IndustryWeek Forums http://forums.industryweek.com These are the Weblogs, discussion boards and forums for IndustryWeek -- Leadership in Manufacturing en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:11:51 GMT vBulletin 60 http://forums.industryweek.com/IWImages/misc/rss.jpg IndustryWeek Forums http://forums.industryweek.com That Bottle Used to Be A Plant http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9821&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:17:02 GMT Coca Cola's new bottles are composed of a new PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) plastic that was once a plant.

This is the next generation of PET that is now 100% recyclable with a smaller carbon footprint, when measured from the growing of the plant materials through to the production of the resin, that the traditional PET.

PlantBottle packaging is currently made through a process that turns sugar cane and molasses, a by-product of sugar production, into a key component for PET plastic. The sugar cane being used comes from predominantly rain-fed crops that were processed into ethanol, not refined sugar.

The company is aiming to eventually use non-food, plant-based waste, such as wood chips or wheat stalks, to produce recyclable PET plastic bottles.

"Coca-Cola is currently sourcing raw materials for its PlantBottle from suppliers in Brazil, where third parties have verified that best-in-class agricultural practices are the norm," said Dr. Jason Clay, Senior Vice President of Market Transformation for WWF.

Coca-Cola has set a goal of producing 2 billion of these special PET plastic bottles by the end of 2010.

The PlantBottle packaging in now available in Denmark and beginning next month will be available in Western Canada (just in time for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games.)
It will also show up in select markets in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles. ]]> Manufacturing Savvy Adrienne Selko http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9821 Benioff says the old software business model is dead. So what’s new? http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9811&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:04:41 GMT I am attending Dreamforce 09 (http://www.salesforce.com/dreamforce/DF09/site/)in San Fran and trying not to get too caught up with the hype. And I don’t really have the expertise to “get” a lot of the technology stuff behind the “cloud” anyway. But it is really great to hear Marc Benioff, the CEO... I am attending Dreamforce 09 in San Fran and trying not to get too caught up with the hype. And I don’t really have the expertise to “get” a lot of the technology stuff behind the “cloud” anyway. But it is really great to hear Marc Benioff, the CEO of salesforce.com, make fun of the current software business model, especially amongst the ERP vendors. He referred specifically to the idea of charging 24% maintenance as a “tax”. Marc’s keynote from Thursday morning is well worth watching. You might ask “So what, Marc has being saying this for years?”

What is new is the development of enterprise applications on force.com to satisfy a variety of processes, including an ERP solution. And these are being developed in 3-8 months from initial concept to go-live. Vetrazzo developed production planning, inventory management, order management, returns, warrantees, and ton of other ERP capability in 4 months!! At a fraction of the cost that would have been required to purchase let alone implement SAP or Oracle. Even better, the CEO of Vetrazzo used to implement SAP systems, so he knows the full (in?) capabilities of SAP. OK, OK, so it does not have any accounting capability. But who cares, accounting packages are a dime a dozen and not related to your operational effectiveness. Plus there are any number of applications available on AppExchange for linking salesforce.com to accounting packages.

I can only imagine how SAP and Oracle execs are sweating. Even if we discount the technology story, the change in the business model is profound and is going to rock them to their foundations. In our own customer base, customers that a year ago flatly refused to go on-demand are now discussing the option with us. And these are companies over $20B!! Yes, that is a B as in billion, not an M as in million.

What do you think? What is the timeline before we see full ERP systems developed native to the cloud?

Trevor Miles is director, industry and applications marketing for Kinaxis, provider of the on-demand RapidResponse service that empowers enterprise and mid-market companies to continuously align demand and supply, thereby bridging the gap that exists between planning and execution. ]]> 21st Century Supply Chain Lori Smith http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9811 <![CDATA[China's Financial Incentive Strategy]]> http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9801&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:21:06 GMT Americans pride themselves as the world's leading capitalists, but when it comes to attracting manufacturing investment, China may be well ahead of the game, according to experts at a news briefing on the latest U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report.

Complaints by Chinese leaders that the United States is moving toward protectionism are "ironic" given Beijing's moves toward "even greater government control of their economy," according to Carolyn Bartholomew, the bipartisan commission's chair.

