listed. If any other concerns 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) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) Resistor spreads in different directions Printing in valley Sawtoothed edge Perimeter of plate different from center Only holding on outside with vacuum Cover glass prints with sawtooth Low squeegee pressure = thick prints Increase pressure migrates paste before bake

Page 66

9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 19) 20) 21) 22) 23) 24) 25) 26) 27) 28) 29) 30) 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) 39) 40) 41) 42) 43) 44) 45)

Small chip screens dont wear well Three different screen people & variations Vacuum not well controlled vortex? Not tried stones may need filter too Have to thin silver Sales pushing tighter tolerances all the time <10 ohm values (kelvin probes) Hourglass shaped ends for probing Coverglass and top term Size Cracks in substrates where strips form Rear term width sometimes lg. Front to back alignment Diced through Resistor bodies (along edge) Chipped backs (chipouts) Rear term width made smaller tougher Resistor alignment Need strict policies on tolerances per size val 100 PPM TCR wanted on everything Laser Dept does not use LTL on sheet Soldered chip easier to trim lg term Dicing plate & flip to min. error Splash on back has gotten better Screen wiping = specks = splashes Waiting for V-Tek to do 0402 on Automatic taper Paper tape capability want in-house Need inspection stds. in general Reqts. Not always clearly defined from sales Powers that be want costs reduced and yields incr. Make improv. In substrates themselves to get improv. Res. Try screens w/ diff. Emulsion Substrates have sharp edges to wear emulsion Wiping screen may change tension & distort pattern Screens for 0402 used a lot Look into re-designing screens Put top pad & pull term at same time Put bottom pad and PT @ same time Everyone has diff. Perception of what is good or bad

At the meeting on 5/2, I plan to give a maximum of 10 minutes more to see if there is any more to be listed and then move onto Clarify Concerns Refer to the questions I already distributed to see what we need to do to Clarify and Separate each of the items on the list.

Page 67

We will take as many meetings as needed to complete this next step since one item can sometimes become several separate concerns and we will have at least 45 to look 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 so we can plan ahead of time. I am intentionally skipping the week of 5/7 5/11 because of Daves and Alberts vacation days. John 4/27/01

The Second Stage for the Meetings

The second stage was the clarification stage. This step was to blast and refine by clarifying the concerns listed in the first meeting(s). This step may take several meetings. The group should be given the latitude to extend the meetings from the 45-minute cap if the they desire, to allow them to capitalize on the good session which frequently occurs. The team is getting used to working together, and have developed ownership of the list.

Page 68

During the clarification of concerns, items on the list were combined, eliminated, clarified, and simplified. Some list items may be divided into several parts and each part will become a separate item adding to the list.

The clarification questions need to be asked about each item on the list until the list becomes a clean, refined, list of concerns with no duplication and each item is conveying a single concern. Kepner & Tregoes questions listed in Figure 1 (section 2) are: 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?

This step in the process is important and must be given all the time necessary to completely clarify each and every one of the concerns on the list. It will be impossible to determine priorities for a concern on the list if it is not simplified or contains more than one element or concern merged together.

Page 69

(Figure 3: Third memo to members of the Improvement Team.) To: IMS Improvement Team From: John Silvia Summary of last actions after the Clarify Concerns step completed: 1) Resistor spreads in different directions -Considered a cause rather than a result -May impact final termwidth, substrate, and screening sawtooth of screen -Results in hard target for dice and laser -May impact alignment 2) Printing in valley -Condition inherent in the system 3) Sawtoothed edge

Page 70

-Related to 1 & 6 -A condition of the system -Clearly a concern 4) Perimeter of plate different from center -Affects the distribution of fired values across the plate 5) Only holding on outside with vacuum -Possible cause of #4 -Involves concerns related to plate camber 6) Cover glass prints with sawtooth -See #1 & #3 7) Low squeegee pressure = thick prints -Related to #8 combine -Thick prints -Impact varies with each layer 8) Increase pressure migrates paste before bake -Related to #7 combine -Thin prints -Pressure optimum is a narrow band 9) Small chip screens dont wear well -Small openings -Many cleanings and wipes wears screen -Defines a Concern Useful Life of Screen 10) Three different screen people & variations -Fact including daily conditions, humidity, and load pressures -Defining STDS & Parameters 11) Vacuum not well controlled vortex? -Possible cause of splashes -Affects hourglass on end of chips -May cause inconsistent patterns 12) Not tried stones may need filter too -Relates to #11 as a possible solution 13) Have to thin silver -Possible contributing cause of splashes -See #9 & #31

Page 71

14) Sales pushing tighter tolerances all the time -Fact generating needs we have to solve 15) <10 ohm values (kelvin probes) -0603, 0504, smallest chip for Kelvin if no solder on wraps rest guess target value 16) Hourglass shaped ends for probing -Same as #16 17) Coverglass and top term Size -See # 15 18) Cracks in substrates where strips form -See #1, #4, #19, #20, #21, & #24 -Also could be a cause for other concerns 19) Rear term width sometimes lg. -Concern 20) Front to back alignment -See #18 -Can be operator related -Can be caused if plate flopped side-to-side instead of top-to-bottom 21) Diced through Resistor bodies (along edge) -Concern -Changes value after trim -Cosmetic reject 22) Chipped backs (chipouts) -Concern -Dicing/waxing/wax -Blowout in slots 23) Rear term width made smaller tougher -Designed to match import -Small Tolerance on small chips as little as +/- .004 24) Resistor alignment -See #1, #21 and impacts others

Page 72

25) Need strict policies on tolerances per size val -Concern -Need to match capabilities with offering or R & D new capabilities 26) 100 PPM TCR wanted on everything -Clear Concern -Fact of competition and customer desires 27) Laser Dept does not use LTL on sheet -Statement -Cause of value failures or yield reduction 28) Soldered chip easier to trim lg term -Statement -Look at term widths vs. probe and trim capabilities 29) Dicing plate & flip to min. error -Alignment Concern & Processing difficulty if present 30) If not enough wax Chip-outs increase -A possible cause of #22 31) Splash on back has gotten better -Statement 32) Screen wiping = specks = splashes -Possible cause of splashes 33) Waiting for V-Tek to do 0402 on Automatic taper -Delivery & cycle time issue -R & D of Shinko Bowl of Autotape machine may solve 34) Paper tape capability want in-house -Concern 35) Need inspection stds. in general -Project Now, Needs a high priority 36) Reqts. Not always clearly defined from sales -Concern 37) Powers that be want costs reduced and yields incr. -Concern and result of making improvements

