the effect of communication on continuous improvement and
TRANSCRIPT
The Effect of Communication on Continuous improvement and Quality:
Engineering ' s Interaction with Manufacturing
by
Nicholas Paulson
A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Science Degree
In
Technology Management
Approved : 3 Semester Credits
Sally Dtesdow, DBA
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin-Stout
December, 2010
2
The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout
Menomonie, WI
Author: Paulson, Nicholas G.
Title: The Effect of Communication on Continuous Improvement and Quality:
Engineering’s Interaction with Manufacturing
Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Technology Management
Research Adviser: Sally Dresdow, DBA
Month/Year: December, 2010
Number of Pages: 37
Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition
ABSTRACT
Many industry professionals use metaphors to describe problems plaguing their
companies. One metaphor in use today is silo thinking. Silo thinking describes the lack
of communication between departments in an organization. The interaction between
engineering and manufacturing is deemed as critical to the continuous improvement and
quality of products. Without interaction and communication between functions, ideas are
not transferred to those who can utilize the idea. Continuous improvement efforts are
reliant on these ideas. When departments are not interacting with each other, new ideas
often fall to the wayside, because the people who would be acting on them never hear
them. As manufacturing personnel presents new ideas on how to address quality issues
or how to improve a product, if engineering is not interacting with manufacturing,
chances are not good that the necessary changes will be made.
3
The Graduate School
University of Wisconsin Stout
Menomonie, WI
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my Friends and Family for their support throughout this research. I would
also like to thank Sally Dresdow.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
............………..................................................................................................................... Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................2
Chapter I: Introduction ..........................................................................................................6
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................7
Assumptions of the Study ............................................................................................7
Definition of Terms .....................................................................................................8
Chapter II: Literature Review ................................................................................................9
Silo Thinking ................................................................................................................9
The Problems of Silo Thinking .................................................................................10
Eliminating Silo Thinking .........................................................................................13
Introducing W. Edwards Deming ...........................................................................13
Deming’s Fourteen Points for Management............................................................14
Breaking Down Barriers ...........................................................................................15
The Deming Philosophy .............................................................................................19
Summary .....................................................................................................................20
Chapter III: Case Study Methodology .................................................................................21
Companies involved ...................................................................................................21
Case Study analysis ....................................................................................................21
Chapter IV: Results ...............................................................................................................23
Case Study 1 ...............................................................................................................23
Case study 1 key points..................................................................................24
5
Case Study 2 ...............................................................................................................25
Case study 2 key points..................................................................................26
Case Study 3 ...............................................................................................................27
Case study 3 key points..................................................................................28
Case Study 4 ...............................................................................................................29
Case study 4 key points..................................................................................30
Case Study 5 ...............................................................................................................31
Case study 5 key points..................................................................................32
Case Study Commonalities........................................................................................32
Chapter V: Discussion ...........................................................................................................34
Recommendations ......................................................................................................34
References ...............................................................................................................................37
6
Chapter I: Introduction
“Continuous improvement means that all functions will be involved, but only if there is
trust between them will improvement be realized” (Williams, Van Der Wiele, Iwaarden, Bertsch
& Dale, 2006, p .1278). With increasing competition from foreign companies, American
industry has been working hard to catch up in quality, cost and cycle times. The implementation
of lean, six sigma, and total quality management (TQM) concepts, has helped American industry
gain ground. These efforts often include continuous improvement programs, also considered in
lean manufacturing as kaizen events. In initial stages, the programs reap results in the form of
cost savings, reduced lead times and improved quality. In many cases, the efforts continue to
grow until they level off and reach a plateau. How can a company break the plateau and how can
employee involvement play a role?
Without interaction and communication between functions, ideas are not transferred to
those who can utilize the idea. Results are the same as before, the organization keeps going on
the same path and the plateau is not broken. If the competition is improving, market share may
be lost due to the lack of improvement. When departments are not interacting with each other,
new ideas often fall to the wayside, because the people who would be acting on them never hear
them. As manufacturing personnel present new ideas on how to address quality issues or how to
improve a product, if engineering is not interacting with manufacturing, chances are not good
that the necessary changes will be made. And if they do, the design changes may not match the
product. When engineering directly interacts with manufacturing, these questions and potential
hurdles can be avoided.
In this research, case studies of the interaction between engineering and manufacturing
were analyzed. The case studies collected come from manufacturing companies who have
7
custom equipment in their processes or fabricate custom products for their customer. These
companies have in-house engineering staff that designs or is involved in the design, fabrication,
and selection of the equipment. All of the companies involved display good or bad
communication in the case studies which is affecting either the quality or continuous
improvement efforts in the organizations. The affects are a direct result of the lack of interaction
between engineering and manufacturing.
Statement of the Problem
The lack of interaction between engineering and manufacturing is adversely affecting
organizational performance in product quality and continuous improvement efforts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze issues which can maximize or minimize the
effectiveness of the interaction between engineering and manufacturing personnel, and to
improve on continuous improvement and quality in the organization. The study analyzed case
studies of situations when interaction between engineering and manufacturing caused a problem
or corrected an issue.
Assumptions of the Study
This research assumes that communication is critical to product quality and continuous
improvement. With this assumption, it is assumed that without communication, product quality
will not meet customer standards. The professionals involved in this study have intimate
knowledge of the management processes in their companies. It is also assumed that the
professionals involved have knowledge of the manufacturing practices involved.
8
Definition of Terms
Nonconformance. A non-fulfillment of specified requirements. Also used as a blanket
term to describe a defect or imperfection.
