Monthly Archives: April 2011
I have been reading blogs for several years. Now as a blog writer, I have come to appreciate the comment section.
The comments can be used to disagree with a point of view and bring a new perspective. They can be used to clarify and add points to a discussion. The more comments a post has the better the indication the topic was something that was important to the audience.
Great conversations and input happen in the comment section. There are so many readers that have great points of view, but don’t have an outlet to be heard. The comments provide an outlet.
Thanks to everyone that has commented and I look forward to more comments and discussions moving forward.
Is it ever OK to value the number of changeovers you do in a day over your production numbers? I say no.
I was with a customer recently that did just this. The customer has done a great job of setting production goals for a press per shift. On the production board, they write the production numbers in green if the meet or exceed the goal and in red if they do not.
Normally, this is great. The customer is making the problem visible and easy to see. Then I noticed that a number below the goal was written in green. So, I asked about it. The customer replied the operator did a lot of changeovers that day so we give them green if they do so many changeovers but don’t hit the production goal because the changeovers eat up a lot of their time.
The managers were giving a built in excuse for the operators to not meet the production goal. If the goal was set with capability and meeting customer demand, then why is it alright to produce anything less than the goal? This tells me they are not putting a big enough emphasis on changeover reduction.
The question should be changed to understand what is the changeover time needed. If the largest number of changeovers I need to do in a shift is X and I am accounting for time T to do the changeovers, then my changeover time target should equal T/X. Example: I allow 1 hour for changeovers and I need to be able to handle 10 changeovers in a day, then my changeover time target should be (60 min) / (10 changeovers) or 6 min/changeover.
If my current changeover time is more than 6 minutes, then I should be doing some sort of SMED (Single Minute Exchange of Die) activity to get the time to 6 minutes or less.
The number of changeovers can never be an excuse for why it is ok not to hit a production goal. The mindset should be to continue to reduce the changeover time and ideally eliminate the changeover time so the production goals can be met.
How many times have you heard, “Safety is our #1 concern. Safety above all else.”? I have heard it with every company I have been a part of. The very first thing I ask when I hear this remark is, what is your safety goal for this year? To date, I have NEVER had anyone say zero. In every case, it is some percentage reduction of injuries from the previous year.
If safety is so important, why can’t the stated goal be zero accidents/injuries? I always follow up my first question with a second question asking if any accident/injury is OK. I always get a resounding no. So why is management afraid to state a goal of zero accidents/injuries?
I know stating it is one thing and behaviors are another. You can state zero accidents but never do anything about it. But, if you are serious about safety and will do whatever it takes to make sure no one gets hurt, then state that no accidents are acceptable at all. Set the goal to zero.
I have been apart of a couple of companies that took safety very seriously. One company had every computer boot up and display the corporate safety metrics, goals, and recent accident reports. No one could turn this off. It was visual and created a lot of talk about safety each and every day. The display showed the current Year-To-Date metrics for every facility. The company backed up this talk by spending money on safety whenever it was needed. I can’t even recall a Return-On-Investment study ever being completed. Also, every meeting had to start with a safety tip. It might be a work safety tip, ergonomic tip, or a safety tip for home. Not matter what safety was suppose to start every meeting.
Another facility I worked for won one of the worldwide safety awards after three years of improving to a near zero accident facility. The plant manager never even hesitated to spend the money if it was truly going to help safety. Employees were self policing their areas for near misses. Safety was very important.
Neither company could ever some out and state a goal of zero accidents. They might state a goal of 2 accidents for the year. Why not just go ahead and say zero? What is the hang up with stating this goal?
Money wasn’t just thrown at safety issues in the cases I mentioned. There was a lot done without spending a dime. I bring the issue of spending money because I have seen companies ask for a ROI study or payback on things that will improve safety. Sometimes the improvement is to prevent an accident or injury that might occur. How do you justify that?
The point is NO injury is acceptable. Lets have the respect for the people and say that. Let the people know we do care about their safety.