Page 73

38) Make improv. In substrates themselves to get improv. Res. -See #1, #19 39) Try screens w/ diff. Emulsion Possible Solution -Project in process now 40) Substrates have sharp edges to wear emulsion -Concern 41) Wiping screen may change tension & distort pattern -Concern 42) Screens for 0402 used a lot -Statement of Fact -Relates to replacement cycle for screens 43) Look into re-designing screens -Possible solution last resort 44) Put top pad & pull term at same time -To improve value distribution -Possible Process change to try 45) Put bottom pad and PT @ same time -See #44 46) Everyone has diff. Perception of what is good or bad -Concern Our next step is to set the Priority of the concerns We need to assess each concern in terms of Seriousness, Urgency, and Growth. During this stage we can also eliminate or combine the similar redundant items to reduce the size of the list. The focus of the task is to rate each of the final items on the list with a score H-for high M-for medium and L-for low on EACH of three categories: S-Seriousness (importance), U-Urgency (timing), and G-Growth. Consider: What is the impact? What is concerned? What is the deadline for taking action if any? When do we start?

Page 74

What is the future trend? What will happen if nothing is done? The end result will be to set up the priority list for which items need to be tackled first, second, and so forth.

Set Priority Based on Importance, Urgency, and Growth Potential

Once the list was refined and clarified, the facilitator shared the final steps of the process with the improvement team. (Figure 4), and scheduled the meeting to set priorities for the refined list.

At this stage, the team had a clean list of the concerns. In this case study, the all the concerns were about the quality of one product line, which top

Page 75

management had already determined was most important to the business.

The

concerns involved a wide variety of the items from issues with sales, to conflicts in management, to actual concerns about materials, tools and process used to make the product. It is likely that improvement to any one of the concerns could make improvements to the product.

As previously noted, in many firms, but especially in a small manufacturing business, resources are very limited. There is not enough time or human resources available to improve all or even many of the concerns at the same time. The next job the team had was to determine a priority for the concerns. There are many tools to use to make judgments on what to do first, including Pareto analysis, nine block tools, root cause tree analysis, and assessment of 5 ms. The method chosen for U.S.A.- S.I. as demonstrated in the third memo (Figure 3) introduced the improvement team to Kepner & Tregoes process. This memo also put the list into a priority order, as well as presenting the rest of the steps of the process to the team.

The Kepner & Tregoe process is simple, effective and when incorporated together with judgment from the members of the improvement team it is a formidable tool.

Page 76

(Figure 4: The Fourth Memo to the team that introduced the final steps of the Situation Analysis process.) To: IMS Improvement Team Next Actions that we need to perform on our list of Concerns: 3) Set Priority

Consider Seriousness, Urgency & Growth One of the major tasks in any job is knowing where to start. Particularly when others demand that issues that affect them take top priority. Whenever we must justify our priorities to others, or when we must reach agreement within a group of people, we may find consensus about priority difficult to attain and thus have little commitment to the result. We need a common approach for priority setting. To effectively determine what concerns should be handled first, a priority setting system should be easy to use and flexible to meet changing needs. It should be

Page 77

based on aspects of the concerns that can be readily determined and compared. It should help us assess exactly where to put our energy, time, money, and direction. There are three areas which consistently appear as highly relevant in looking at priorities: seriousness, urgency, and growth. The questions that we ask are: What is the impact? What is concerned? What is the deadline for taking action? When do we start? What is the future trend? What will happen if nothing is done?

The answers to these questions provide specific information which can be used to judge the relative priorities of the concerns. To complete the priority setting in some situations we may need to gather some necessary information in order to answer the seriousness, urgency, and growth questions or reach out beyond the group to others in the organization. If we have only a few concerns, we may be able to carry this assessment in our heads. When we are dealing with many concerns or are working with concerns outside of the team, it is helpful to make this judgment visible. Each concern on the list is assessed first in terms of seriousness. The concern with highest seriousness, based on the data, is used as the benchmark for assessing the rest of the list. We can use high, medium, and low as indicators of our judgment. Once the assessment for seriousness is complete, we can do the same for the aspects of urgency and growth. Then we can scan the assessments in all three criteria to determine the highest priority concerns. If we need to further divide the list, then we can rate the highs, mediums, and lows numerically. 4) Plan Next Steps Determine Analysis Needed The previous analytic processes are methods to identify, organize, and evaluate information in order to resolve the different kinds of concerns. We are now in a position to decide which of the analytical processes we will use to resolve each concern. These basic questions guide our choice of process: Do I need to know the cause of a deviation?

Page 78

Do I need to make a choice? Do I need to implement an action or plan? Do I need further clarification?

We might begin by asking: Is there a deviation (positive or negative) between what is actually happening and what should be happening? Is the cause of this deviation unknown? Must cause be determined in order to take action? Answering yes to these questions identifies a need for Problem Analysis. If the questions for Problem Analysis are answered negatively then we ask: Does a choice need to be made among alternatives? Are creative solutions needed? Does this situation require a yes or no choice? A concern involving choice uses Decision Analysis techniques to define the information to be gathered, organized, and analyzed. A final set of questions checks each concern for the need to protect a planned action: Is there an action to be taken? Is there a plan to implement? Is someone else making a change that could affect us? Positive answers to these questions indicate the need for Potential Problem Analysis. In addition, Potential Problem Analysis should follow any Decision Analysis, since the result of making a choice is to implement it. If after asking all these questions we are still uncertain about which processes to use, we should test whether the concern can be separated further or stated more clearly. 5) Plan Involvement Identify Who Does What and When The final step in Situation Appraisal Involves Identifying other people to be involved in resolving the concerns and laying out a plan of action. The plan should include who, what, and when. Answering these questions will ensure that we effectively prepare for the resolution of concerns. What needs to be done and when? Who needs to be involved for: o Information o Analysis o Creativity

Page 79

o o o o

Commitment Approval Implementation Training

Page 80

Page 81

Transfer of Functional Authority to Team

During the first meeting of this stage, the original facilitator continued his role as each of the items on the clarified list were rated in terms of Seriousness, Urgency, and Growth Potential. Another way to say this was Importance, Need for Quick Action (Time Sensitivity), and Impact on the Future.