Silo thinking. A popular expression applied to management systems where the focus is
inward and information is communicated vertically. It is considered the opposite of systems
thinking. Also termed: silo effect, silo mentality, silo virus, and silo syndrome.
Systems thinking. A holistic approach of seeing the system as a whole by
understanding the linkages, interactions and processes between the elements that comprise the
whole system.
9
Chapter II: Literature Review
The literature review covers the topics of silo thinking, continuous improvement, and
quality. The first part of this chapter looks at silo thinking and the symptoms, definitions and
concepts associated with this business phrase. The second part of this chapter will examine W.
Edwards Deming’s teachings on continuous improvement and quality. Special attention is paid
to communication and its effect on quality, continuous improvement and the functions of an
organization.
Silo Thinking
It is a common illusion that an organization is one big happy family, with information
flowing smoothly throughout. Without an effective information flow, the organization struggles.
“Departments that are unable ’to talk to each other‘, and, in particular, often produce more
frictional stresses and strains than actual work, happens in the best enterprises” (Schutz & Bloch,
2006, p. 31). As a result of the lack of communication and trench warfare between departments,
efficiency and effectiveness suffers. This ailment of business is common and phrased as silo
thinking. The expression silo thinking is used to describe a lack of communication and common
goals between departments in an organization.
This is a metaphor drawn from the large grain silos that one sees throughout the US
Midwest. It is a term of derision that suggests that each department on an organization
chart is a silo and that it stands alone, not interacting with any of the other departmental
silos (Business Process Trends, 2010).
Each silo is designated for a specific grain, or as keyed in this term, a functional
department. Each silo is gradually drained of the grain through a small opening at the bottom.
Many organizations are designed in a similar fashion, with departments and divisions divided.
10
Organizations typically are structured into divisions and departments based on
functionality. “Organizational experts build structures and describe processes. And so it goes –
each to his own. The image of a centipede comes to mind. However, unlike this funny little
creature, the many legs of different departments do not always move in the same direction and if
one goes the wrong way, the whole system stumbles” (Schutz & Bloch, 2006, p. 34).
Normal practices of an organization can influence silo thinking and the way departments
interact in many ways.
For example if your budget for next year (and your bonus for a successful performance)
is based on the performance of your department or your function, then you would focus
on making sure your department (and, by extension you), was successful. This could be
to the detriment of the company as a whole. This is what causes silo thinking (Comford,
2010, p. 1).
The Problems of Silo Thinking
So, what is wrong with silo thinking? Often the silos are very efficient within their own
function. In an organizational structure; employees are divided into departments based on a
functional area such as manufacturing or engineering. Each function serves their purpose, and in
many cases interaction is limited to certain people within each department. “The larger the
enterprise and the greater the degree of specialization, the greater the need for co-ordination”
(Schutz & Bloch, 2006, p.32). In a research study conducted by Schutz and Bloch (2006), the
authors describe the dangers of corporate egocentrism in six fronts. The first front is fractures in
one’s own department. This front takes the form of conversations between coworkers, in the
hallway, washroom or at the water cooler. Many times the clash of personalities, egos and the
rumor mill in a department creates fuel for these conversations. These conversations, although
11
intended as private conversations, often make their way up in the enterprise. As an organization
establishes annual objectives, each department has the task of creating their own set of goals.
The second front is described as fractures in the value chain. Here, the worlds of
engineering, purchasing and other departments collide. Each area is different in objectives,
education and language. Each of the differences can cause confusion and frustration when
working with the other departments.
The interaction of core functions from product development to sales forms the spine of an
enterprise. If dislocations appear, the organism hovers precariously between life and
death. Only smooth and seamless flow of products from their origins to the market, will
ensure survival. Dangers to corporate health can be found lurking particularly where
technology flows into the company’s marketing sphere (Schutz & Bloch, 2006, p. 33).
The functions of production, logistics and development often collide with the world of
marketing, sales and customer service. If these areas have no will to cooperate, bridges in the
functions will collapse.
The third front falls into the managerial hierarchy of an organization. Fractures in the
managerial staff can run both horizontally and vertically.
What matters most is the behavior of decision makers and how closely they are in touch
with reality. If management surrounds itself with yes-men and sycophantic lackeys, even
a flat hierarchy will provide fertile ground for managerial opportunists. Thus,
management forfeits its function as an integrating force and judge and jury over turf wars
(Schutz & Bloch 2006, p. 33-34).
If managers are not willing to work together, the employees under these managers are not likely
to work together as a cohesive team. Departments and managers of an organization need to work
12
together towards the strategic and operational goals set forth by top management. If they do not,
the goals and objectives may not be met.
Support function fractures make up the fourth front. The function of information
technology is used as an example of a support function. The support function provides the
system with information and resources. “Support functions are keen to claim that they are
internal service providers, but they often handle their colleagues like useless petitioners. The
internal service desert flourishes” (Schutz & Bloch, 2006, p.34). Support structures form the
base of an organization. Without them, the organization would crash. If IT gets it wrong,
everything temporarily plunges into the Stone Age.
Divisional fractures form the fifth front. Examples of divisional fractures are that of
divisions which function separately, but may supply one another with goods or services. In some
instances the divisions share customers.
As is indeed appropriate, these business areas also take responsibility for their health, that
is, in terms of cost, result and investment. As in the human body, this system cannot be
completely separated from the rest of the organism. There are interfaces which cause
pain. This becomes particularly clear if the separated elements serve the same clients. If
there is no internal agreement, the market gets the impression that the left hand does not
know what the right hand is doing (Schutz & Bloch, 2006, p. 35).
