From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 09:14:40 MDT
In a message dated 8/28/2002 11:32:10 PM Central Standard Time,
barbaralamar@sanmarcos.net writes: Could you say some more about the
fundamental errors? What were they?
Barbara,
Let me set a background by saying that at this time I will not
distinguish the I.E. professions own mistakes from the mistakes of other
people that we supported. I think the reason for that is obvious.
Our biggest mistake was in trying to measure individuals for pay or
disciplinary purposes. In other words if a person did not produce a
sufficient quantity we (line management with IEs support) would write the
person up, take disciplinary action or even dismiss the person. Fred Taylor
himself would pay a bonus for producing over his quota, I believe. I say, "I
believe" as I know he would increase a quota and pay a higher wage if the
person learned his method and met the quota as well. I don't know if he also
paid incentive pay for going over his quota.
The basic problem is that if a worker is not producing to the quota
there are several possible causes that need investigating. Poor quality of
incoming material can be slowing them down. The machine or equipment they
are using may be defective. They may not be following the best method for
one reason or another. The worker may be loafing. However there is one
thing that almost certainly is not true. The worker is not working too slow.
Let me expand on that.
A. B. Segur's law says that 95% of all trained workers if following
the same method will produce within plus or minus 5% of the same amount 95%
of the time. Okay, I know that is a mouthful so let me take it one step at a
time. We are pretty much hard wired to be at the same speed. There are 5%
that are unusually slow or fast. There is a little variation so yes there
will be some variation in output. But I say 95% of the time because all of
us do have occasional off days or days when we are really on.
So we ended with a system that concentrates on measuring workers and
harassing them to produce to expectations instead of using the measurement to
alert line management and engineering that something has gone wrong -- but at
that point I don't know if the problem is the machinery, material quality, a
need to train, or possibly the worker. However, in addition to A. B. Segur's
law we also know that any good method contains a physical rhythm within it
influences the worker -- he or she soon gets into that rhythm and can no more
slow down than the Earth can cease turning. In short if they stay on the job
using the proper method then they are not the problem.
I'll discuss this further if you wish but I think that is more than
enough for starters. Oh, one more thing, a lot of people would think the
analysis above is out of date because of automation or because of brain work.
I see folks using automated equipment with the same inefficiencies they used
in manual work. I have seen equipment being used at two-thirds of capacity
through bad methods. A scientist in a lab can spend his day discussing his
favorite personal topic instead of working. The only difference is that with
a brain worker it is harder to measure output or to know what is expected.
Frankly I wouldn't want to try to measure them. <G>
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:30 MST