The Kepner Tergoe method for establishing priorities uses a simple H (High) M (Medium) and L (Low) rating which is applied to each element on the refined List of Concerns for the three areas to be rated. In order to ensure that it was properly rated with a minimum of bias. First the list was rated for Seriousness or Importance. Once that was completed then it was rated for Urgency or Time Sensitivity. Finally, the list was reviewed and rated for Impact on the Future or the concerns Potential for Growth. Once the goals, and methods were discussed and the process had begun, it was time for the top management facilitator to step down. It was during this meeting, at this stage in our case study, that a new facilitator was appointed. The new facilitator was one of the active team members, in this case the Quality Manager. This accomplished two objectives: 1) It empowered the team to go forward without any notion of placating the top management facilitator and 2), It gave the team complete ownership if the list and ultimately of the improvements that came from the action items of the list.

Page 82

The next report, the first results of the teams ratings for priority, (Figure 5) was created and produced by the new facilitator. In this particular case, it was very appropriate that the Quality Manager became the new facilitator since nearly all of the concerns on the list were related to the product quality but needed to be incorporated by and into elements of the manufacturing process. The fact is that any one of the members of the team could have become the facilitator but, since the facilitator should not dominate, or force the teams opinion, if the new facilitator had come from one of the manufacturing departments, then a new person should have been appointed to represent that department from somewhere within that department.

The original facilitator still had an important role and that was to ensure the continued support, and approvals from top management, provide resources and priority to the team to keep the momentum moving forward, as well as to provide training to the new facilitator or other members of the team.

Page 83

(Figure 5: Memo from meeting dedicated to rate and Set Priority ) To: IMS Improvement Team Table showing beginning of priority evaluation: New # 1 Concern 46) Resistor spreads in different directions -Considered a cause rather than a result -May impact final term width, substrate, and screening sawtooth of screen -Results in hard target for dice and laser -May impact alignment 47) Printing in valley -Condition inherent in the system 48) Sawtoothed edge -Related to 1 & 6 -A condition of the system -Clearly a concern 49) Perimeter of plate different from center -Affects the distribution of fired values across the plate 50) Only holding on outside with vacuum -Possible cause of #4 -Involves concerns related to plate camber 51) Cover glass prints with sawtooth -See #1 & #3 52) Low squeegee pressure = thick prints -Related to #8 combine -Thick prints -Impact varies with each layer 53) Increase pressure migrates paste before bake -Related to #7 combine -Thin prints -Pressure optimum is a narrow band 54) Small chip screens dont wear well -Small openings -Many cleanings and wipes wears screen -Defines a Concern Useful Life of Screen 55) Three different screen people & variations -Fact including daily conditions, humidity, and load pressures -Defining STDS & Parameters Serious ness H Urgency Growth

FACT COMBINE WITH 1

FACT L L

COMBINE WITH 1 COMBINE WITH 8 M-H

FACT

FACT

Page 84

56) 4 57) 58) 5 6 61) 62) 63) 7 64) 65) 8 59) 60)

66)

67) 9 68)

69) 10

Vacuum not well controlled vortex? -Possible cause of splashes -Affects hourglass on end of chips -May cause inconsistent patterns Not tried stones may need filter too -Relates to #11 as a possible solution Have to thin silver -Possible contributing cause of splashes -See #9 & #31 Sales pushing tighter tolerances all the time -Fact generating needs we have to solve <10 ohm values (kelvin probes) -0603, 0504, smallest chip for Kelvin if no solder on wraps rest guess target value Hourglass shaped ends for probing -Same as #15 Coverglass and top term Size -See # 15 Cracks in substrates where strips form -See #1, #4, #19, #20, #21, & #24 -Also could be a cause for other concerns Rear term width sometimes lg. -Concern Front to back alignment -See #18 -Can be operator related -Can be caused if plate flopped side-to-side instead of top-to-bottom Diced through Resistor bodies (along edge) -Concern -Changes value after trim -Cosmetic reject Chipped backs (chipouts) -Concern -Dicing/waxing/wax -Blowout in slots Rear term width made smaller tougher -Designed to match import -Small Tolerance on small chips as little as +/- . 004 Resistor alignment -See #1, #21 and impacts others

FACT FACT DETERMINE & MAINTAIN VISCOSITY H L H OUTSIDE DETERMINATION H

COMBINE WITH 15

M FACT H L

RESULT

FACT H

Page 85

70) 11 71) 12 72) 73)

Need strict policies on tolerances per size val -Concern -Need to match capabilities with offering or R & D new capabilities 100 PPM TCR wanted on everything -Clear Concern -Fact of competition and customer desires Laser Dept does not use LTL on sheet -Statement -Cause of value failures or yield reduction Soldered chip easier to trim lg term -Statement -Look at term widths vs. probe and trim capabilities Dicing plate & flip to min. error -Alignment Concern & Processing difficulty if present If not enough wax Chip-outs increase -A possible cause of #22 Splash on back has gotten better -Statement Screen wiping = specks = splashes -Possible cause of splashes Waiting for V-Tek to do 0402 on Automatic taper -Delivery & cycle time issue -R & D of Shinko Bowl of Autotape machine may solve Paper tape capability want in-house -Concern Need inspection stds. in general -Project Now, Needs a high priority Reqts. Not always clearly defined from sales -Concern Powers that be want costs reduced and yields

M L M FACT FACT H

FACT

74) 30) 31) 32) 33)

FACT FACT FACT FACT FACT L L L

34) 13 35) 14 36) 37) incr.

