An effective safety program requires identification and communication of hazards that exist in a workplace or customer-accessible area of a business and the countermeasures in place to reduce the risk of an incident. The terms hazard, risk, incident, and others are used here as defined in “Safety First! Or is It?”
A hazard map is a highly-efficient instrument for conveying critical information regarding Safety, Health, and Environmental (SHE) hazards due to its visual nature and standardization. While some countermeasure information can be presented on a Hazard Map, it is often more salient when presented on a corollary Body Map. Use of a body map is often a prudent choice; typically, the countermeasure information most relevant to many individuals pertains to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The process used to develop a Hazard Map and its corollary Body Map will be presented.
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.
There is a “universal sequence for quality improvement,” according to the illustrious Joseph M. Juran, that defines the actions to be taken by any team to effect change. This includes teams pursuing error- and defect-reduction initiatives, variation reduction, or quality improvement by any other description.
Two of the seven steps of the universal sequence are “journeys” that the team must take to complete its problem-solving mission. The “diagnostic journey” and the “remedial journey” comprise the core of the problem-solving process and, thus, warrant particular attention.
Digital Twin technology existed long before this term came into common use. Over time, existing technology has advanced, new applications and research initiatives have surfaced, and related technologies have been developed. This lack of centralized “ownership” of the term or technology has led to the proliferation of differing definitions of “digital twin.”
Some definitions focus on a specific application or technology – that developed by those offering the definition – presumably to coopt the term for their own purposes. Arguably, the most useful definition, however, is the broadest – one that encompasses the range of relevant technologies and applications, capturing their corresponding value to the field. To this end, I offer the following definition of digital twin:
An electronic representation of a physical entity – product, machine, process, system, or facility – that aids understanding of the entity’s design, operation, capabilities, or condition.
An Introduction to the How and Why
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.
For a coherent discussion of culture to take place, it is important to define the term in its intended context. Social psychologist Goodwin Watson referred to ‘culture’ as “the total way of life characteristic of a somewhat homogeneous society of human beings,” differentiating its use in social science from the vernacular “refinement of taste in intellectual and aesthetic realms.”
Watson also quotes anthropologist Ralph Linton’s definition of ‘culture’ as “the configuration of learned behavior whose component elements are shared and transmitted by the members of a particular society.”
Key components of each definition will help us translate the concept of culture from a discussion of at-large society to one of a corporate environment.
Many manufacturing and service companies succumb to competitive pressure by embarking on misguided cost-reduction efforts, failing to take a holistic approach. To be clear, lean is the way to be; lean is not the same as cost reduction. Successful cost-reduction efforts consider the entire enterprise, the entire product life cycle, and, most importantly, the effects that changes will make on customers.
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.
In order to implement an optimal solution to your company’s product development, capacity expansion, cost reduction, continuous improvement, or other project objective, your project team must be able to evaluate alternatives on four key qualitative measures. Each qualitative evaluation is informed by quantitative and pseudo-quantitative measures and other qualitative judgments that will vary by project and objective. Interpretation of these measures is required to reach logical conclusions regarding the optimality of proposed solutions.
Upon completion of the initial evaluations of alternatives, there may be no clear winner, one determined to be best in all aspects. In this situation, another round of evaluation must be conducted to determine the best trade-off of benefits to pursue. It is imperative that the project team consider the potential motivations of influencers; interpersonal conflicts, personal agendas, or other “office politics” can provide perverse incentives that jeopardize the team’s success. Focusing on the merits of each alternative will limit undue influence on the final decision, providing maximum benefit to the company, its employees, and its customers.
Particularly prevalent among project evaluation shortcuts is to simply look for the alternative with the lowest initial cost. Unfortunately, that number is often misleading, misunderstood, or misquoted. Confidence in the accuracy of cost estimates is important, but initial cost remains but one criterion among many.
Four characteristics that form the basis for selection of optimal solutions are outlined in the following sections.
If you'd like to contribute to this blog, please email email@example.com with your suggestions.
© JayWink Solutions, LLC