Finally, the sixth front is titled projectitis, which is a reference to project work.
The committees for planning a company social function, anniversary celebration or the
formation of a plant-purchasing, prove this only too well. The team itself lives, but the
joy of decision-making dies. This applies also to project work. In the right dose,
interdepartmental projects are a good remedy for the silo-virus, because they gather
13
employees from all areas and direct them towards a mutual task (Schutz & Bloch, 2006,
p. 35).
Eliminating SiloThinking
If we look at silo thinking as a virus, departments and functions within an organization
are not the carriers of the virus, it is the people in the departments. “Consequently, it is not the
chemistry between departments, but the chemistry between people that creates the bridge across
critical interfaces” (Schutz & Bloch, 2006, p. 35). The structure of an organization and culture
play a role in the development of silo thinking. Ultimately it does come back to individual
behavior. An individual willingness to see the realities of the corporate situation as a whole,
beyond their own influence, will reduce the effects of silo thinking in the organization. Many
influential people in industry have pointed out the symptoms of silo thinking and the ways in
which organizations can eliminate them. Deming’s teachings have been the basis of many
organizational initiatives to improve quality and how an organization functions.
Introducing W. Edwards Deming
W. Edwards Deming was a major player in the rebuilding of industry in Japan after
WWII. Many U.S. industries are trying to catch up to the Japanese competition. Deming
witnessed some of the systemic problems in organizations and describes how organizations can
improve to match the Japanese companies in his teachings. American industry did not follow the
change in philosophy until they began to be passed by the Japanese.
The American Quality Revolution got rolling in the mid-to-late 1980’s in large part
because of the thinking and charismatic leadership of three men: Dr. W. Edwards
Deming, Dr. Joseph Juran, and Dr. Tom Peters. Deming and Juran (and other pioneers
such as Dr. Armand Feigenbaum) gave the movement its brain; Peters gave it its heart by
14
inspiring American business leaders to believe that they, too, could improve quality and
that they could excel (Gebhardt &Townsend, 2006, p.1).
Deming’s fourteen points for Management
W. Edwards Deming is considered as a pioneer and guru in quality management. In his
book Out of Crisis, Deming discusses his fourteen points for management.
The 14 points are the basis for transformation of American industry. It will not suffice
merely to solve problems, big or little. Adoption and action on the 14 points are a signal
that the management intend to stay in business and aim to protect investors and jobs
(Deming, 1986, p. 23).
If American industry is really serious about improving the quality of our goods and
services, there must be a change in attitude. Management must lead the way, demonstrating a
long-term commitment to improving in everything from the products to the relationships with
customers and vendors. The Deming philosophy stresses a commitment to never-ending
improvement. In order for an organization to make this commitment there will in many cases
need to be a reallocation of resources away from traditional structuring in addition to the change
in attitude.
If top management does not have a long-term perspective, these resources will not be
allocated in a meaningful way. American companies must concern themselves with the
problems of today and tomorrow. Management must have the view that the company
will be in business in the future and must look towards innovation. Resources must be
made available for training, education, and research in order to improve quality (Gitlow
& Gitlow, 1987, P. 17).
15
A long-term focus is deemed as a critical ingredient to never-ending improvement of the
system, including increased management responsibility for an organizations improvement and
competitive position.
Of course, some may still prefer the traditional type of organization, especially because
of the efficiencies created by the division of labor. Certainly someone who is used to
doing something over and over may be better equipped than others to do that job. Yet, if
we push such an idea to the point of dividing those who use their brains from those who
use their hands, we may not only be underutilizing the talents of people but we are
lacking respect for the individual (Suzaki, 1993, P. 29).
Breaking Down Barriers
Of Deming’s fourteen points for management, number nine directly addresses the topic
of silo thinking and the topic of this research. “9. Break down barriers between departments.
People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of
production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service” (Deming, 1986,
p.24). In further explanation of point nine, Deming talks about gaining understanding of what
internal and external customers require.
Everyone in engineering design, purchase of materials, testing materials, and testing
performance of a product has a customer, namely, the man (e.g., a plant manager) that
must try to make, with the material purchased, the thing that was designed. Why not get
acquainted with the customer? Why not spend time in the factory, see the problems, and
hear about them? (Deming, 1986. p. 62).
Typically the response from engineering is that there is no time, the push for production
prevents them from spending time on the manufacturing floor. It is easy for a company to tout
16
the slogan ‘do it right the first time’, but actually doing it is a different story because of the
barriers that exist. One of the more common barriers found in any business is the fear of change.
Most people do not like change. It is an intrusion on their comfortable steady-state
environment. They have been accustomed to doing things in certain ways. People prefer
to do things the same way each time because it took some time to learn to do it this way
and they resist having to learn it all over again (Wilson, Dell & Anderson, 1993, p. 119).
With this barrier, the involvement of everyone in the organization is critical. In many
cases training is necessary as change is implemented. Change must be communicated and
understood by those affected. Suppliers and vendors are also an integral part, creating a ripple
effect as quality is demanded from them and then their suppliers and so on.
One roadblock in American industry is that management often believes that the workers
are responsible for all of the trouble. There would be no problems in production or service if
only workers would do their jobs the way they were taught. However, the workers are
handicapped by the system, for which management is ultimately responsible. Management must
also see and believe that the improvement efforts will pay off in the long run. Management and
labor unions have to remove barriers that impede their cooperation. Removing barriers to
communication between all entities is an important aspect of the new philosophy. Training has
to be used as an aid to removing barriers, overcoming communication barriers can also be
covered as a topic in the training.
