Lean, CIE, RIE, VSA

[Goatherdingsplitter]

QUOTE=Tin basher;335410]My stance also. I abhor change it serves no purpose, improvement however is a step forward and can realistically be viewed as progress. Any fool , in the right position, can commence change, but improvement rarely occurs by chance.

Steps off soap box.[/QUOTE]

Except when a bunch of "new thinking people" re-invent what worked quite well before they and their immediate predecessors came along!! I don't mind that sort of "change"DT_Xtremez_15:[

 

[Rigga]

I embrace change - but not just for changes' sake.

I believe change should be a requirement of improvement, born from a shed-load of evidence pointing towards the need for that improvement (or a new legal requirement, again derived from evidence to prove the need)

That is what QA (in whatever guise) should be about.

Yes, sometimes it can lead to a reduction in manpower, but mainly it leads to a shortening of some old techniques and processes until the next change from an outside influence (manpower, tool, building, legislation, process, material or training changes).

 

[propersplitbrainme]

My stance also. I abhor change it serves no purpose, improvement however is a step forward and can realistically be viewed as progress. Any fool , in the right position, can commence change, but improvement rarely occurs by chance.

The problem is that the RAF upper management has an expectation of lower management to prove their mettle by effecting change. As you say, change is simply a different way of doing the same thing, improvement is somewhat harder to achieve.

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Obviously there's more than an element of truth, in my post, however it has been expanded extremely rapidly to all areas of the RAF, without sufficient comprehension of the methodology. A lot of people claim to understand how it works, and while they may have some degree of understanding, there are activities being undertaken under the banner of Lean that have very little to do with it at all.
A further key problem is that the funding to use consultants was stopped, and much of the information and learning that came from them is now being diluted, as key individuals move on. There is also no career path for those trained in lean, in fact it may negatively impact them at a promotion board as these individuals are away from trade.
As to what the current scenario today is - I don't know, I've been out for a little while now. Suffice to say I gather from posts on here, the cuts in engineers on Tonka sqns are still causing pain, something that was never a result of the lean programme, more imposed from on high and then use lean to try and make it fit. No surprise guys can't get away to do sport in work time (but that's a different thread).

 

[I look like Bruce Willis]

I'm sure you remember Rigga back in your time in the reputation of anyone connected with QA as a Quality Nazi. Fast forward to 3 tranches of redundancies and lean being introduced purely focused on cutting cost. Hey presto - lean is responsible for job cuts!!
Cut to a bay where Sgt Hairy-arsed Ol'fart has just got promoted to chief. Fortunately he knows exactly how this bay should run, he was in there as a Cpl. Hold on here comes some jumped up fecker from the Lean team (a stacker, no less) who proceeds to tell him how to run his bay the "lean" way. The cnut!!! CT Ol'fart's blood pressure boils over and he has four months off sick.
In the interim Fg Off Tristan Thruster has a jolly good idea how to improve his little empire (based on his 2.2 degree from Grimsby Poly, sorry University of the East Riding, and of course his RAF EngO course). Now of course seasoned NCOs have seen off more than one "good idea" from a baby officer, but he knows just how to get round this, (well it keeps being mentioned in the mess), he's gonna stick a flag of Lean on it and sail it under that. Its like buzzword bingo, but in Japanese at the 'event' outbrief. Several NCOs do something they swore they'd never do, and apply for instructor posts.
Meanwhile it is decided that in the interests of being 'lean' it is wasteful to have two groups of people on station who are universally despised, and hence QCIT emerges like a phoenix from the flames of cost cutting, to merge lean and quality teams, fooling absolutely no one. Only now the Quality Nazis are in tears, because just once, for a fleeting moment, they were not the stickiest dogsh!t on the shoe of engineers. Worse is to come as their workload is trebled as they seek new unpopularity in areas never before explored, such as PSF and the newly named Base Support Wing, and for some reason a JPA error causes a number of the team to receive SAC wages for several months.
Of course whilst this is causing much turmoil in RAF circles, the lean initiative is an overwhelming success in the new partnering arrangements with several defence firms whose stated aim is to make a profit out of the public purse. Many senior officers have to allocate valuable time to attending self-congratulatory photograph sessions with the management of these companies, before accompanying them to the mess to be dined in a fashion befitting such important profiteers. Unfortunately the photo and all afternoon drinking sessions dry up with the news that not a single aircraft will ever be delivered on time for its crucial deployment to the gulf, and the managers launch an all out strike to renegotiate the contracts as the lack of bonuses is the cause of concern in many a golf club. Meanwhile the lean team, or QCIT, suffer a change of fortune, and are now banned from all company premises that yesterday used to belong to the RAF, as it is quite clearly their fault.
Fortunately this debacle has been hushed up and a fresh squadron arrives in a foreign land, where their dashing leader sets about making new friends by issuing pieces of card (confusing also known as QCITS) to all other sections, by way of criticising their work, in an attempt to improve the shoddy service offered to the hard working engineers of this det, by the sun worshipping cling-ons in their scant working day. Said Sqn departs and all other Sqns are tarnished by association, even by cling ons who weren't even in theatre at the time.
In the meantime anyone who really knows anything about lean, is either posted after 2yrs if they are of the cravat wearing variety, or overlooked for promotion, and decide to either leave to seek fortune in civvy street, or swiftly ask for a posting back to trade, and never mention to anyone that they ever had anything to do with lean.