H H H PROJ ON ITS OWN OUT OF OUR CONTROL FACT ELEMENT TOWARD SOLUTION

-Concern and result of making improvements 38) Make improv. In substrates themselves to get improv. Res. -See #1, #19

Page 86

39)

15

Try screens w/ diff. Emulsion Possible Solution -Project in process now 40) Substrates have sharp edges to wear emulsion -Concern 41) Wiping screen may change tension & distort pattern -Concern 42) Screens for 0402 used a lot -Statement of Fact -Relates to replacement cycle for screens 43) Look into re-designing screens -Possible solution last resort 44) Put top pad & pull term at same time -To improve value distribution -Possible Process change to try 45) Put bottom pad and PT @ same time -See #44 46) Everyone has diff. Perception of what is good or bad -Concern We need to continue the discussions and priority setting.

ELEMENT TOWARD SOLUTION FACT FACT FACT ITEM OF EVALUATION

COMBINE WITH 45 SOMETHING TO TRY OVERALL CONCERN

We need to assess each concern in terms of Seriousness, Urgency, and Growth. During this stage we can also eliminate or combine the similar redundant items to reduce the size of the list. The focus of the task is to rate each of the final items on the list with a score H-for high M-for medium and L-for low on EACH of three categories: S-Seriousness (importance), U-Urgency (timing), and G-Growth. Consider: What is the impact? What is concerned? What is the deadline for taking action if any? When do we start? What is the future trend? What will happen if nothing is done? The end result will be to set up the priority list for which items need to be tackled first, second, and so forth.

Page 87

Shelly 8/7/01 Figure 6 is the report from the final meeting for rating and setting priorities. Once this was completed, the team began to extract the action items from the list.

The team was given the authority and latitude to add one more element as they created the Action Item list and that was to apply their product and process knowledge and use JUDGEMENT. For example, although Item #2 on the list had a Low Seriousness, Urgency, and Growth Potential, it appeared to be a possible cause for other items and therefore was given a high priority on the list. This is very important., especially in a when working with the improvement team in a small business. At some time, the basic judgment of the team has to be put into the system and this is the best stage to have this occur.

The resulting Priority List of Action Items (Figure 6) becomes the Project Priority List for the team. The Team will also make assignments to appropriate personnel necessary to carry out the steps for further investigation or implementation of defined improvements.

Page 88

(Figure 6: Memo to Report on the final to rate and Set Priority ) To: IMS Improvement Team Table showing beginning of priority evaluation:

# 1

4 5

Concern 75) Resistor spreads in different directions -Considered a cause rather than a result -May impact final term width, substrate, and screening sawtooth of screen -Results in hard target for dice and laser -May impact alignment 5) Only holding on outside with vacuum -Possible cause of #4 -Involves concerns related to plate camber 7) Low squeegee pressure = thick prints -Related to #8 combine -Thick prints -Impact varies with each layer 8) Increase pressure migrates paste before bake -Related to #7 combine -Thin prints -Pressure optimum is a narrow band 11) Vacuum not well controlled vortex? -Possible cause of splashes -Affects hourglass on end of chips -May cause inconsistent patterns 14) Sales pushing tighter tolerances all the time -Fact generating needs we have to solve 18) Cracks in substrates where strips form -See #1, #4, #19, #20, #21, & #24 -Also could be a cause for other concerns Front to back alignment -See #18 -Can be operator related -Can be caused if plate flopped side-to-side instead of top-to-bottom

Serious ness H

Urgency H

Growt h M

COMBINE WITH 8 H H M

L H OUTSIDE DETERMINATION M L L H L L

7 20) 8

Page 89

22) 9 24) 10 25) 11 26) 12 34) 13 35) 14 44) 15 45)

Chipped backs (chipouts) -Concern -Dicing/waxing/wax -Blowout in slots Layer-to-layer alignment -See #1, #21 and impacts others Need strict policies on tolerances per size val -Concern -Need to match capabilities with offering or R & D new capabilities 100 PPM TCR wanted on everything -Clear Concern -Fact of competition and customer desires Paper tape capability want in-house -Concern Need inspection stds. in general -Project Now, Needs a high priority Put top pad & pull term at same time -To improve value distribution -Possible Process change to try Put bottom pad and PT @ same time -See #44

H M

H L

H H

M FACT L

H H H PROJ ON ITS OWN L L H COMBINE WITH 44 SOMETHING TO TRY

Item: 1) Screens to minimize sawtooth DW will summarize choices. We will then design a plan to evaluate results. 2) Vacuum around edge of plate evaluation can be included in screen test plan. 3) Low/high squeegee pressure evaluation can be included in screen test plan. 4) Vacuum vortex evaluation can be included in screen test plan. 5) Tighter tolerances desired we cannot change, will try to learn about values and tolerances after optimize other characteristics. 6) <10 ohm concerns do screen experiment first involving items 1-4 first, to see if we learn anything. 7) Cracks in substrate DW will check with Joan about substrate vendor to see what vendor(s) we have been using. AC will flag lots he notices cracks in so we can track to PO#. 8) Front to back alignment H urgency under control, no action needed unless we see a problem develop.

Page 90

9) Chipped backs H urgency under control, no action needed unless we see a problem develop. 10)Layer-to-layer alignment feducial points may help, will order new screens with feducial points 11)Strict policies on tolerances per value after we do project on screens look at a test to determine absolute tolerances for value ranges. 12)100 ppm large undertaking that involves all products, not just 0402s; depends on aspect ratios, termination material, processing, trimming etc. May involve new past vendors. Remove from 0402 project. NOTE: Before improving, need a good feel for where we are. 13)Paper tape capability no action items at this time. Can investigate off-line at any time. 14)Inspection standards project on its own, dont tie up with this project. 15)Top/bottom pads screened w/ pull-thru pads wait for results from screening tests combining 1-4. Potential cost savings because fewer operations. Summary of action items before next meeting: 1) DW will summarize screen variables. 2) DW will check substrate vendor information with Joan. 3) AC will keep eyes open for cracked substrates. Next meeting: 8/23/01@11:00 am Shelly 8/15/01

