Bottlenecks are easy to identify in manufacturing and production environments, but challenging to correct. Automation alone will not eliminate bottlenecks to achieve optimum performance. Addressing every step in the process and the contributing factors enables real process improvements to occur. In office environments the bottlenecks are often a result of bad habits that arise from good intentions. How do we create bottlenecks and adjust delays that result from too much dependence on authorizations, approvals, and assignments to top performers?
Once upon a time . . .
A manufacturer invested millions of dollars to purchase and install state of the art automated robotic equipment on an assembly line. The upgrades included new conveyor belts to move material quickly down the line and cameras to capture movement with electronic eyes. Computer controlled robotic arms replaced workers who had been with the company for many years. Mechanical arms hummed with life, capable of moving five times faster than the human counterparts that they replaced. The mechanical arms were intended to deliver consistent quality, precision, and performance. The manufacturer spent hundreds of thousands of dollars per machine to replace personnel. The machines would work longer hours and take fewer breaks, even with the faster pace.
After installation was complete, the manufacturer hosted a ribbon cutting ceremony with champagne for the local reporters. The company shareholders were ecstatic about the new projections. Longer hours of operation coupled with the speed of the new equipment gave rise to promising revenue projections. The machines would run for twelve hour shifts, a contrast to the typical eight hour shifts that the factory workers had maintained with manual labor. To increase production with manual labor the factory ran a second shift, and in extreme circumstances, a third shift. With the new equipment the factory would operate twelve hour shifts as standard procedure and could nearly double that for a full twenty four hour day when necessary. The equipment needed only a few engineers to keep it company whenever extra shifts would be necessary. The executives and the shareholders bubbled with enthusiasm.
Six Months Later . . .
The production numbers at the end of the first month after installation showed minor improvement. In the second month after installation the production numbers again made minor gains, but were not rising rapidly enough to meet the expectations of management. At the end of three months the production increases seemed to plateau and did not improve beyond the achievements of the second month. As the numbers rolled in for the fourth, fifth, and sixth months the factory management became increasingly concerned. The automated production processes were running at one and one half times the rate of the manual production processes. The fifty percent gains showed improvement to slowly pay back the significant investment in technology, but considerably less than the projected amount or pace. At twelve hours per shift and five times the capacity, it was presumed that the new equipment would empower the factory to deliver much greater numbers.
The management team initiated an immediate investigation to determine the cause of the unimpressive performance and to make plans for improvement. After much research, the management team hired a retired factory foreman as a consultant. The foreman had been with the company for almost twenty years and responsible for designing many previous process improvements. The foreman had voiced many concerns when the factory announced automation, but his concerns were dismissed at the time as comments from a disgruntled employee. Despite the experts, the engineers, and the blueprints, the foreman had predicted only moderate improvements in productivity. When the factory management was dismayed to discover the incredible accuracy of the former foreman's predictions, they were compelled to hire him to help them address the dire situation.
The factory management tensely detailed the production numbers and soured over reports for the former foreman. The management produced charts, checklists, and financial projections. Engineers pointed to the capabilities of the equipment operating at less than peak potential. The former foreman listened politely to the presentations and then asked to walk the factory floor. Armed with only a pad of paper, a pencil, and a stopwatch, the foreman strolled to front of the line. Shaking hands with his former colleagues, the foreman watched them load materials on the line. The employees carefully coordinated the complicated dance of moving materials from loading docks and inventory to the production line. The foreman studied the process for less than twenty minutes with took nearly as many notes.
Having briefly monitored the front of the process, the former foreman walked to the end of the line. Product came swiftly to the end of the line, where it was staged for inspection and packaging. Robotic arms hummed and carried completed product from one station to another with speed and dexterity. The equipment sped product to packaging and then slowed to a stop as it waited for the packaging process to complete. The automated processes shuffled, sorted, and separated the product into lines for packaging. Employees rushed to keep up with the productivity of the equipment, but inevitably, the conveyors would slow as product became backlogged in the packaging process. The packaging process moved at the same pace that the foreman recognized for many previous years. The former foreman thanked each of the dedicated employees as he patted them on the back as he made his final notes.
Factory Bottlenecks . . .
