Team Learning on the Factory Floor LO22184

Sinte@aol.com
Sat, 10 Jul 1999 01:21:55 EDT

Replying to LO22131 --

In a message dated 99-07-08 01:10:51 EDT, you write:

>Now, to my questions. I'd like to see the wisdom of this group applied
>to what happens at 7, 3, and 11, when the shifts change on the factory
>floor. Points for profitable discussion are many, but I'll start with
>just one subject. Please suggest more.

>Have any of you been involved in a team learning/systems thinking
>initiative with the workers who do assembly line work?

I would like to respond to the above by saying first, yes I have.
Secondly, I believe there are as many mental models at work on the factory
floor as you have individiuals there. From first hand experience I can
recount a real life story about a group of individuals who became very
dynamic in spite of themselves and a prevailing system of management which
was akin to theory X but transformed into a High performance work team
mostly by accident because there were a few good people in the right place
at the right time. I believe Joe Jaworski calls this "Synchronicity".

Early in 1990, a new production facility in Ft. Worth, TX. began
production using the latest in plastics extrusion technology. All of the
workers were trained on the equipment with some of them becoming more
adept than others. The more adept workers (Dr. Deming's Red Bead
Experiment applies here) were given the leadership roles on the
manufacturing floor. They had been singled out by management to be the
best workers. As time went on, the product quality and production
capabilties of all workers improved as they learned more about the
production system. The new facility and production start up had been
determined to be a success. Partially by luck and partially because there
was a group of people, management and hourly workers, who had become a
high performance work team (although they didn't know that is what they
were) who were very committed to making the new facility successful.

Also in 1990, during the long work hours, one of the team members had the
bright idea of training all the management and "key" production workers in
the methods of Statistical Process Control. Management supported the idea
and the local community college was contacted and supplied the initial
training for the plant personnel. The training was very successful and
with full support of the management, specific product line "teams" were
formed. At the same time, the Ft. Worth plant was chosen to receive
another new product line. This product line was even more challenging
than the first in that none of the other plants, nation wide, that had
this product line were able to make it profitable. The Ft. Worth plant did
after the first year of production. Why?

First of all, Statistical Process Control charts were part of the initial
start up procedures. The operators had key information as well as
management on what was special and common cause variation. The workers
new when to make adjustments and more importantly, when NOT to make
adjustments. The SPC charts helped to solve raw material related
problems, operator problems, equipment problems etc. in a systematic,
controlled manner. It helped to do away with blaming and finger pointing.
Secondly, because the process was viewed as a system, the SPC charts did
away with the operator "tinkeritis syndrome". It is amazing to watch
operator's "egos" mess up a perfectly stable system not that production
managers, or other management personnel can't meddle as well. (Just think
of the MBO problems created when the purchasing manager meets his/her
objectives by buying the "cheapest" raw material that caused fits on the
manufacturing floor.) In other words, the second shift operator would come
onto his or her shift and not tamper with the settings, they would instead
look at the control charts and see what the process had been doing for the
last 12 hours.

Process changes were made with statistical knowledge, not gut feeling; and
raw material was found to be critical to product yields and quality. This
led to a "team" atmosphere that allowed 1st, 2nd and 3rd shifts to
cooperate instead of competing for the highest shift yield. It gave the
operators from all shifts the opportunity to have total production yields
as incentives not shift to shift competition. It helped to break down the
barriers between departments because it required research into causes and
opportunities for improvement. It helped us communicate better with
suppliers and customers. Consequently, 1st shift would have the area
cleaned up for second shift and second for third. They would even have
full gaylords of raw material in place to help the next shift get started
and they would spend time together discussing the control charts problem
solving where necessary.

Because management took the incentive to help build teams, provide
training in SPC and problem solving, the plant and processes were
successful, profitable and provided a work environment where people could
take pride in their work, have fun and learn.

Now this may sound all too good to be true. But in fact, I saw it work.
But I must confess, as new people entered the work place who had not been
in on the initial start up phases and training, competition reared its
ugly head. The "synergy" of the initial "team" was lost. Big egos came
back into play and much of what had been accomplished was undone. But at
least it worked for a couple of years so I know it can be done; and what
fun it was while it lasted.

What are the lessons learned?

Leadership plays the key role for successful plant floor operations.
Cooperation is better than competition.
Ego strength is better than big ego.
Actions speak louder than words.
Work can be a place where we can have fun, learn and work too.
Teams are a powerful force.
Training about teams and what they are, how they grow and change is essential
and this is one element that was overlooked; it may have helped.
Training in problem solving and SPC is essential.
Fear must be removed and opportunities to make mistakes and learn must be
valued.
Partnering with suppliers and customers is essential.
Commitment by the team to something greater than ourselves provided the
"invisible leadership".

I hope I haven't gone on too long. It was a very exciting time for me to work
with this group of people and I learned much from the experience. I am no
longer with this company. Too many big egos came on board and the synergy
was lost.
But we were part of the book "The Wisdom of Teams" by Katzenbach and Smith.
We were the Ft. Worth team they reference.

Linda Ortberg
Engineering Department Chair/Coordinator Quality Technology
Tarrant County College
Ft. Worth, Tx.

-- 

Sinte@aol.com

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>