Supervision in a “Deming company” should stress the extended process. Employees
must understand the importance of communicating with their vendors and customers,
who are frequently other employees in the system; e.g. Engineering’s customer is
17
production, or the vendor to the employee on the line is previous employee (Gitlow &
Gitlow, 1987, p. 145).
Supervisors are key people in helping break down barriers in the system; however there is
a standard practice in most businesses and industry that can create a barrier between a supervisor
and their employees. Performance appraisals or annual review and rating systems can cause this
barrier. Whether it is a design engineer or a manufacturing worker, they are rated by
productivity numbers. Changing from an individualized work environment to a team work based
culture in a company is another attitude which can break down barriers in a “Deming philosophy
based company”. “Teamwork is a risky business. He that works to help other people may not
have as much production to show for the annual ratings as he would if he worked alone”
(Deming, 1986, p.64). Management must demonstrate that individual efforts are not as effective
as cooperative ones. Teamwork issues and examples of instances where teamwork can help with
quality and improvement problems will have to be addressed in training sessions. In order to
change to a team based, cooperative work environment, it is highly likely that some restructuring
may have to take place within the organization. Teambuilding and team based performance
appraisals will ultimately begin to open lines of communication.
People in an organization need to talk, trust each other and work cooperatively. In the
never-ending goal of improvement, there needs to be an elimination of jealousy, competition and
‘protection of turf’. “Continuous performance improvement, if it is to be successfully
implemented, involves close cooperative relationships between the many functions involved”
(Williams et.al., 2006, p. 1278). Once again, this begins with management. Management must
verbally communicate instead of memo writing, maintain open offices, be involved in day-to-day
activities and interact with employees. “Communication is as vital to an organization as the
18
bloodstream is to the body. When communication is blocked or slowed, it can have disastrous
consequences” (Cochran, 2006, p. 9). Opening lines of communication also involves
confrontation of barriers and resistance. Change can be exciting, it also can create resistance. It
is up to management to communicate change to the organization to support the often difficult
process of change. When change is communicated in a manner of which everyone understands
the need for the change, the participants will be more willing to accept the new concepts.
There are several potential pitfalls when breaking down barriers in an organization.
When moving to a team based workplace, some managers may have a difficult time with giving
up control to teams. It may be viewed as a way to undermine their authority, but the team will
need to have some autonomy to function properly. Denial of the existence of barriers is another
potential pitfall. Some barriers are very much engrained into an organization, and removing
them may seem overwhelming. One potentially large pitfall is the belief that an area or
department is “special”. Perpetuating the idea that an area is unique or special could have been
accepted in the past, supported by management views. These pitfalls must all be addressed as
they arise in the change process. In a truly cooperative work environment, one benefit that can
arise is a return of pride in the work that the employees are conducting.
Deming’s point twelve of the fourteen points addresses the removal of barriers which rob
employees of their pride of workmanship.
Organizations have seriously erred in their treatment of employees. Workers and
managers are regarded as commodities and are treated accordingly. Not enough attention
is paid to people and their problems; management doesn’t want to deal with these issues.
Consequently, employees become disenfranchised, instead of being involved and utilized
to their maximum potential (Gitlow & Gitlow, 1987, p. 173).
19
There are a number of things that can cause a loss of pride. If an employee does not
understand the company’s mission and what is expected from them, they will not be able to
identify with the direction of the organization. If pride and loyalty are restored within an
organization, the communication, quality and involvement will improve by an engaged
workforce. Removing the barriers that hurt employees pride or workmanship will also allow an
organization to drop decision making down to its lowest possible level, enabling workers to
determine if a product meets specifications, make corrections and take greater responsibility for
their workmanship. One potential pitfall to this is if the organization fails to follow through on
employees suggestions. Employees can become angered and frustrated by a lack of
responsiveness by the organization when feedback is not answered. In the Deming philosophy,
cooperation between labor and management is deemed as a key item in the push to improvement
in an organization.
The Deming philosophy
The Deming philosophy is exactly that, a philosophy. The philosophy is focused on
quality and never-ending improvement. Without a pursuit of improvement, an organization can
only stay competitive for a while until the competition overtakes them in the market.
A firm operating under the Deming philosophy must be guided by Dr. Deming’s
Fourteen Points for management. The Fourteen Points are the cornerstone of a
managerial philosophy which will lead to cooperative labor-management relations, never-
ending improvement of quality, and all the resulting benefits (Gitlow& Gitlow, 1987, p.
207).
The views of management and labor must be that of a partnership in quality. Breaking
down the barriers and opening communication can cause frustration as the changes are
20
implemented. But, with the long-term in mind a company can increase their competitiveness in
the market place. Effects of silo thinking and other ailments within an organization have to be
confronted in order for the benefits of the Deming philosophy to be realized.
Summary
Most managers want an organization to be one big happy family, with information
flowing smoothly throughout. Without an effective information flow, the organization struggles.
An example of how communication and interaction affects an organization would be that of a
wind turbine. The wind turbine stands tall, in an open field, blades slowly turning in the wind.
Interaction between individuals and departments is that wind, keeping the organizations blades
moving around and around. If the wind stops, the blades will lose momentum and stop. This
relates to the literature reviewed in this chapter the subjects of silo thinking, breaking down
barriers and the teachings of Deming play a direct role in the interaction between individuals and
departments. There are many potential solutions, as covered in this chapter and in nearly all of
them communication plays a big role.