Bartholomew says China is employing a multi-faceted policy involving artificially low currency valuation, cheap labor and a variety of financial incentives to attract foreign business investment and promote exports. In particular, Bartholomew points out that China's industrial policy chooses particular industrial segments as "national champions" and "throws everything it has at supporting those industries and protecting them from foreign competition."

Bartholomew told reporters there are reports that China's next five-year plan will focus on promoting green technology. She says there is concern that the U.S. will lose its competitve edge on green technology "before we really even get going."

Bartholomew said Chinese incentives to companies are resulting not only in the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., but also the movement of research and development to China. "Once you have lost R&D capability as well as manufacturing capability, you lose your innovation capability," she warns. ]]> The Manufacturing Life Steve Minter http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9801 Value Pricing Research http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9791&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:07:43 GMT What do customers value in your product and services? What is their willingness to buy? Will they pay a premium for your product. You can get answers to these questions, and you can get started on your own. Qualitative research is much less expensive than quantitative work, and often will... What do customers value in your product and services? What is their willingness to buy? Will they pay a premium for your product. You can get answers to these questions, and you can get started on your own. Qualitative research is much less expensive than quantitative work, and often will provide answers that reduce the need for quantitative research.

The first step is to design an Interview guide. Questions should fall into categories designed to satisfy your overall objectives, which might include some of the following:
1. Test or validate the assumed and any potential value propositions. This can be a list that you ask the respondent to score for the importance or value of each item. If interview is in person this could be conducted as a "game".
2. Gain greater understanding into the barriers to switching to your product and/or new technology that your product offers. See if you can determine if the respondent is dissatisfied with their current solution, dormant because they have no perceived problems with their existing solution, looking to improve their process or position, or if their company is growing and in need to make a purchase in the near future.
3. Gain qualitative or directional input to defining the trade off position the product could offer. You might simulate a likely purchase scenario and ask questions aimed at judging their response and likely outcome.
4. Develop questions that aim to define from the customer perspective the ultimate and acceptable whole product solution.
5. Consider questions that would qualify a respondent to participate in an early adopter phase of the product.
6. Develop a list of questions that will collect demographic information that may be of use either now or later.
7. Write questions that increase your understanding of the purchase process for your product.

For practical articles on pricing: http://valuepg.com/Articles.html ]]> Manufacturing Talk Jerry Bernstein http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9791 11/20 Poll: Health Care http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9781&goto=newpost Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:14:34 GMT Current Poll Question: Will you change your employee health coverage if a Health Care bill passes? * Yes * No * Unsure until bill is passed Vote Now at: Current Poll Question:

Will you change your employee health coverage if a Health Care bill passes?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Unsure until bill is passed
Vote Now at:

http://www.industryweek.com#Poll

After you have voted, post your comments in this thread. ]]> Quick Poll Comments Frank Chloupek http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9781 High Quality Patents - what does it mean? http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9741&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:38:33 GMT Steven Scanlon and Jones Day wrote a good article, "High Quality Patents-- The Objective Analysis". It is featured under "Economy and Public Policy" here in Industry Week today, Nov 16th. In the article they discussed President Obama's call for more US patents, and the factors that make an invention patentable. It should be a chapter in a textbook. Their point of departure was the question of what is a "High Quality Patent". They defined it as a patent that met some very important technical legal tests for a patentable invention. They also asked the question of how we could identify an idea as a candidate for a "high quality patent".

So - what does it mean on a daily basis? President Obama is an academic, he is a product of the US university culture. Academics live or die by the number of papers they have published. Not only published, but published in prestigious peer reviewed obscure scholarly journals. Not only published in the above referenced journal, but referred to in subsequent papers published in said journals. Academics keep stats every bit as complicated as baseball players- and their pay and career depend on these stats. (Unfortunately many times teaching effectiveness is not considered an important statistic.)

A 20 inch article on sheep scabies treatment, published in the "Uinta County Herald" in Evanston Wyoming, just does not have the punch that an article on the scabies genome would have in "Nature" in Basingstoke Hampshire England.

Likewise a patented cast iron wrench may not be viewed having the ultimate impact of Bell Lab's transistor. (unless it hits you between the eyes).

I think that President Obama, our Academic in Chief, is calling for the US to patent a pile of "transistors" " Lasers" "internal combustion engines" "telegraphs" and "light bulbs". These are the disruptive inventions of the past, that literally changed our culture, lifestyle, and the condition of the majority of people in the world. If he only wants to patent this level of innovation, what is the risk?