Page 91

(Figure 7: Team continues to implement improvement items and assignments form the Improvement Team and also report on results) To: IMS Improvement Team Action items from last meeting 1) DAVE will summarize screen variables. Summary of variables from JS conversation with Screen Vendor issued and discussed, see below 2) DAVE will check substrate vendor information with Jan. Dave submitted info about 0302 substrates, all Coors from ALT, annealed. 3) ALBERT will keep eyes open for cracked substrates. No specifics to investigate. Screen variables as specified by Bill at Utz are: Variable Screen Vendor recommendation screen mesh 325 emulsion thickness .0005 wire angle 30o emulsion type green poly wire diameter .0011 optimal but .0009 will increase open area squeegee hardness ~70 80, may want harder screen size 8 X 10 snap-off .20 - .30 Current IMS 0402PT 325 .0005 30o CL-569 .011 90 8 X 10 .25

Dave suggests keeping most of the variables constant but order screens with: .0009 wire green poly emulsion except for the pull-thru Albert would like them ordered with feducial points to help with alignment. John notes items to watch for with changes being made: .0009 wire may be more susceptible to wear and distortion. green poly emulsion may dissolve somewhat in IPA, watch for swelling Test outline: Once screens are received we will run a side-by-side comparison to product made with our current screens. Compare results, with special attention paid to table of concerns, items 1-15 (see minutes of meeting 8/9/01). Action items: 1) ALBERT, DAVE to define fiducial points

Page 92

2) JOHN to make sure the screen drawing is in the CAD system, add fiducial points when defined. 3) New acrylic, for new table, needs to be ordered with vacuum holes in correct place. 4) Order screens target date by 9/6/01os. 5) Screens hopefully received by 9/14 at which time Dan will look at his load and schedule screening. Next meeting 9/18/01 in conference room after production meeting. Shelly 8/28/01

Page 93

(Figure 8 : Identification of measurable results and comparisons to test in order to confirm the results of the improvements implemented) To: IMS improvement team Re: next 0402 steps summary When plates have been run with the new screens, I see the following points from our combined list as being the ones we can look for improvement in: 1) Resistor spread 8) Front to back alignment 10) Layer to layer alignment Other points from previous list: Items 2), 3), 4) have to do with variables of vacuum and squeegee pressure. Items 5), 11), 12), 13), 14) have to do more with future desires than specific improvements to the product that can be expected from screen changes. Item 7) is a vendor issue Item 9) is basically under control for now (chipouts). Item 15) possible further future improvement Plan: 1) Use new screens to run plates, 2) Run plates using old screens side-by-side for comparison. 3) Compare results. Use quantitative measurements where possible. 4) Dice some plates to check for alignment improvements (front to back, layer to layer). Shelly 10/9/01

Page 94

(Figure 9: Team continues to expedite, monitor and measure results) To: IMS improvement team (DAVE, ALBERT, LARA, SKIP, JOHN, cc: TED) Re: 0402 improvement project SHELLY inspection summary Summary of screen changes: Ordered screens with: .0009 wire (change from .0011) green poly emulsion except for the pull-thru (changed from CL-569) feducial points to help with alignment. Expected areas of improvement from changes in screens: (for details see earlier Improvement Team notes) 2) Resistor spread 9) Front to back alignment 10) Layer to layer alignment Procedure: 1) Plates were issued from the screen room. Plates run with original screens: PC-41, PC chart dated 1/3/01 Plates run with original screens: PC-52, PC chart dated 11/25/01 2) Five of each dimension was recorded from 5 plates per group while still in plate form. Measurements of front side characteristics are from the same chip, the rear term width is not the same chip but I attempted to measure chips from similar sections of the plate. Results: Average dimensions (in inches) resistor size glass size L W L W Old style .019 .014 .026 .020 New style .020 .013 .024 .017 Range of dimensions (in inches) resistor size glass size L W L W Old style .019 - .013 - .023 - .018 .020 .015 .027 .021 New style .020 - .013 - .023 - .015 .021 .014 .026 .017

top term width .005 .006 top term width .004 - .007 .004 - .007

rear term width .009 .008 rear term width .005 -.013 .006 - .010

3) Piece form inspection is a little more objective, having taken measurements in plate form. 2 plates from each PC were diced into pieces and washed. No

Page 95

inspection was done prior to my receipt of the parts. 10 pcs. per diced plate were inspected. There was little variation between the plates of the same PC and in fact results were very similar between PCs also. Results: PC-41, old screens Front - no chipped resistor bodies (at least .002 between edge of resistor body and edge of ceramic) - no missing glass over the resistor body (basically all .020 of width covered by glass) Back - front to back alignment good (largest gap between termination and edge of chip .003, gap on one end only) - all term widths within spec - termination shape showed rounded belly shape PC-52, new screens Front - no chipped resistor bodies (at least .003 between edge of resistor body and edge of ceramic - no missing glass over the resistor body but close to no coverage on 5/20 chips; on termination side<.001 overlap (approx. .002 between edge of glass and edge of chip, 016 glass width vs. .020 chip width) Back - front to back alignment good (largest gap between termination and edge of chip .003) - back termination smaller than results of old screens: vs. .020 chip dimension old screens coming out .020-.022 prior to dice, with new screens dimension is approx. .017 prior to dice. - largest gap between termination and edge of chip .004, many pieces have gaps on both ends of term, which will make alignment more critical (25% of terminal is .005, spec is no more than 25% termination missing) - all term widths within spec - terminals showed more rectangular shape than the belly shape of older screens 4) 3 pieces from each screen type were leach tested to 2 min. duration in 260oC (500oF) 60/40 solder as spot check of leach resistance. Results: Both groups showed slight leaching (approx. .001) around pads both front and back. Equivalent results.