21
Chapter III: Case Study Methodology
The lack of interaction between engineering and manufacturing adversely affects the
continuous improvement efforts of an organization. While not always the focus of an
organization, the interaction between these departments can be at the forefront of the
organization’s performance. Information collected for this research explored this idea. Case
studies were collected from existing information in five organizations to emphasize the good and
bad instances of the interaction. The organizations involved are introduced in this chapter as
well as the case study analysis. This research was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at
the University of Wisconsin – Stout and was considered Exempt.
Organizations involved
The companies involved are in four different market segments. The first is a
manufacturing company and fabrication shop who designs and manufactures their own products.
A majority of the products are manufactured and assembled in-house, with a small percentage
manufactured by vendors. The second type is an equipment manufacturing company who
designs and installs the product. All of the manufacturing is produced by a sole source supplier.
In the third case, a situation from a generator manufacturing company is presented. The design,
manufacturing and assembly are done with both in-house fabricated and purchased components.
The fourth company is a food manufacturing company which designs the equipment involved in
their processes. The manufacturing and assembly of the equipment is conducted at multiple
vendors. Some assembly is conducted in house by maintenance personnel. The fifth company,
designs processing equipment which is fabricated at supplier facilities. The design is done from
a remote office, removed from the corporate headquarters as well as the suppliers.
22
Case Study Analysis
This study analyzes five case situations when the interaction between engineering and
manufacturing caused a problem or corrected an issue. The data is based upon public behavior
within an organization and the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin-Stout
reviewed the protocol and determined it to be exempt. The situation was analyzed based on the
positive or negative outcome. The data utilized comes from existing sources; no names are
associated with the situations presented. General position titles are given in the cases as
reference. Patterns among the five case studies were identified and analyzed themes in the
situations’ failure or success and analyzed based on the topics covered in the literature review.
23
Chapter IV: Results
The purpose of this study was to analyze current issues which can maximize or minimize
the effectiveness of an organization. The study analyzed case studies of situations when
interaction between engineering and manufacturing caused or corrected an issue. Case studies
presented in this chapter come from existing information. The companies involved are
equipment manufacturers, or use customer equipment in their processes. Each of the companies
has engineering staff responsible of creating the manufacturing drawings used to fabricate the
equipment.
Case Study 1
At a well-established manufacturing and fabrication company who designs and builds
their own product, the first case study was obtained. Every other year replacement screening
baskets were manufactured for a key customer. The product had been designed approximately
fifteen years earlier, and the engineer who originally designed the basket had retired five years
earlier. However, the work cell lead man had been building these baskets since its design. The
manufacturing of the basket went flawlessly, until the final inspection was performed.
Inspectors at the final inspection were overwhelmed, and called a Quality Engineer to assist in
the inspection.
Once the engineer started inspecting the basket, he immediately noticed problems. The
weld bead pattern on the basket was only half of what was specified on the drawing and the
engineer wrote a nonconformance report on the spot. Once word got back to the lead man, he
became enraged. The engineer soon became a target of a tirade. “Why would you write this up?
I built those baskets exactly as I have the past fifteen years! What is wrong with you?” the lead
24
man exclaimed. Red faced and angry, the lead man stormed off, leaving the engineer in a state
of shock.
After allowing time for everyone to calm down, the engineer went to the lead man
seeking an explanation on how these baskets had been built this way for the past fifteen years
since the manufacturing did not conform to the drawing. By this time an audience had collected
around the baskets, including the shop supervisor. Not wanting to enrage the lead man any
more, the engineer questioned the shop supervisor. “I wrote these baskets up because they are
not built to print. Are the baskets built wrong, or are the drawings wrong?” As the shop
supervisor began to explain, the lead man joined in. “The engineer who designed this was an
idiot! We cannot put that much weld on these, the heat will be too much and warp them out of
shape!” “Did you send this drawing back to design engineering requesting changes?” asked the
engineer. “Yes, many times but the design engineering kept ignoring us.” stated the shop
supervisor. The quality engineer left to call one of the senior design engineers to the shop floor.
Once the situation was explained, the senior design engineer analyzed the baskets and the
drawing. “I would agree that there is too much weld called out on the drawing, and these baskets
look good to me” responded the senior engineer. With the non-compliance signed off, the
baskets were shipped to the customer. The engineer continued to follow up on a nagging
problem resulting from the recent events. “How can we go fifteen years building a product
without having engineering change the drawings to meet the fabrication techniques?” As the
questions were eventually answered by management, it became very apparent that there was a
discrepancy and conflict between manufacturing and engineering.
25
Case study 1 key points. Case study 1 presents two major issues. First, the engineering
staff had ignored the recommendations and complaints of the fabrication personnel. How can
the company continue to prosper, with engineers who do not listen to the people building the
product? If it was not for the seasoned fabrication personnel, the product would most likely have
been built wrong and rejected by the customer. In this case there is a systemic problem in the
management system. The supervisor chose to ignore the issue, instead of pushing for
resolution. If he could not convince the engineer to make the change, the shop supervisor should
have pushed this issue to a higher level within the organization. Once the issue is at the higher
level, the engineering manager would have to address the issue with the engineer.