When we invent something here, develop it here, manufacture it here, learn from it here, apply it here, integrate it here and utilize it here, -Then we profit from it here and it benefits US here.

The "Innovation Chain".

If any of these things are outsourced, then we lose the benefits. If we drop the any of these links, we lose.

Can we determine, in advance, what a high quality patent will be? And only fund those? Only patent "the one"? I don't think so. Which is more important? Morse's telegraph? Or blacksmith farmer Cornell's overhead transmission line and insulators? Cornell University is named for him, and, he died broke.

For half my life I worked for an organization that prides itself on research and invention. Did we invent? Yes. Did we innovate? Yes. Did we work on disruptive technologies? Yes. Did we patent? No. Our "administration" did not usually foresee an immediate cash return. Did others patent our work? Sometimes. Were these patents valuable? Yes. Did the patent holder make money? Yes. Did we have our research "patented out from under us"? Yes.

I don't think we can really foresee the impact of a patent in many cases before it is written, nor can we see the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th order impacts. Like Cornell's transmission line, sometimes we have wait for an Edison's light bulb and Westinghouse's alternator to really see the mass application of the technology.

Sr Richard Branson is using a hybrid rocket engine for his suborbital spacecraft. He will undoubtedly have to pay some royalties. Will I benefit? Will the group I worked with? I worked on dozens of hybrid engines, over almost 20 years. The people I worked with didn't patent our innovations ( or feel a need to publish). Others did. Sr Richard will pay them. As it is, so many of "our" practices have been patented by others, well, we pretty much got fenced out of what had been "our" field.

The real danger to the US is not that we will waste money patenting a couple of million worthless ideas, the real danger is that we will miss the half a dozen that will cost the US billions in lost opportunities. ]]> Reader Talk-Back wesdavidson http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9741 Coming Soon: Your Limited Liability Persona http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9731&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:55:11 GMT Just read a NY Times story which introduced the L.L.P.: the Limited Liability Persona. According to the story, this proposed persona would be a legally recognized virtual person in which users could ''invest'' the financial or identity resources of their choosing, with the expectation that it would form a proxy for that person's real data in their travels throughout the sometimes insecure world of contemporary e-commerce.

Right now, corporations have many of the same rights as individuals (and are lobbying for more daily) -- if I'm reading this right, this concept would mean that people would get some of the rights of corporations, at least where data protection/ownership/privacy is concerned:

''My L.L.P. would have its own mailing address, its own tax ID number, and that's the information I'd give when I'm online,'' Mr. Neuenschwander said. Other benefits include the ability for ''personas'' to limit their financial exposure in ways that individuals cannot.
At this point, it's just one of many ideas being floated, but in light of ongoing data privacy challenges (and the many identity theft horror stories that abound these days) it's an interesting proposal nonetheless. ]]> MFG 2.0 Brad Kenney http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9731 A supply chain risk management survey by MIT http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9721&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:36:06 GMT Thought this was interesting…. MIT is conducting a global survey on Supply Chain Risks and Risk Management, and is looking for business and supply chain professionals within manufacturing, retail and distribution organizations to participate. If you complete the ~12-minute survey you can... Thought this was interesting….

MIT is conducting a global survey on Supply Chain Risks and Risk Management, and is looking for business and supply chain professionals within manufacturing, retail and distribution organizations to participate.

If you complete the ~12-minute survey you can sign up to get a copy of the results in early 2010 when it is completed.

Scope of survey includes:
  • Gauging the importance of risk prevention, event response, control points
  • Understanding risk and disruption frequencies and priorities
  • Understanding what companies are doing to address risks
  • Questions about the respondent’s region, country, languages spoken
, work setting, size of company, and type of industry.

To take the survey go to: http://tinyurl.com/RiskSurveySN1

To learn more about the project go to: http://ctl.mit.edu/RiskSurveySN1

I know I am certainly looking forward to the results!

John Westerveld is a product manager for Kinaxis, provider of the on-demand RapidResponse service that empowers enterprise and mid-market companies to continuously align demand and supply, thereby bridging the gap that exists between planning and execution. ]]> 21st Century Supply Chain Lori Smith http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9721 Is The CrackBerry Epidemic Dying Down? http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9691&goto=newpost Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:41:32 GMT A recent article in Wired magazine recently asked the once unfathomable question -- Is BlackBerry using its innovative edge? Could the "crackberry epidemic" of the past decade be drawing to a close?

