2008 Explosion at Imperial Sugar in Port Wentworth, GA
Quoted in Making Common Sense Common Practice: Models for Manufacturing Excellence
So long as they are focused on events, they are doomed to reactiveness. Generative learning cannot be sustained in an organization where event thinking predominates.
—Peter Senge
Quoted in chapter 4 of The Science of Success:
The greatest virtues are those which are most useful to other persons.
Quoted in Making Common Sense Common Practice: Models for Manufacturing Excellence
Predestruction Authorization
I, (insert name), do hereby authorize premature destruction of the equipment being repaired under Work Order No. (insert number), because I have not allowed adequate time for the performance of certain maintenance and/or startup and commissioning tasks (insert task numbers). I understand that not doing these tasks is likely to reduce the life of this equipment and result in its premature failure. I also understand that it may also increase the overall maintenance costs and reduce the quality of the product being produced.
___________________
Signature___________________
Title
In my opinion, the inclusion of the words “likely to” and “may” make this authorization too soft and squishy. However, it is a problem easily remedied for application in your facility.
Nevertheless, the creation and use of this form is rather ingenious. I can’t think of many operations supervisors who would sign.
There is an absolute minimum cost associated with any unit. This cost is equal to the per-unit sum of:
Fixed costs (overhead) is not considered for this analysis: only variable costs.
Your total unit cost is equal to the minimum cost plus all associated waste:
If a manufacturing facility has immature processes and systems, one tends to see a lot of emphasis on total production or equipment uptime. More mature facilities will have a broader perspective including safety, reliability, quality, etc. along with production.
One best-practice metric for manufacturing lines is Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), which is the product of
One advantage (depending on your perspective) of OEE is that problems are tough to hide. You can’t slow the machine down to improve uptime and expect to get away with it. You can’t slack on quality in order to improve rates. Any production problem will ultimately show up in OEE numbers.
There are many variations on operations metrics, but if you have the capability to measure OEE, you can learn from looking at other factors as well.
OEE can be seen in the context of many operational metrics in the diagram below. Definitions follow.
Widget, Inc.’s B line produced 1274 widgets in one day. Due to a lack of demand B line was only scheduled for one 12-hour shift. A lot of 75 widgets was found to be defective. Ideally, 200 widgets per hour are produced.
The shift log shows that 2.55 hours were down for scheduled breaks and a planned repair. 45 minutes down was caused by an unexpected actuator jam. 1.12 hours were used to change the size of the widgets being produced.
In the following table standard Excel cell formats are used: 
for input cells and 
for output cells. Calculated values are explained below.
Operations metrics are calculated as described above using the given numbers.
The losses in the example can also be plotted to show the relative impact of each loss type. A waterfall chart based on both 24 hours and demand hours would look like this:
This figure shows one strategy for improving operations and maintenance reliability: first, solve obvious problems, then proceed to standardization, and lastly look to continuous improvement methods.
Ordering improvements in this manner has several advantages:
One method I’ve seen employed successfully is after a morning safety meeting, the supervisor hands a procedure to a millwright to read aloud. Then the supervisor asks “what’s missing?” As millwrights give feedback about the procedure, the supervisor writes it down and passes it along to the planners. The planner then adds missing steps and specifications and updates the plan in the system.
Book Review: The Back of the Napkin (Expanded Edition)
One of the newer books out there on visual communication is Dan Roam’s The Back of the Napkin. This is a reader-friendly and un-intimidating book that makes a good introduction to drawing for the purpose of communicating and selling ideas.
Roam presents a systematic framework for approaching complicated problems with simple figures and drawings in several ways and then combines them into a large codex.
The codex consists of two dimensions: the six ways of seeing, based on the six types of problems, and five characteristics of the drawing.
Most of the frameworks can be combined with most of the picture characteristics. (An exception is qualitative representation of a “how much” problem. It just doesn’t work.)
Generally, you’ll use the codex because you have a problem, so that’s the place to start. Pick which kind of problem it is, then try to draw a picture of it using circles, lines, words, and other simple shapes.
If you have difficulty, you refer to the S.Q.V.I.D. model to generate ideas.
The book contains detailed examples of the process, and is well worth a look. As a sort of “Visual Problem Solving for Dummies” book it will be most useful to people unacquainted with the subject. But if the exercises are performed and the content absorbed, the reader will not be a “dummy” on the subject for long.
A man died yesterday morning in a work-related accident. Martin Lara, a tree trimmer, got entangled by a rope that was in some branches that were thrown into a wood chipper.
The full story is here.
Lara’s company, Bushwackers, had been hired to clear brush from a rural home outside of Nevada City when the line became wrapped around the professional landscaper’s neck.
The rope was attached to some wood and was dragged by the chipper, beheading him, CBS Sacramento reported.
His body was pulled towards the cone of the wood chipper, but a colleague stopped the machine before his body was dragged inside the rotors.
Here’s is an interesting reader comment:
As a supervisor in a tree service, I would like to know why the rope was still in the brush he chipping?! Before ANY chipping is done my guys must remove any ropes or tools or anything that might make the job more hazardous! There are enough dangers in this job, use your head and eliminate as many of those as possible!
—troy b, grand island, NE. USA, 13/1/2012 18:59
We don’t know what was going through Mr. Lara’s head. Was he rushing to get the job done fast? Was he distracted or frustrated thinking about something else? Was he complacent because he had done similar jobs a thousand times? Was he fatigued from the hard labor involved?
If you were a failure analyst or safety specialist, how would you approach the problem? How would you run your investigation? What questions would you ask the crew? What would you look for in company safety records?
From Kepner-Tregoe:Beyond Training: How to re-order the brain to achieve remarkable result
Meaning: The “wolf” of control in trendy sheep’s clothing? #leadership [It isn't clear from the title, but the link is contrarian advice NOT to try to make work meaningful for subordinates. H/T Rooted in Prosperity]
Human reliability [See also: Human Factors Analysis and Classification System]
How to Eliminate Sarcasm [Unlike much of the web, many of the comments demonstrate great integrity and humility. Apparently this newsletter has attracted a quality following.]
Ann Zerkle: What’s the Market Solution? ["There ought to be a law?" Maybe that isn't always the best way to get what you want.]
When is It Hot Enough for a Synthetic? [Despite the title, this article is a perfect example of the importance of "Asking the Right Question." Rather than "an answer," it provides "the right questions."]
Quoted in Making Common Sense Common Practice: Models for Manufacturing Excellence
You don’t do things right once in a while, you do them right all the time.