Case Study 2
After being acquired by a major corporation company XYZ had most of its
manufacturing outsourced to a fabrication company owned by the same corporation. Five years
later, XYZ was sold to another corporation. At the same time, the fabrication company was spun
off and became independent. Several managers left Company XYZ and went to work for the
fabrication company. This move created animosity between the companies and it fractured
communication lines. The fabrication company continued to build products for company XYZ.
During a visit to the fabrication company, a quality assurance engineer inquired about the
communication between the companies. As the conversation moved to the communication of
engineering errors and changes, the engineer was shocked to find out that many design errors
were being corrected by the fabrication company and not being sent back to XYZ. The engineer
was then shown a stack of design changes and errors from the current production job. This
paperwork was internal documentation reporting design to the fabrication company’s quality
department. After the quality department reviewed them, they were sent to the engineering
26
department for design changes. The fabrication company had been utilizing their years of
experience building the machines and had been using their internal engineering staff to make
corrections on their internal fabrication drawings. The changes were never communicated back
to company XYZ.
When the engineer returned to his office, he looked into the engineering change system to
verify his assumption that the corrections that the fabrication company was doing to the drawings
were not being replicated on company XYZ’s side. His fears were found to be correct, company
XYZ was repeating the same design errors on nearly every job, and had been for years. The
engineer spent the next couple weeks working with the design engineering manager to sort out
the proper communication lines for the errors found at the fabrication company. Initially the
efforts were met with a great deal of resistance, and the design staff worried of becoming
overwhelmed with the extra work. But the design engineering manager and the quality
assurance engineer were determined to prevent the repeat errors and improve the design. The
changes that the design engineering manager and quality assurance engineer had been pushing
for soon were bearing fruit, as the fabrication company began calling and emailing the design
staff with issues as drawings as they were discovered.
Case study 2 key points. In case study 2, there are barriers which are preventing the two
companies from communicating the issues and errors. Not only is there a physical barrier in the
distance between the companies, but there also is a mental or emotional barrier. The animosity
between the two organizations is causing communication barriers. The two companies will need
to set aside old differences and work together in order to break down these barriers. Both
barriers can be minimized with open communication. The fabrication company needs to
communicate design issues and errors back to company XYZ. The engineering staff must
27
address these issues, to prevent repeating problems, as they have in the past. Once the problems
are addressed, with standardization of the products, the correction will not need made repeatedly.
Case Study 3
Company ABC manufactures generators for residential and industrial markets. Standard
procedure for the company is to test 100% of the generators prior to shipment. The first
production unit of a new model was being tested, only to fail. The engine would not reach full
throttle, it would sputter and die. Test personnel attempted to determine the cause of the issue.
Initial thoughts were that the engine was bad coming from the supplier. The engine supplier was
contacted to assist in the problem solving. The generator was connected to the internet to run
diagnostic software which takes data points from engine sensors to verify engine performance
compared to the suppliers specifications; the supplier deemed the engine to be per specification.
Quality control was contacted to coordinate and lead the problem solving process. The
mechanical engineer for the product line was contacted as well. As the mechanical engineer
worked with the test personnel to trouble shoot the generator, no solution was found. The
engineer had a hunch that the problem was in the controller programming. Responsibility for the
issue was transferred to the controls group.
The controls engineer who took over the problem looked at the programming in the
controller, and was unable to find a problem. At this point the controls engineer pointed his
finger back at the engine supplier. As supplier quality got involved in the issue, it became
apparent that there has been little to no communication between the test personnel, mechanical
engineering and controls engineering. When supplier quality asked the controls engineer if he
had been shown the data from the internet diagnostics, he stated that he had not. The mechanical
engineer who started working through the trouble shooting process had left out that detail when
28
he transferred ownership of the issue to the controls group. When the controls group took over,
they never contacted the test personnel to gain a firsthand account of the problem. The issue had
started out as a supplier issue, and then was considered an internal issue, and finally it was being
considered a supplier issue again.
Even more troubling, during the prototype phase, the issue had been noted in the
Research and Development (R&D) lab. However, the issues witnessed at the prototype phase
were never communicated to anyone outside the R&D staff. During the development phase, the
engine supplier had suggested a new program in the engine emission controls. Company ABC
saw no need for this, due to the fact that the same engine was currently being used on other
models, and wanted to save some money by using the current programming thus eliminating
costs for new programming. As the problem solving wrapped up, Company ABC ended up
having to pay for new programming in the engine, as well as changes to their controller
programming. With the change, the generator passed the test and was able to ship, more than a
month late.
Case study 3 key points. Case study 3 has common issues found in large organizations.
A problem is discovered, as they begin to trouble shoot the issue, responsibility is handed from
one person to another and passing the responsibility off to another department. If the mechanical
engineer had called a meeting with the controls engineer, quality and the test lab personnel, the
controls engineer would have had a better understanding of what the symptoms were and what
had already been done to diagnose the issue. From the R&D phase, there was no communication
beyond the specific department. Throughout the process, there was no follow-up or
accountability by the staff seeking resolution to ensure the proper corrective actions were being
taken. The original generator should never have left the R&D lab without resolution. In this
29
case, the time and expense it took to solve the issue would have been significantly reduced if a
formal problem solving process was utilized.
Case Study 4
Company CDE has been a dominant food processing company for a number of years.
They have recently experienced a growth spurt, building new facilities and adding capacity. As
they have grown, mechanical and electrical engineers have been added to their staff to design the
equipment that is used in their processes. Most of the equipment in the facilities is customized
for the company’s specific products. In many cases, used equipment is purchased and modified
to fit their needs. As the company grew, and required more office space, the decision was made
to move the mechanical and electrical engineering staff to another facility and away from the
manufacturing plants.