Page 96

Shellys Conclusions: Results were quite similar between groups. New screens resulted in some tighter spreads in rear term width dimensions. New screens resulted in smaller glass dimension, which may cause a problem with glass coverage over the resistor body unless alignments remain precise and as long as the resistor does not spread more than shown here and more than glass. New screens resulted in shorter rear terminals, which also may cause problems unless front to back alignment remains precise, borderline examples seen here for 25% missing termination. But at the same time the new screens gave more rectangular rear terminations, which is what I believe is the cause of the tighter spread seen for the rear termination measurements. Everyone: Please look at plates and make notes as applicable. Cross off your initials on top of this sheet so we know you have seen it and pass along to next on the list. Return to me after everyone has seen it and I will schedule the next meeting. Thank you, Shelly 1/9/02

Page 97

Chapter 5 Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations

Results of the Study

The final report and Summary of the Results (Figure 10) not only accomplished the overall goal of improving the 0402 product, it also identified and established a list of future projects, based on what was learned during the improvement of this one product, which can be applied to many other products. The resulting potential improvements will require much less time and energy to complete and with the synergy of the Improvement Team, there can be a natural progression into these improvements.

Page 98

(Figure 10: Summary of Results and Further action recommendations discovered by the Improvement Team) To: IMS improvement team (DAVE, ALBERT, LARA, SKIP, JOHN, cc: TED) Re: 0402 improvement project final report Summary of screen changes: Ordered screens with: .0009 wire (change from .0011) green poly emulsion except for the pull-thru (changed from CL-569) feducial points to help with alignment. Expected areas of improvement from changes in screens: (for details see earlier Improvement Team notes) 3) Resistor spread 10)Front to back alignment 10) Layer to layer alignment Summary of results: (details in report dated 1/9/02) - both groups would pass visual inspection with no chipped resistor bodies, good glass coverage and termination size, and no front to back alignment rejects. - both groups equivalent through leach test of 2 min. - new screens reduced spread by .001 in resistor width, glass width and length - new screens reduced rear terminal width spread by .003 (.005- 013 w/ old screens to .006-.010 with new screens) - glass print size with new screens closer to screen dimensions (average .026 X . 020 for old screens, .024 X .017 for new screens), some borderline for glass coverage - back termination smaller in the .020 chip dimension with new screens (.020-.022 before dice w/ old screens vs. .017 with new screens) - terminal shape with new screens much improved, very rectangular and no bellies; old screen group showed bellies and the larger spread noted above.

Conclusion: Changes made to screens led to the improvements noted during inspections and outlined above in the summary. Further improvements to 0402 size screens: - increase glass size to .020 in .020 chip dimension to insure glass coverage over resistor body

Page 99

increase rear termination size to .020 in .020 chip dimension to better guard against >25% missing termination on the rear of the chip, making front to back alignment slightly less critical.

Future action: Carry these improvements onto different products. When new screens are needed, order with improvements with attention paid to the size of print with the less spread seen in this experiment. For wraparound products up to 0603 size (0603, 0504, 0502, and 0302), for single sided products 1-1 sizes and smaller (1-1, 14-1, 0-1, 1071, 7-1, 1146, 1091). Add fiducial points to all as new screens are ordered. SHELLY 2/5/02

Page 100

Study Supported Previous Research

As seen in Chapter 4, the survey identically paralleled previous research for this study. Upper management support, buy-in from assigned managers and other resources, lack of time among managers in a small-company environment, need for follow-through and priority and full implementation of results were all necessary for a successful Improvement program.

Study Was Conclusive But More Improvements are Needed in Firm

The Study was definitely conclusive. The improvements were identified and implemented by the team in the time available within their busy schedules. The team was created and empowered. The mix and blend of the techniques allowed the team to focus on the target product that needed process improvement, identify the concerns, clarify the concerns, (blast and refine), and then set the priority in order to develop specific improvement plans. The plans were created, assigned and implemented. The final product was measured, tested, and found to result in the anticipated improvements that were desired to meet customer requirements.

More improvements are needed in this manufacturing firm. The Study defined some of those improvements such as the need for process work standards. At the writing of this paper, the team continues, focusing on work standards, and

Page 101

employing the recommendations of the team to address those concerns it identified. In addition, improvement techniques that were successful to the initial product are being incorporated into other similar products as they apply.

Once all the high impact concerns and recommendations of the initial improvement team are completed, a new and different product will be target for improvement and the process will continue. With the success and experience of the initial process, it is anticipated that future improvement sessions will be faster and easier for the team.

The Implications of this Research to the Discipline

The methods and process used during this research and study can be applied throughout companies in this and other industries. Both the research and the survey conducted reveal that the specifics and difficulties encountered in implementing improvements in small (and large) companies, almost universally require the same elements and discipline.

This Universal Small-Business Approach for Successful Improvements (USASI) provides an approach, framework, and step-by-step plan. The last important element to create the synergy, and discipline needed for success was clearly identified in both the literature and the survey. This element is Top Management

Page 102

Support. USA-SI was able to achieve support from top management by placing top management directly into the team during the initial stages. This approach was very successful and will be successful in any application of USA-SI as long as top management remains in contact with the team during the latter stages and measures the team based on its results. This results-oriented approach to measurement will ensure the empowerment and accountability of the team and result in a desired long-term success.

Relative Practices Should be Refined When Applying Techniques to Small Businesses

This author realizes that every business is different and that every organization has many different structures and constraints. The practices defined in this paper, incorporating elements of Kepner-Tregoe Problem Solving and Decision Making, Kaizen, and Continuous Improvement Techniques, need to be refined when applying them to different organizations. The size of the organization, authority and responsibility of the individual managers, constraints of contracts, unions, customer requirements, communication and interpersonal skills of the team members and managers, and other such elements will require adjustments and govern the degree of preparation necessary. Regardless of the organization, some training and/or refinements may be necessary. Some development of interpersonal skills may be required to create the initial synergy of the organization. Fear, anticipation, and past

Page 103

experience may become stumbling blocks, but with positive and ethical support from top management, all of these obstacles can be overcome.

The Findings Support the Hypothesis

The findings in the researched literature, the survey conducted, and in the practical application of the techniques of USA-SI all supported the original hypothesis. The literature and survey conducted both identified the same concerns. The techniques, which took those concerns into consideration and employed elements of Kepner-Treqoe Problem Solving and Decision Making, Kaizen events, and Continuous Process Improvement, resulted in successful improvements at International Manufacturing Services, Inc. The Case Study was a success.