The factory management was only slightly relieved to know that the equipment was truly capable of achieving the predicted production estimates. Unfortunately, as the foreman explained, the equipment would not achieve full potential without considerable changes to the packaging processes at the end of the line. The foreman clearly identified bottlenecks in the process that limited the throughput. The robotic arms and the fast moving conveyors could not possible push product any faster than ability to take it off the end of the line. The engineering effort at each stage in the process remained limited by the packaging at the end of the process. Limited increases in production were the result of the longer hours of operation, not the speed of the equipment.
With the help of the experienced former foreman, the factory management adjusted the packaging processes and installed new lines to accommodate enhanced productivity. But the foreman cautioned the factory management and shareholders not to celebrate too quickly. Even as new processes were being implemented to improve packaging, the line would not move any faster than the ability to load materials at the front of the line. To keep up with the capacity of the automation, the supply of materials would need to be adjusted as well. Fixing a bottleneck at the end of the process would enable faster throughput and nearly double the current rate of production. Improving access to materials would overcome bottlenecks at the beginning of the process, resolving limitations and doubling capacity once again.
The factory management soon learned that adjusting processes to eliminate bottlenecks is a continuous process improvement. As each bottleneck was discovered and adjusted, new bottlenecks became evident. Identifying and improving the slowest part of any process is not the result of manual or automated processes. Eliminating bottlenecks requires understanding the capacity of every step and every person in the process.
Office Bottlenecks . . .
Bottlenecks are not limited to factory production but also occur in other processes. For example, processes that rely on teams, departments, and individuals are ripe grounds for bottlenecks. If a process requires a group of people to rely on the results of another group, individual, or system then there is potential for a bottleneck to occur. Any step in the process that is limited by the output or results from another contributor is a potential for bottleneck. In every business and process there are dependencies, and such dependencies do not mandate bottlenecks, but these are the places to look for them. If a job does not start because documentation is not complete, that is a bottleneck. If an action cannot be processed because it is waiting for input, that is a bottleneck. If functions cannot be performed because they are dependent upon authorization, review, approval, or other response, that is a bottleneck.
Some bottlenecks are inserted by design as a check and balance to assure quality. That is a mistake. If the assurance of quality is dependent upon stopping the progress of your productivity then you have some other serious problems. To assume that a bottleneck is required as a stopgap measure to inspect, approve, or otherwise control the process means that the designer of the process has allowed and accepted inferior performance. Rather than stop or slow the process, why not speed up the inspection, authorization, or approval processes? Powerfully productive organizations do not allow inferior performance and do not allow excuses for bottlenecks to justify lower productivity. If the capacity of many is dictated by the capacity or even the controls of a few, then you have not only allowed but also inherently designed additional costs and competitive weakness into your process. If inspections, authorizations, and approvals are slowing your response time, then do something about it!
Good intentions often lead to bad habits. This is evident when bottlenecks occur from relying too heavily on highly productive individuals or systems. It is common practice to place more responsibility on an individual if that person consistently demonstrates the capacity for it. This is not intended to imply a judgment on any individual talents because each person has a unique combination of strengths and experience. It is inevitable that some individuals are more adept at certain tasks than other individuals. The natural tendency is to continually rely on the top performers. This can quickly become a dangerous habit as the workload for the top performers continues to increase disproportionately. So what should you do about it? Workload should be consciously and intentionally proportioned to encourage the development of all performers and to give top performers some time to expand capabilities or work on urgent priorities. Do not overload top performers with the intention to just get the job done because this short-sighted approach creates the risk of burning out the top performers, and it means that your resources will be limited in the event of an emergency. Let's be honest, you do have top performers as demonstrated by yearly performance reviews. It is inevitable that your organization will have some emergencies, big or small, from time to time. Make sure that your top performers have the bandwidth to address your biggest issues or unexpected emergencies. Who do you want to give a little extra time to for creativity? Who do you want to be available in case of emergency? How are you structuring workload and bottlenecks to create good habits?
______________________________________________________
Words of Wisdom
"You may delay, but time will not."- Benjamin Franklin
"Delay always breeds danger; and to protract a great design is often to ruin it."- Miguel de Cervantes
"Good intentions often lead to bad habits.”- John Mehrmann
______________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment