MODBUS

The Table shows that a marginally greater importance was placed on customer service dimensions of performance in the 'out of control' cases (1.9) than for the 'in control' cases ( I . ) ) . It also shows that the quality of the reports was signific­ antly worse, in these 'out of control' cases, at 9.9 compared with 3.6 for the 'in control caes. The reason for the higher score on importance of customer service was the wider range of items regarded as 'essential'. Table 19 shows that instead of focusing attention on a few c ritic a l issues, senior management in the 'out of control' cases operated a wide rather than narrow set of priorities. This wide range suggests that senior management was reacting to the 'out of control' performance in these cases by seeking improvements on many, rather than a few c ritic a l, dimensions of performance. This was consistent w ith the earlier evid­ ence that they did not have manufacturing strategies or statements of the ir key manufacturing tasks. The Table also shows that the quality of the reports about 'resource efficiency' was less good than in the 'in control' cases. This led me to consider the production management's other sources of information to see whether they overcame the limitations of the w ritten reporting systems. 3.923 The emphasis in the production meetings

Proposition

Where production management meetings took place they were dominated by attention to expediting w orkflow rather than the elimination of recurr­ ing problems in the production system.

It was shown above that production management and supervision in the 'out of control' cases considered the ir own meetings to be their most mportant sources of control information. The examination was limited to the brake case as no formal meetings were held by production in the kitchen furniture case.

U 2

Production in the brake case made extensive use of scheduled meetings These ranged from an average of 8 hours a week for the Manufacturing Manager, 12 hours for the Production Manager, and 1 3.5 hours for the Superintendents and General Foremen. Additionally a number of unscheduled meetings and many 'discussions' occurred in the corridors. The high incidence of meetings in this case was examined to identify their content and role in control.

Two separate morning meetings were held, one each for the two major divis­ ions of the plant. The meetings were chaired e ith er by the Production Manager or, less frequently, a Production Superintendent. On average, fourteen man­ agers, superintendents, foremen and staff attended the morning meetings, consum­ ing 52.5 managerial hours per week per division, 105 hours for the plant. Analy­ sis of the time devoted to each topic and their style of organisation showed that the meetings concentrated on expediting items from a list compiled by the Production Manager, rather than on resolving problems, or ensuring that the wider issues of competitiveness identified by senior management, were achieved. The content and conduct of the meetings were examined to identify their e ffe ct on the control of production.

The tenor in which the meeting was conducted was considered significant. This is demonstrated by a quote from the Production Manager at the end of one meeting approaching the period end.

"Yesterday was a sheer ... disaster. We w ill have to tear this place apart to get the maximum output."

Such views were forcefully expressed on a number of occasions. The meetings generally started and finished with the Production Manager rebuking the Foremen and Production Controllers for the shortfalls in previous day's output. In the final weeks of production periods, direct workers were moved from the early stages of production into assembly areas to 'boost' output. The emphasis on

expediting and a tendency to storm the month-end, increased the uncertainty and complexity already existing due to the mis-match between the highly dedicated production technology and the changing pattern of order sizes and d iffe re n t means of competing in the market. The conduct of the meetings also demonstr­ ated the need for basic training in such skills as chairmanship and the management of time.

While the above reflects what took place a t the meetings, it has not shown a number of significant omissions. The first omission was the absence of attempts to smooth output levels and steadily overcome production difficulties. Such an approach was needed to counter the effects of the process - task mis-match. No analysis was made or discussed at these meetings to solve bottlenecks. A second omission concerned the failure to discuss the control of changeover times. The wide product range and frequent rescheduling of jobs made setups a c ritic a l factor. Not only was there no improvement in the setup performance, but the times were not even recorded. Similarly, scope existed for improving the propor­ tion of setups passing firs t-o ff inspection, first tim e. Yet this was not discussed. These omissions reflected that production management in the brake case was more concerned with fire-fighting than resolving the causes of its problems.

Another e ffe c t of the large number of meetings was to reduce the time available to exercise control through observation on the shopfloor. I showed this by counting the number of workers walking along the passageways, both when the meetings were, and were not, taking place. I compared the results and over three separate trials, this showed more workers in the gangways when the Foremen were absent. This suggested that the meetings indirectly contributed to the loss of control. I discussed the finding with one of the Superintendents. His cross check of the situation confirmed the conclusion. He then arranged to cut short some of the morning meetings to 'get the Foremen back on the shop floor'.

