The Death of Reliability: Is it Too Late to Resurrect the Last, True Competitive Advantage?. Nathan C. Wright
Читать онлайн книгу.
this topic, this book is not the ravings of an engineer or consultant who is espousing theory and other information based on no hands-on, real-world experience. I have read many of these volumes and found no hands-on facts, but a lot of supposition about the what and the why but nothing on the how. Please do not take my statements here and in this book about the lack of qualifications by the majority of maintenance and reliability leaders as condemnation of the individuals. It is not a condemnation of the individuals but of the wave of poor decision making by senior leaders worldwide to shortcut the hard work required to develop a true reliability leader.
Another big driver of this issue is the lack of leadership at all levels of organizations that understands the competitive advantage of reliability or reliability itself. Instead, they pat themselves on the back for attempting to shortcut what it takes to achieve reliability. They “fudge” the numbers to make it appear that they are progressing in the right direction, but what they cannot do is cover up the unreliability that causes them to lose ground and increase costs. My father always told me “figures never lie, but liars can figure” and that is the “new” leadership style for those posing as reliability leaders today. Just thirty years ago, an organization invested time and money in their employees to develop craftspeople. It is the loss of these efforts that is driving the decline of craftspeople. The misguided shortcuts being employed by organizations to attempt to circumvent hard work and effort are eroding craft skills and many other one-time strengths of the United States. The belief that abbreviated training can replace apprenticeships and produce skilled craftspeople is completely wrong. This belief is driven by the loss of leadership in the senior positions in organizations. Specifically, the loss of real reliability professionals in key senior positions is decimating the skilled craftspeople ranks. Before you blame the kids of today for this loss, you need to look at the leaders of today: parents, teachers, government, plant managers, C-suite officers, and board members.
WHERE WE WERE
On December 7, 1941, we suffered a surprise attack on our Navy in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. This crippled our naval forces, and it was the industrial might of the U.S. that bailed us out of what could have been our defeat. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral and Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Imperial Navy, upon being told of the success of their attack on Pearl Harbor, stated, “I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.” His statement was the result of his experience of traveling in the U.S. and seeing the industrial might we possessed. This industrial might was rooted in the strength of our skilled tradespeople. He knew we could easily shift from making cars to tanks and planes. We could shift from making tractors, plows, and manufacturing equipment to weapons that would be superior to the Axis forces. With the current state of skilled trades in our nation today, we would not be as successful and I would say we might not even prevail if today’s attacks were focused on military targets, not helpless civilians. The purpose of this publication is to bring attention to the crisis facing skilled trades and craftspeople. It identifies the root cause of the impending death of reliability if we do nothing. Edmund Burke said that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” It is my hope that I can reach enough people to incite thought and debate about this infection and the immediate need to begin CPR. Ultimately, with a lot of hard work and effort (rehabilitation), we can return the reliability industry back to good health, with good people doing something. The answer to the “what’s in it for us” question is a competitive advantage.
When I say, “I” it is my hope that you realize that what I am conveying is what I have experienced. It is not meant to preach or tell you my approach is better. When I use “we,” it is my intention to let you know that I am with you in spirit and it is meant to convey a shared experience.
After spending 35 years in the workforce, I know that the goal of all organizations is the pursuit of a competitive advantage. Webster’s Dictionary defines a competitive advantage as “superiority gained by an organization when it can provide the same value as its competitors but at a lower price, or can charge higher prices by providing greater value through differentiation.” Competitive advantage results from matching core competencies to the opportunities. The irony of this pursuit is that organizations are seeking to achieve this by working towards “best practices.” There is no greater illustration of a herd mindset than that of best practices. I have always held that a so-called best practice ends the minute it is labeled as such. Best practices defend the status quo and restrict innovation by ensuring people/processes follow the same tactics. You cannot distinguish yourself by embracing sameness. The idea of best practices is basically the unification to the norm at your own peril. Smart leaders innovate past best practices and are always in search of next practices. If your decision to do something is driven by others doing it the same way, you are doing little more than yielding advantage and opportunity to those opponents more creative than you. Don’t copy—create. If your organization is looking for the last remaining competitive advantage, I challenge you to read this introduction, and I know it will motivate you to finish the book.
THE BEGINNING
In the quest for a competitive advantage, the world has undergone many transitional efforts. One of these endeavors is the search for process improvement. There have been occurrences of process reasoning in manufacturing that date back to 1100 A.D. and the “Venice Arsenal.” Henry Ford was the first person to incorporate the model production process. In 1913, he combined interchangeable parts with an assembly line and standard work to create what he called flow production. Ford’s problem was his inability to provide variety. He is known to have said that “you can get the Model T in any color you want if it is black.” Here is where Kiichrio Toyoda and Toyota discovered that they could provide variety and maintain continuity of their process flow while revisiting Ford’s original approach, resulting in the Toyota Production System. This system changed the focus from the individual machines to the entire process and made it possible to obtain high variety, low costs, and rapid throughput to respond to customers desires. This system has been labeled a shining example of lean manufacturing. The basic rules of lean are to: identify the value desired by the customer, identify the value stream and eliminate waste, make the products flow through value-added steps, introduce a pull between all steps, and manage towards perfection. This system made Toyota an example of lean to the world. Its success in the implementation and use of lean led to Toyota’s global dominance and stands as validation of the lean concept. The success of lean over the past several decades has created a huge demand for knowledge about lean thinking. There are thousands of papers, books, and media articles investigating the subject. As lean thinking spreads to every country, leaders rush to adapt the tools and principles beyond manufacturing. Lean consciousness is beginning to take root in all sectors, but the belief that anyone can implement any system successfully simply by attending a seminar or taking a few classes, or by having a college degree has prevented the organizations from achieving true greatness. Any true achievement and competitive advantage can only be gained by hard work and leadership.
LEAN VS. RELIABILITY
Lean manufacturing has it place in process improvements. My concern is the erroneous belief that lean can improve reliability. What started as a process-focused initiative has become a broad reaching fix-all that fails in its mission. The use of lean tools in reliability efforts has resulted in attempts by senior leaders to short cut the hard work required to achieve true reliability. Getting a group of people together to figure things out is necessary because few organizations have qualified people leading their efforts, so there is a need to have a meeting or several to group-think every problem. Lean is another example of herd mentality or group thinking. A qualified reliability professional leading your team will know what the root cause of the problem is because of their knowledge and experience. Three things cause unreliability (improper lubrication, contamination, and improper installation,) and I do not need a cross functional team to identify them. Lean, like all other consultant driven initiatives, is a fancy sounding program that over