The author, Priya Ganapati, cites "a confusing mix of new products, poor developer support, lack of innovation and an unwillingness to take risks" as major culprits, along with the moves of hardware rivals such as Apple, HTC, Palm and Motorola, and software rivals, such as Google's Android OS.

Ganapati also cites the breakneck pace of the smartphone market and the BlackBerry's horrible web browser experience as two more factors leading to RIM's once-utterly-dominant market position being threatened.

Speaking from personal experience, I've had a BlackBerry Curve for coming on two years now, and despite everything I've done to break it (including both physical and memory-related abuses) the thing is still working perfectly. Impressively sturdy and durable for a piece of 21st Century electronics (especially considering that I'm on my third iPod in that same time frame). Also, my browser experience is just fine, thanks to the Opera Mini browser and Google's application set.

How about you? What smartphone do you use now, and what are you looking for next? ]]> MFG 2.0 Brad Kenney http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9691 <![CDATA[Manufacturing's Ground Zero]]> http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9681&goto=newpost Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:24:29 GMT Detroit has long been a punchline-in-search-of-a-joke type of city, even for those like me who live in an equally cachet-challenged city like Cleveland. Even so, I was unprepared for the feeling of profound sadness I felt after reading this article... Detroit has long been a punchline-in-search-of-a-joke type of city, even for those like me who live in an equally cachet-challenged city like Cleveland. Even so, I was unprepared for the feeling of profound sadness I felt after reading this article by Richard McCormack. To get the full impact, you need to check out the Google Maps sites McCormack mentions in the article, and then do a few random searches on your own. It's truly nightmarish.

While the Twin Towers in New York were reduced to rubble by a foreign enemy, the wholesale destruction of Detroit can be attributed to an unending pattern of self-inflicted wounds. As McCormack says, "What a condemnation of America's political and corporate leadership and the economic policies of the past 40 years that remain in place to this very day."

Speaking of America's politicians, here's a quick snapshot analysis of the manufacturing jobs situation, compiled by Alan Tonelson, research fellow at the U.S. Business & Industry Educational Foundation. He refers to it as "crumbs from the Obama stimulus program":

* Number of U.S. jobs Obama administration claims were created or saved by the stimulus program: 640,000

* Number of U.S. manufacturing jobs Obama administration claims were created or saved by the stimulus program: 2,500

* U.S. manufacturing jobs as share of total U.S. jobs Obama administration claims were created or saved by stimulus program: 0.39%

* Number of total U.S. jobs lost during recession: 7.21 million

* Claimed stimulus-saved or -created jobs as share of total U.S. jobs lost during recession: 8.88%

* Number of total U.S. manufacturing jobs lost during recession: 2.06 million

* Claimed stimulus-saved or -created manufacturing jobs as share of total U.S. manufacturing jobs lost during recession:
0.12% ]]> Chain Reactions David Blanchard http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9681 One platform…but at what cost and compromise? http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9671&goto=newpost Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:15:47 GMT For an interesting read, check out: http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/23/big-software-has-duped-us-for-decades-part-i/ I have the privilege of speaking with multiple companies every day….and they are all struggling, particularly with their supply chain. They aren’t meeting... For an interesting read, check out: http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ecades-part-i/

I have the privilege of speaking with multiple companies every day….and they are all struggling, particularly with their supply chain. They aren’t meeting their delivery commitments, their inventory is too high or they just don’t have enough visibility in their supply chain. There is an expectation out there that ERP systems will do everything for everyone in an organization and it is just not true. Yes, it is certainly a good financial transaction tool and some companies find their ERP systems to be very successful. However you then find out that they have spent millions of dollars to make that happen.

I understand why a CIO of a company would want to have all of their business solutions on one ERP platform, but at what cost and compromise?

What do the users need in their day to day operations? They need better tools designed for users and not transactions. Organizations are continually being challenged to do more with less. The common theme in the business is being overworked, constant stress, change and disruption.