Company CDE acquired a building with office space and a warehouse fifteen miles away
in another town. One day, the mechanical engineering staff contacted a senior process engineer
to go look at a piece of used equipment which could fit their needs on one of the production
lines. The process engineer traveled with a lead maintenance person for the line to analyze the
equipment. Upon inspection, they decided that the equipment would be usable, with some
modifications.
The equipment was purchased and shipped to the processing facility. Once on site, it was
up to the maintenance staff and the process engineer to make it work. With the mechanical and
electrical engineering team miles away, things moved slowly, there were many design issues.
However, the maintenance crew was able to get the equipment running. This was a common
practice for the company when modifying used equipment. This strategy saved the company in
the long run versus purchasing new equipment.
30
One problem that the company faced is that the maintenance crew should be working
towards keeping the production lines running, instead of modifying equipment to be placed in
production at a later date. The other problem the company faced due to this strategy is that each
production line had equipment from a different manufacturer. There was very little
standardization between the production lines. The maintenance staff was stellar in keeping the
equipment up and running, however, when the maintenance staff from one production line was
busy, maintenance personnel from another line would help diagnose the problems on the other
line. Frequently, the maintenance personnel would not know how the fix the problem, since the
equipment was different than what they typically worked on.
Case study 4 key points. The engineering department has a hands-off relationship with
manufacturing in case study 4. How can the mechanical and electrical engineers ensure that the
design of new or used equipment will work, when they have not set foot on the production floor
or seen the equipment in person? The biggest question in this case is; do the mechanical and
electrical engineers really understand the processes and practices involved in modifying the
equipment and the equipment’s function on the manufacturing line? Or is it the maintenance
staff which keeps things moving in the right direction? Where should the maintenance staff be
spending their time, working on modifying the equipment or keeping the current production
equipment running? Without the engineering staff directly involved in the design and
modification of equipment, there was no standardization and therefore more training is required
of the maintenance staff and a greater amount of spare parts will have to be inventoried to keep
the equipment running. With standardization in the equipment, there will be less design work
required as new equipment is purchased. There also would be less training required, which
31
would make the maintenance staff more versatile between the production lines and not
specialized towards one line.
Case Study 5
Company EFG designs and sells capital equipment. They are owned by a large
corporation who has over the years consolidated the companies in the division. In the process,
the corporation eliminated facilities, reduced manpower and outsourced all of the manufacturing.
With the consolidation, design and project engineers are required to work on multiple product
lines. From their peak in the late 1980’s, company EFG went from selling and installing 60 units
per year to an average of 18 in the 2000’s. The company is still turning a profit with less
numbers, but the profit margins have been continuously slipping. A cost reduction team was
assembled to work towards reducing the cost of the equipment, with the goal of making the
product more cost competitive. The team was cross functional, including members from
accounting, field service, project management, engineering and quality. Initially the group found
success in reducing the cost of the equipment by changing materials.
However, the efforts soon stalled, due to a lack of ideas. To make matters worse, the
engineers were struggling with the feasibility of potential design changes. The potential design
changes worked in the 3D modeling software, but the engineering staff was having trouble
determining if the changes would negatively affect the performance of the equipment. Several
meetings later, after zero progress, a senior design engineer admitted to the group that he had
never been to a customer site to witness an installation or see a finished piece of equipment in
action. He had previously worked on another product line but with the consolidation of
companies he was now designing the equipment for which the company was attempting to
reduce costs. There was a stunned silence in the conference room, as the engineer had been
32
checking and creating drawings for the product line for several years. A couple of other
members admitted they were in the same boat, and had never seen the equipment in person.
In the following weeks, several field trips to customer sites were arranged for group
members to see the equipment and talk with the field service personnel who service and install
the equipment. Following the field trips, the group members had more ideas and the cost
reduction team was back on track. The engineering staff was soon overwhelmed with new ideas.
Key service personnel were brought in to aid in the process. As changes were made, the field
service personnel were critical in reporting the performance. Some of the changes were
reversed, as performance suffered. But, the cost reduction efforts continued to see a dramatic
improvement in cost competitiveness. They would not return to the production levels of the past,
but they were gaining more customers as the cost of the equipment dropped.
Case study 5 key points. Case study 5 is another example of an engineering staff with a
disconnect from the manufacturing and installation of products that they designed. They had
never witnessed the equipment operating in a customer’s facility. The cost reduction team was at
a loss for ideas, until they actually saw the equipment in person. Once they saw the equipment
and spoke with the field service employees who install the equipment, new ideas were generated.
If the staff in the cost reduction group had intimate knowledge of the equipment and were in
direct contact with the field service staff, they would not have had this issue.
Case Study Commonalities
In all of the case studies there are a couple questions that beg to be answered. Do the
participants in the case understand the needs of their internal or external customer? If they do
not understand the requirements of their customers, how does an organization ensure that the
33
correct decisions are being made? Are the people within the organization acting in the best
interest of their department, themselves or the customer?
“Everyone in engineering design, purchase of materials, testing materials, and testing
performance of a product has a customer, namely, the man (e.g., a plant manager) that
must try to make, with the material purchased, the thing that was designed. Why not get
acquainted with the customer? Why not spend time in the factory, see the problems, and
hear about them” (Deming, 1986. p. 62)?