The problems of improvement in a small business environment, as discussed in the introduction, were certainly limited resources. The case study, at this small manufacturing facility, did not have the resource redundancy found in a large corporation. Small, 45-minute blocks of time were used to conduct the techniques of USA-SI. The conventional techniques employed in Kaizen and other techniques would not have worked. The people making up the team were in constant demand in production and quality assurance. Management support would have disappeared if more time away from production was needed since that would have interfered with normal, daily, production demands.

Page 104

The techniques of USA-SI worked. It 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 fully supported the hypothesis of this paper.

Page 105

References

Andersen, Bjorn, Fagerhaug, Tom. Root Cause Analysis: Simplified Tools and Techniques. Quality Press, 2000.

Britz, Galen C., Emerling, Donald W., Hare, Lynne B., Hoerl, Roger W., Janis, Stuart J., Shade, Janice E. Improving Performance Through Statistical Thinking. Quality Press, 2000.

Chang, Richard Y., Niedzwiecki, Matthew E. Continuous Improvement Tools. Josey-Bass Pfeiffer, 1993.

Compton, W. Dale. Engineering Management: Creating and Managing World-Class Operations. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1997.

Crawford, Merle C., Di Benedetto, C. Anthony. New Products Management. Sixth Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2000.

Feigenbaum, Armand V. Total Quality Control. Third Edition, Revised. McGraw-Hill, Inc.,1991. Hicks, Philip E. Industrial Engineering and Management, A New Perspective. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.

Page 106

Hitt, William D. The Model Leader: A Fully Functioning Person. Battelle Press, 1993.

Imai, Masaaki. Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-Cost Approach to Management. McGraw-Hill, 1997.

Imai, Masaaki. Kaizen, The Key to Japans Competitive Success. McGraw-Hill, 1986.

Kepner, Charles H., Tregoe, Benjamin B. The New Rational Manager. Princeton Research Press, 1981.

Regan, Michael D. Kaizen Revolution: How to Use Kaizen Events to Double Your Profits, Holden Press, 2000.

Robinson, Alan G, and Schroaeder, Dean M., Training, Continuous Improvement, and Human Relations: The US TWI Programs and the Japanese Management Style, California Management Review, Volume 35, 1993.

Page 107

Robson, George D. Continuous Process Improvement. The Free Press, 1991.

Regan, Michael D. The Kaizen Revolution: How to use Kaizen Events to Double Your Profits. Holden Press, 2000.

Senge, P.M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday Currency, 1990.

Suzaki, Kiyoshi. The New Manufacturing Challenge: Techniques For Continuous Improvement. The Free Press, 1987.

Suzaki, Kiyoshi. The New Shop Floor Management: Empowering People for Continuous Improvement. The Free Press, 1993.

Thompkins, Ph.D., James A. Winning Manufacturing: The How-To Book of Successful Manufacturing. Industrial Engineering and Management Press, 1989.

Page 108

APPENDIX

Survey Questions and Correlated Responses Including Direct Quotations from Respondents

Survey was conducted using URL from Insightful Surveys internet online service Questions 1) What is the approximate number of employees in your company? # of the Responses 4 2 7 3 13 4 28 Response Percent 6.56% 3.28% 11.48% 4.92% 21.31% 6.56% 45.9%

Choices: <5 5-12 12-50 50-100 100-500 500 1000 >1000

2)

How many locations does your company have? # of the Responses 19 3 8 Response Percent 31.15% 4.92% 13.11%

Choices: 1 2 3-5

Page 109

5-10 >10

7 24

11.48% 39.34%

3)

Is your company considered a small Business by Dept of Labor Standards? # of the Responses 22 34 5 Response Percent 36.07% 55.74% 8.2%

Choices: Yes No Dont know

Question #4 was to determine if the participants company had any improvement program experience.

4)

Has your company ever participated in any Improvement Programs? # of the Responses 4 Response Percent 8.51% 34.04% 38.3% 19.5%

Choices: Yes Kaizen

Yes CPI (Continuous Process Improvements) 16 Yes TQM (Total Quality Management) Other (Please Specify) 18 9

Page 110

Question #5 was designed to solicit a measure of the success of the participants company improvement program.

5)

If your company has had any Improvement Program experience, would you

consider it successful? Choices: Yes, very successful Somewhat successful Was successful but no longer applicable Not successful Dont know Other (Please Specify) # of the Responses 17 21 1 11 6 1 Response Percent 29.82% 36.84% 1.75% 19.3% 10.53% 1.75%

Question #6 was open-ended and allowed the participant to provide their opinion on the success or failure of the program. This question was the most insightful. The responses below are related to the profile of the respondents from the balance of the survey

6)

In your opinion, why did the improvement succeed or fail? If it was not

successful, what do you think would have made it successful? This question had to be answered as a short essay.

Page 111

Unsuccessful, Unidentified Improvement Program: People who could make the changes were too busy with the normal duties and day to day pressures to spend enough time on the programs and Management was always pushing production and other priorities that it just faded away

Very Successful CPI Improvement Program: It was very successful because it involved all employees in the process. That increases awareness and interest

Unsuccessful TQM Program: Lack of leadership and follow-through caused it to fail. Also staff felt any negative response whatsoever would have been used as a club..this left to "forged" or directed surveys and so on. A much more gentle approach would have worked far better.

Very Successful Kaizen Program: We are a manufacturer of control pressure molded interior door panels. Our Kiazen event was conducted by an outside firm. The Firm came into our facility and Planned Led Organized and Controlled our Cross Functional team to a successful event. I am the Engineering Manager for our company and the firm that I hired to do the event did nothing that I did not know However it forced our upper management to support

Page 112

the endeavor because of the price they were paying this outside firm. Without using an Outside firm, I was continually running into roadblocks when trying to pull a crossfunctional team together and I was not receiving any support from the dept. Managers or upper management. Financially it was also a success saving our company $120 000.00 per year. Culturally it was a big success because it was a turning point in our facility that showed what successes a team-based event could do. I hope this helps. Somewhat Successful TQM Program: Management only partially understood the concept.

Very Successful CPI Program: On going success is due to management committing resources to staff the operation for the long haul. This is not a "program of the month" and it has been in place for the last three years.