Despite the high ranking given to meetings in the kitchen furniture case, formal meetings in the plants were very rarely held. However, the Works Manager in the main factory used the morning and afternoon coffee breaks to meet his Supervisors and to exchange information with them. The Assembly Superintendent in the clutch case attended the Production Manager's daily meetings, but refused to hold meetings of his own, despite instructions to do so from the Production Manager. He explained that he was 'too busy' (chasing up late items) to have meetings. Despite these wide differences in time and formal­ ity in the different cases, meetings were seen as a primary means of production management information in all three cases.

Although meetings were reported as an important source o f information, it is evident tha t they were prim arily used to expedite output, particularly as month ends approached. Thus they contributed to uneven levels o f activity in the production period. They were also shown to be ineffective vehicles for solving problems, such as the control of setup times. In addition there were indications of a lack of control on the shopfloor during the meetings. I also considered that had such meetings been conducted effectively, senior management would have had greater scope for delegative decision making to production management and thus freed themselves to give greater attention to strategic issues. Given the sub­ stantial tim e consumed in their attendance and low effectiveness, particularly in the brake case, the managers' high valuation of meetings appeared to be inflated.

3.<*3 The Non Workflow C ontrol of Production Performance Proposition

The control of the non workflow dimensions of performance is predomin­ antly achieved by production managers' use of direct information gather­ ing methods, rather than from reports.

Although the questionnaires showed that the production management teams in the 'out o f control' cases placed less priority on information from their own sources, than did their counterparts in 'in control' cases, they remained an important source of information. Production Managers were observed to use a

103

number of direct means of obtaining the information they required to accomplish control. These included patrolling the shopfloor, use of personal contacts and collecting raw data from the shopfloor. I interviewed the managers, who sugg­ ested that they used these methods because of the rapid access they gave to information. They also claimed to have more 'trust* in such information, than in the w ritten reports. The contradiction implicit in the statement by the product­ ion managers that they preferred the w ritte n reports to the data they collected, was not consistent w ith their own declared 'lack of trust' in the w ritten informat­ ion.

3.431 Use of shop floor patrols

Production Managers and Foremen in the clutch and kitchen furniture cases regularly patrolled the shop floor. Although the Supervisors in the brake case gave this source of information the same rating, they appeared to spend less time on the shop floor, than those in the other two cases. This could, in part, be traced to the average of 13.5 hours per week they spent in meetings.

The Works Director and Works Manager in the kitchen furniture case were both observed to use these shop floor patrols to test product quality and to identify worker attitudes. I accompanied the respective managers on a number of occasions when they toured the plant. It was noted that they ran their hands over the surface of the stacked products as they went past them. When they considered the surface unsatisfactory they stopped and made a more formal inspection of the products. It was also noted that as they stopped to talk to the various workers they generally asked how the worker was, rather than how the job was proceeding. The workers, on the other hand, generally gave a dual response, reporting the progress of the work and their own state of health or feelings at the time. When discussing this behaviour with the managers they initially expressed surprise that they had behaved in these ways. However, as they reflected on

their own conduct, they both expressed the view that both parts of the behaviour enabled them to either identify existing quality or anticipate future quality levels. In these discussions a number of the Production Managers volunteered the view that the patrols gave junior supervisors a chance to inform them of any actual or anticipated hold ups in the w orkflow.

In the clutch case the Production and the General Managers both said they regularly conducted tours of the plant w ith the Assembly Superintendent to guide him how to observe what was taking place in his department. Both said that they considered such observations an essential source of information.

In the discussions following up these questionnaires, there was general agree­ ment that the patrols were primarily orientated to detecting errors or deviations from agreed systems of working. I probed the Managers / Foremen concerned to try and identify whether they used these patrols as a basis for seeking improve­ ment. Although all said they did, not one was able to offer a specific example of improvement that came from patrolling the shopfloor. All the examples quoted referred to detecting incidents where unplanned behaviour was occurring. I concluded that although an important source of information, the 'tours' provided a backup, rather than a major direct means of control.

5.<»32 Use of personal contacts

As noted in section

it

107

information thus obtained was primarily used to provide 'early warnings' of impending difficulties. This came from operatives, setters etc. advising them of actual / potential problems. Only in two incidents did the Foremen discuss using personal contacts outside the shopfloor. In these incidents the contacts were production control warning them of changes due to occur in the planned work load.

5.<*33 The collection of raw data by Production Managers

I showed above that the Production Managers in the'in control'cases collect­ ed their own data to overcome the delays in the w ritten reports. This behaviour was repeated in the 'out of control' cases.

(Brake Case) ASPECT OF