People in Demand Management, Sales and Operations Planning, Customer Fulfillment, and Planning and Scheduling have a right to be heard. They don’t have the time to source out better solutions that will improve their efficiencies and performance. Do they know that there are solutions that can vertically integrate their supply chain, providing them visibility to other aspects of their operation in other parts of the world or with their partners? Do they know that they can test changing a demand that will instantly regenerate MRP and tell them where their gating material and capacity constraints are? Do they know that they can create their own reports rather than relying on a queue with the IT department?

It is up to the management of an organization to ensure that people are properly empowered to do their jobs in the most efficient manner possible. There are ways to solve these problems. Don’t wait until it is too late to address these issues. Look for disruptive SaaS technology…to augment your ERP….without getting ‘duped’ as Roger Burkhardt, the author of the article so eloquently puts it.

What is your experience?

Carol McIntosh is a business consultant for Kinaxis, provider of the on-demand RapidResponse service that empowers multi-enterprise manufacturers with collaborative and integrated demand-supply planning, monitoring, and response capabilities. ]]> 21st Century Supply Chain Lori Smith http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9671 What does it FEEL like to work with an ERP? http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9651&goto=newpost Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:21:49 GMT The Best of Breed Institute continues its great work trying to discover why executives continue to beat their heads against the ERP wall.
http://www.bobvserp.com

This latest experiment pioneers a way to have executives FEEL what it's like to work with ERP companies. ]]> The Lighter Side Patrick Maley http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9651 Pricing: Reverse Auctions http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9641&goto=newpost Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:18:31 GMT A common supplier pricing mistake is thinking Reverse Auction award decisions are based only on price. In most Reverse Auction events price is not the only factor that customers consider. If the customer doesn’t publish in the Event that the “Lowest Bidder Wins” than in most cases factors other... A common supplier pricing mistake is thinking Reverse Auction award decisions are based only on price. In most Reverse Auction events price is not the only factor that customers consider. If the customer doesn’t publish in the Event that the “Lowest Bidder Wins” than in most cases factors other than price are used in the award decision. Suppliers are often intimidated by the process, not thinking of the risks that customers face when changing suppliers. Suppliers that only sell on price are bound to lose.

For practical pricing guides and articles http://valuepg.com/Articles.html ]]> Manufacturing Talk Jerry Bernstein http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9641 Rare Earths http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9631&goto=newpost Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:17:26 GMT Concerning the recent article it's clear that the Chinese government recognizes the strategic and wider economic value of these materials. I'm guessing there is probably some US government funding of the research to produce them here.
Hopefully also some investment from those industries that will come to rely on them.

Will we also recognize that these resources should not be exported for financial gain but used to secure jobs and class leading technology within the US?

The greatest level of independence in all strategic raw materials should be everyone's priority. That will also take a long term view in partnership with the government rather than any kind of free global trade for short term financial gain.

Rog ]]> Reader Talk-Back Rog http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9631 Run for Cover, The Auditor is here!! http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9621&goto=newpost Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:37:24 GMT *Run for Cover, The Auditor is here* Product, Process and System auditing has been used extensively in organizations for many years to track extent of implementation to established standards. It is also utilized to verify whether standards established are in line with global standard frameworks... Run for Cover, The Auditor is here

Product, Process and System auditing has been used extensively in organizations for many years to track extent of implementation to established standards. It is also utilized to verify whether standards established are in line with global standard frameworks for eg., ISO, CMM etc.,.

In specific, compliance audits are often perceived by the workforce to be "policing" activity and most organization members find it a "plague to avoid" as much as possible. There are many reasons for this such as:

* The way audit is positioned in the organization by top/senior management and the auditing functions (say Process/Quality/Operational excellence (or) Accounts (in case of financial audits)
* The repetitive experience of employees over series of audits which primarily focus on finding "deviations and non-conformances" vs. established standards and makes employees feel like culprits.
* Often "dictatorial" way in which audits are conducted. Hey, I am here for an audit, you should leave all your job and listen to me (or) Send an audit schedule weeks ahead of time and land on the D-Day to make the doers life miserable

Often in audit, the focus is on finding "objective evidence" of non-conformance to established standards or requirements. While this in itself is the intended purpose of any audit, the attributing causes / reasons for such non-conformance is generally left to the persons / team which operates the process to investigate and fix via a corrective action report or plan.

Quite often I notice auditors are inadequately trained (if someone has extra time, make him an auditor), unclear themselves on the width and depth of processes to be audited, become "one size fits all" auditors (if I get trained/certified once as an auditor I am now capable of auditing anything and everything in the organization) besides many other shortcomings.