Somewhat Successful Unidentified Program: Success: Made the company review and document all processes. Good house cleaning process for reviewing and/or deleting old systems and standards. Failure: Inability to get everyone in the organization to get on board and accept "change"; especially management.

Very Successful CPI Program:

Page 113

Top management support.

Unsuccessful Unidentified Program: No follow through. Suggestions made but not acted upon.

Very Successful TQM Program: The key to success in a top--down approach from management. You can rest assured "What gets measured gets down". Also you must have buy--in from employees for any program to be a success.

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: I have found through kaizen's & CPI that they are very successful at capturing the low hanging fruit. Beyond that, it takes a lot of follow up to capture those that require more time to implement. If the company has a good follow up program, it will be more successful. If they are poor at follow--up it will end when the group disperses.

Unsuccessful TQM Program: It failed due to: Lack of trust between union and managers.

Unsuccessful Unidentified Program: Not enough support from the top management team.

Page 114

Very Successful Unidentified Program: It was/is successful because it has the buy-in from the top management.

Very Successful CPI Program: I believe the process succeeded because of the leadership involved and the dedication of the team members. The leadership coordinated the efforts of all of the external departments and the internal team members all along the way. The team

members' dedication also played a major role by working extra hours on straight salary (60 to 80 hours per week for 8 weeks) to ensure delivery. I believe the dedication by the team members was attributed to the leadership recognizing the human factor and giving into the personal needs of the team members when they arose. Loyalty is a two--way street and goes hand--in-- hand with success.

Somewhat Successful Unidentified Program: Management dedication is key. I believe our success was do to our great teams and our plant manager believes and backs these programs 100%.

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: Initial savings were quite significant. It was hard to sustain momentum over time.

Page 115

Unsuccessful TQM Program: Failure of management to reinforce and show by example what they were teaching. Failure of management to make it a daily habit of all management. This probably would have reinforced the staff in following the lead. They also failed to explain that this was their desire of their staff members. Basically failure of communication and example.

Very Successful CPI Program: Top leadership commitment and the mid--level supervisors buying in.

Unsuccessful TQM Program: Its failure was due to entrenched mindsets that approached the process with a biased attitude. Had people approached the efforts with a more open mind I believe we would have far greater success. We will try again.

Unsuccessful Unidentified Program: Senior management sees a need and embarks on a program. They fail to properly estimate how much time and effort it's going to take. And they underestimate how difficult CHANGE is in any organization. So they loose organizational stamina way before it's done.

Page 116

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: NO TOP MANAGEMENT AT STORE WHEN OPEN ON SOME DAYS.

Very Successful Kaizen Program: Kaizen is being used as a part of a lean manufacturing initiative that we have been undertaking over the past couple of years. The results have been very good and have also contributed to significant cost savings.

Somewhat Successful TQM Program: Bringing awareness to the improvement program seemed to encourage improvement.

Unsuccessful ISO9000 2000 Program: CEO (Owner) was not willing to accept the necessary changes ISO standard requires.

Unsuccessful TQM Program: I don't believe our management was fully committed to the program.

Somewhat Successful Kaizen, CPI, and TQM Programs:

Page 117

Increased employment involvement and added a sense of pride from the employees. In turn this increased productivity and profitability

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: The Employees were enthusiastic about reducing lead times for a particular machine in our product line. They all worked together to make sure the goal was met. There are still other improvements to be made however the senior management of the company is changing. Employees are watching what direction we will take next.

Somewhat Successful TQM Program: Very good program difficulty in getting the older employees comfortable with the database system.

Very Successful CPI Program: Commitment by leadership that all employees will be trained in the process.

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: Our improvement was a success. I believe the acceptance of the employees and their manner in which to program was presented insured its success.

Page 118

Very Successful CPI Program: It succeeded because we had full cooperation from top management to make it work. Things fail when the "powers to be" aren't behind the improvement program.

Unsuccessful Kaizen and CPI Program: The problem with Kaizen type events is the follow through. There is a week of tearing things apart with much of the work unfinished when the event is over. The people assigned the follow up in 30 days or what not have their regular job to proceed with and not the time for the kiazen follow up. It could be a great idea for most businesses unless there are ISO or other standards to follow. Not to mention that the consultants that are hired for such events are a complete waste of money. Train company specific advisors for such needs. a state of confusion in most places I have seen. CPI tends to keep the workers in

Very Successful Kaizen Program: The improvements were successful because management was so involved from the CEO down to the team leader. It has been instilled in the culture of the company.

Somewhat Successful Kaizen Program: Yes we became a more lean company.

Page 119

Unsuccessful Quality Improvement Program: Deeper commitment from upper management.

Somewhat Successful TQM Program: Wrong employees placed in positions of leadership. Leadership positions to friends without consideration of qualifications.

Somewhat Successful TQM Program: Some of the issues that were monitored enabled the employees to comply with new standards and therefore improve compliance.

Very Successful Kaizen and CPI Programs: Because it is a team oriented program all areas of our facility are involved in each event so you have overall view (aspects & impacts) of what will happen from every angle with the decisions that are made. It makes for less problems when you can share concerns and ideas first before implementing something that may not work well.

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: The courses were offered on line but many employees do not have access via a computer.

Page 120

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: The support teams were formed and had their objectives. When our business increased the energy and focus died.

Somewhat Successful CPI Program: The roll--out was to gain complete buy--in for the improvements and it gave the company employees ownership of the process.

No Longer Applicable but Successful CPI Program: Required employees to think "out of the box and to consider how the duties of other jobs within the company affected their jobs and vice versa. Good teamwork exercises.

Very Successful ISO Program: The ISO quality process definitely improved our company as follows: 1) expanded capacity for trade with other accredited companies and companies whose quality policy only allows them to trade with other ISO/17025 companies 2) We now have a clear concise quality policy and due to the size of our business it is very easy to adhere to all aspects of the policy.

Page 121

Somewhat Successful TQM Program: There needs to be buy in from all levels of the organization. If the CEO does not support the concepts how can we expect the front line associate to accept the concepts.

Very Successful TQM Program: We are an acute care hospital. Many of our projects have been successful. I attribute the success rate to the team approach corporate culture and quality education received by the facilitators.

Page 122