Choosing effective strategies for waging war against error in manufacturing and service operations requires an understanding of “the enemy.”  The types of error to be combatted, the sources of these errors, and the amount of error that will be tolerated are important components of a functional definition (see Vol. I for an introduction).
     The traditional view is that the amount of error to be accepted is defined by the specification limits of each characteristic of interest.  Exceeding the specified tolerance of any characteristic immediately transforms the process output from “good” to “bad.”  This is a very restrictive and misleading point of view.  Much greater insight is provided regarding product performance and customer satisfaction by loss functions.

     The advent of a new year inspires a great deal of reflection and anticipation.  Many of us will evaluate our personal and professional progress over the past 12 months and set new goals for the upcoming year.  The same is true for “The Third Degree;” this installment will look back at some posts to provide additional resources related to the topics discussed.  It will also look ahead to preview topics to be covered in future posts.

     The origin of the spaghetti diagram – when and where it was first used or who first recognized its resemblance to a plate of pasta – is not well known.  What is clear is that this simple tool can be a very powerful representation of waste in various processes.  An easily-understood visual presentation often provides the impetus needed for an organization to advance its improvement efforts.
     While flow charts (see Vol. II) depict logical progressions through a process, spaghetti diagrams illustrate physical progressions.  The movements tracked may be made by people, materials, paperwork, or other entities.  As is the case with other maps, spaghetti diagrams can be created in very simple form, with information added as improvement efforts advance.

     Last year, I was invited to speak at a corporate “roundtable” on the subject of lightweighting.  Though the host’s unfavorable terms compelled me to decline, I do not dismiss the topic as insignificant or unimportant.  To the contrary, it is important enough to address here.  For everyone.  For free.
     Lightweight design is increasingly critical to the success of many products.  The aerospace and automotive industries are commonly-cited practitioners, but lightweighting is equally important to manufacturers of a wide variety of products.  Running shoes, health monitors, smart watches (probably dumb ones, too), various tools, and bicycles all become more appealing to consumers when weight is reduced.  Any product that is worn or carried for a significant time or distance, lifted or manipulated frequently, is shipped in large quantities, or is self-propelled is a good candidate for lightweighting.

     Companies, universities, athletes, hospitals and physicians, municipalities, and any other entity that can be compared in any way often claim to be “world-class.”  Is this a quantitative or qualitative assessment?  Can “world-class” be objectively determined, or is it subject to the biases inherent to the assessor?  Does it mean, simply, that the entity – whatever type it may be – is “good enough?”
     The first definition of world-class on Dictionary.com is “ranking among the world’s best; outstanding.”  This sounds like a grand achievement and a worthy goal.  Unfortunately, it is completely meaningless.

     Modern gurus of self-help have changed the narrative from “improve your weaknesses” to “play to your strengths.”  However, the –abilities that drive performance in manufacturing and service operations require both approaches.  A successful strategy includes extracting maximum value from well-developed –abilities and continually improving the weaker ones.  The –abilities that drive performance include stability, reliability, profitability, and others.  Some are more critical in a specific context; some have multiple interpretations; all deserve attention.
     The –abilities that drive performance are straightforward concepts.  The problem is that many managers and entrepreneurs lose sight of the basics while pursuing higher-level objectives.  Let this post be a warning against this and a reminder of how solid fundamentals create a path to success.

     In Part 1, the D•I•P•O•D Process Model and template were presented and explained.  In this installment, an example deployment will be illustrated to demonstrate the variety of factors to be considered in an analysis.  Practitioners are warned against developing a false sense of security or accomplishment in a special note on troubleshooting.  Then, a number of common errors will be shared to help practitioners avoid them.

     Well-designed models can be invaluable aids to development and analysis.  3D CAD models assist the detection of physical interferences in an assembly and the rapid calculation of stresses within its components.  Mold-flow analysis helps injection molders predict processing problems.  Various forms of simulation help us evaluate potential performance and identify risks before any products are manufactured, tooling built, routes established, or services performed.
     Successful process planning, troubleshooting, and continuous improvement begins with applying fundamentals.  Therefore, a model need not be as sophisticated as mold-flow or finite-element analysis requires to be useful, nor does it require high-performance computers with extensive computational capability.  For many purposes, a simple diagram can provide the guidance needed for users to achieve breakout performance by focusing attention on what is relevant to the achievement of objectives, while clearing the clutter of distractions.  The D•I•P•O•D Process Model is a great example of effective simplicity when used for process planning, development, or troubleshooting.

     On this date, in 1944, Allied forces launched the campaign that would ultimately liberate northern Europe from Nazi occupation.  A great deal has been written about the military efforts to storm the beaches of France and advance inland.  Much of this has been intended, at least ostensibly, to honor the soldiers that endured the hardships of war and the commanders that led them to victory.  Some of it also commends civilians for their labor and sacrifice in support of the war effort.
     Despite all of this, questions remain:  Have we truly honored the “Greatest Generation?”  What about the previous generations – those that sent their children and grandchildren to war, while food and other supplies were rationed at home?
     To truly honor them, we must learn and embody the lessons they have to teach us about fortitude, resilience, and character.  Opportunities to hear from them directly are vanishing rapidly.  The youngest of this generation are in their 90s, and it is estimated that we lose 372 of them each day.

     The term sustainability is typically associated with issues such as natural resource depletion, recycling, or other matters of environmental stewardship.  To fulfill its social responsibility, however, a company must first endure its own survival.  In Getting Green Done, Auden Schendler defines sustainability as “being in business forever.”  Achieving this requires long-term planning; the most fundamental plan required defines how the company will attract and develop the talented people necessary to operate the business profitably and responsibly in future generations.