While auditor training is extremely important and ongoing competency upgradation is a must (given that periodic changes in technology, tools and ways of doing business (for eg., outsourcing work to partners etc brings about major changes in the way organizations run businesses), I have frequently noticed the audit can much more effective if one takes into consideration the following elements.

I believe the audit process besides checking for compliance should seriously consider and help address:

How adequately is the standard defined and documented?

(If you look at most standards definitions and documents in the company (whether product/process/service/inspection/testing etc.,), they read like the "Constitution of India" - Boring/uninspiring and unappetizing to even pick up and read (Employees keep talking that "if you want to go to sleep, read our company's Quality / process manual). Making the organization standards and documentation easy and presentable to read can never be under-emphasized. Use of as many pictures, visuals, samples/illustrations, diagrams, photographs etc will induce better interest for employees to read through the standards and also quickly refer to it in times of need and this automatically improves the situation. Besides, doing a "failure mode" assessment of standards when they get defined to identify gaps in standard definitions and in its potential deployment will really help)

How well is the standard communicated?

In implementing standards, usually a few training sessions are held where batch of employees of the company are herded into conference room and are "downloaded" with "knowledge" about the standards. After that they are expected to "strictly" implement and comply with it. In this age and time when public memory is so short and there are hundred of priorities for employees to take care, it is unrealistic to expect employees to well remember the standards and follow it to the "t". The team which is responsible for such communications (for eg. CMM/SEPG/ISO team etc.) should make a detailed communication plan that well and truly ensures knowledge about the standards reach the employees not just in the beginning but everytime when there are changes, or new employees join or people get transferred across teams/groups/locations (or) join back after long leave/sabbatical etc., One should consider organization "standards" like a product being sold to prospects and plan to "market" it well within the company so that customers (employees in this case) will have high "standard (brand) recall". Communication strategies could include use of posters, technology tools (intranet alerts, standard of the day campaigns, e-mail/newsletter campaigns of changes to standards on periodic basis, quiz/contests etc.). Think like a marketing person and get innovative in communicating standards and I am sure compliance levels will be much better.

How well is the standard understood?

This is a very important step in order to achieve high level of standards compliance. Often employees are communicated but do not fully understand the purpose and import of the relevant standards. Activities such as "short and quick refreshers" (instead of long boring full day sessions), group studies (joint study and interpretation of standards - like we used to do in school/college of group studies!!), "Standards hour" where team members spend time addressing gaps in understanding of standards and identifying exceptions which requiring modification of standards, illustrative examples of "what is correct undertanding" and list of what is wrong understanding (based on past audit outcomes / instances and failure mode assessment data), multi-lingual training (if employees / lower level staff are not comfortable understanding things in English, nice quick e-learning capsules, quiz/test/contests, conducting events and entertaining workshops (where standards are demystified and making it easy for people to understand) are initiatives that can go a long way to help employees well understand and comply.

Remember it is essential that time and resources be budgeted along with a well developed strategy to make such things happen. Creating excitement in employees that standards are primarily help them to do a better and productive job (so that they can go home at 5.00 pm and enjoy both professional and personal life!!) is vital to get buy-in and high level of voluntary involvement in implementing standards.

How well is it complied?

This is the last but not the least element of good standard implementation. If the above explained aspects are well undertaken (I call them the "process" of deploying standards in the company), the result i.e, extent of compliance (or) #of non-conformances per standard audited will be much better. Such a transformation will take some months to achieve and will really start improving in the medium to long term for the betterment of the organization.

I am sure a structured approach to developing and deploying standards in the organization will largely take away the fear and anxiety that most employees have on the "AuD-Day" or the running around that companies do 2-3 days before an external audit as well as bring a sense of calmness and confidence to boldly get subjected to audits whether planned or surprise ones, whether internal or external and come out with flying colors.

These are based on my personal experiences both as an Auditor and Auditee to many organizations as internal / external consultant resource and I hope it is beneficial in a small way to our forum members.

Post your experience and comments!!


Sethu V
eXample Consulting Group
www.examplecg.com
(Enabling Excellence!!)
Forum: http://leansigma.groupsite.com ]]> Manufacturing Talk examplecg http://forums.industryweek.com/showthread.php?t=9621