The second commonality between the case studies brings up the question, where is the
communication between departments? Unfortunately there is no one silver bullet that can
correct all of the issues found in an organization. Communication plays a very large role in
breaking down the barriers within an organization. Education and training is also deemed good
tools in breaking down the barriers of silo thinking. “Poor communication is the biggest obstacle
most people cite as stopping their company from delivering quality. Communication has to be
improved at the interpersonal level as well as at the organizational level” (Merrill, 2009. p.
xxxii).
34
Chapter V: Discussion
This research touched into the topics of silo thinking and Deming’s teachings in the
literature review. In the case studies presented in chapter 4, there are issues present which are
directly connected to the management techniques, departmental objectives and the topics covered
in the literature review. There also are issues related to interpersonal and organizational
communication. In this chapter, recommendations will be made on steps to prevent and break
down the barriers of silo thinking.
Recommendations
Many organizational mantras urge “keep your eyes on the customer”. However, in many
cases this reality gets lost. Organizations and people in general have a tendency to look inward
and stop focusing on their customer. When an organization loses site of their customer,
competitors will happily take their customers. Maintaining a customer focus requires regular
attention. There are numerous ways to aid in maintaining focus within an organization. Training
is one of the crucial tools in helping employees maintain a customer focus. Many organizations
conduct conferences and training on a regular basis. The focus on the training is to learn the
products, processes and customers’ needs. Involvement in these training sessions will be
strongly encouraged, and it will be open to all of those who wish to attend. Not only is it an
opportunity to learn about the products and customers, but it also is an opportunity to meet other
people within the organization. Training of this sort would need to be maintained on a regular
basis to keep up with industry trends, and can be good refresher training for all professional
employees, such as engineers.
Leadership and culture in the organization must encourage and influence employees to
keep a customer focus. One way to maintain a customer focus is to keep the customer visible
35
within the organization. When a customer provides feedback on a recent shipment or project,
this information whether good or bad should be communicated throughout the organization. As
a customer complaint is received, an organization should treat it as an opportunity to correct a
behavior, process or the design which is in question. Customer complaints need to be
communicated throughout the organization as well. In some organizations, warranty and
customer complaint information is processed by key people, but is not communicated back to the
employees who add value to the products. As a warranty claim is received, why not
communicate this back to the employees building the products. Maybe these employees have a
potential fix to the warranty claim, which would otherwise go undiscovered.
As new employees enter an organization, or employees move to other product lines, the
management of an organization needs to allow for time to gain familiarity with the products.
This is especially true with engineering personnel. To ensure the designs will meet fit, form and
function, the engineers must have intimate knowledge of the products and how the customer uses
these products. It is common place for some organizations to require new engineering personnel
to spend their first couple weeks on the manufacturing floor. At the same time, some
organizations sit new engineers at a computer and tell them to design their product. The
organization that has their engineering staff spending time on the manufacturing floor has a
higher potential for success. However, the interaction between engineering and manufacturing
staff should not be limited to new employee training. Even senior engineering staff needs to
spend time on the manufacturing floor and in some cases at customer sites. Understanding the
needs of internal and external customers will influence the decisions made by employees, as
questions arise. Employees are more likely to make the correct decisions when they understand
these details. The rewards will be that of customer satisfaction, higher quality and less mistakes.
36
Interaction between departments is critical to an organization. The culture of the
organization has a lot to do with the level of interaction. There are a number of things that an
organization can do to increase or maintain the level of interaction between departments. Cross
functional teams are utilized by many organizations. As organizations plan facility layout,
another method used to increase the interaction and communication between departments would
be that of work groups. If the department representatives for a product line are located at desks
near each other, the amount of interaction should, in theory, increase.
In a case where manufacturing is done at another site or at a supplier, there must be
outlets for communication. In a case where as the supplier or remote site is in another state,
country or across the street, there needs to be communication between the groups. Ideally, there
would be regular meetings between the key contacts of each organization to discuss issues,
complaints or complements. Whether the communication is via phone conference, email or in
person, feedback can in many cases make or break acceptance of an order. Feedback is critical
in a situation such as this, so that the design professionals understand the processes involved in
manufacturing the product.
37
References
Cochran, Craig. (2006). Becoming a customer-focused organization. Chico, CA: Paton Press
LLC.
Comerford, G. (2010, January 11). Silo thinking and why it is bad. Message posted to
http://process-cafe.blogspot.com/2010/01/silo-thinking-and-why-it-is-bad.html
Deming, W. Edwards. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gitlow, H.S., Gitlow, S.J. (1987). The Deming guide to quality and competitive position.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Shutz, P., & Bloch, B. (2006). The “silo-virus”: Diagnosing and curing departmental groupthink
[Electronic version]. Team Performance Management, 50(1/2), 31-43.
Silo thinking. Retrieved November 20, 2010, from
http://www.bptrends.com/resources_glossary.cfm?wordid=1585D3FD-1031-D522-
3C41C050AD12C6DA
Suzaki, Kiyoshi. (1993). The new shop floor management: Empowering people for continuous
improvement. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Merrill, Peter. (2009). Do it right the second time: Benchmarking best practices in the quality
change process. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality, Quality Press
Townsend, P, & Gebhardt, J. (2006). Quality makes money. Milwaukee, WI: American Society
for Quality, Quality Press.
Williams, R., Van Der Wiele, T, Van Iwaarden, J., Bertsch, B, & Dale, B. (2006). Quality
management: The new challenges. Total Quality Management, 17 (10), 1273-1280.
Wilson, P.F., Dell, L. D., Anderson, G.F., (1993). Root cause analysis; A tool for total quality
management. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality, Quality Press.