And that is the history of lean in the air force, or did I dream it all?

You clearly have no understanding of what Lean has done for the RAF. Your attitude amounts to insurbordination, you are to PM me your service number and location so that I can charge you.

 

[3wheeledtechie]

We know each other don't we? Yet you are too stupid to read my post or profile where it states I am no longer serving in the RAF. Cnut.

 

[Rigga]

I remember in hindsight when I first saw 'Quality' practices in the RAF (early 70s) and everyone was told to keep books (Vol's 1 & 3) open on AOC days because someone would likely check what we were doing! In the 80's there was a separate day for QA inspections - but still only one a year!

When I later got deeply involved in it I could see the point (just) but I rationalised that it was really just formalising what those old WO-men did in their chats on the phone when they got some cr@p delivered from the bays. "Write it down laddie, and try to make some history of what goes on!"

I remember argueing strongly that being over-audited by everyone-and-his-dog from Station, Wing, Group and Command was a bad thing (and still should be)

Now that QA has developed (though it's not everyone's idea of development) it's got to the direct feedback closed-loop system where 'Quality' can have a more immediate effect on what goes on almost on a day-to-day basis.

If set-up and used properly, any 'Quality' system can be a really useful tool for the improvement of all aircraft and engineers' benefits.

Over the past 13 years (lucky for me!) I have seen, pushed and actioned the positive development of maintenance systems for military and civlian aircraft maintenance through the use of ISO 9000 type quality systems - EASA Part 145 - Part 3 and Part M subpart G being some of them. And I've had quite some success too!

In the commercial world there can be no politicising of the quality system methodology - it can't be used for anything other than for the continuous improvement of maintenance techniques - regardless of commercial pressures.

It seems to me that, in the current military world of aviation maintenance, your quality methods have been hijacked by "trendies", keen on developing their qualifications in the Mob, that are are more open to some 'corruption' of quality in the way of meeting commercial quantative targets given by the top brass - and self-promotion by 'short-sighted' two-year tourists can't help!

This diatribe may not help your dilemma's - but it puts it into some form of perspective for me!

 

[I look like Bruce Willis]

There is clearly a misunderstand amongst the member of this forum as to how the application of QA, CI and Lean works. To be successful in these areas you need a thick skin and have the courage of your convictions, safe in the knowledge that you are enforcing orders. I set myself, and maintain the highest possible standards, in the true tradition of the Royal Air Force. It is my and any other SNCO's duty to enforce these standards on others. Anyone who falls short must be and is charged, there can be no second chance. Unfortunately not many people share my views and seem to take personal offence; this often results with me getting punched in the face.



Her are some examples which I have previously posted on the forum of examples of real live QA in action in difficult situations.

Gulf War One
RAF Marham, I was employed in the QA section, I enjoyed this posting, going around all the section on camp and trying to raise their standards to mine, In my time at Marham I raised the largest number of NCRs ever raised at an operational airbase, I was proud to be doing my bit for the application of airpower.
Gulf War one came along and I was supposed to deploy with 27 Sqn to Saudi but unfortunately due to a stress attack I was downgraded and not able to go, still I was able to do my bit for the War by impounding all their tools kits before they deployed as they were not etched correctly iaw AP100B-01; thereby prevent a serious QA incident in an operational theatre. not only did they almost let their Sqn down but also the whole of the Coalition Forces.


Gulf War Two
RAF Odiham When 18 Sqn were preparing to deploy from Odiham to Marchwood port to set sail for the Gulf in 2003. I was carrying out a check for correctly etched tools and out of calibration test equipment on all the loaded vehicles lined up in packets ready to form a convoy. I impounded several fridges and air conditioning units that had not had GEF registration carried out IAW Eng wing Orders and ten solar showers that did not have risk assessment carried out on them IAW Odiham SHEF policy. To my horror I also found six crates of beer, realising that this was totally against regulations I removed them and disposed of them IAW environmental policy. My swift actions prevented troops in a combat zone having an illegal cold beer, in front of an air conditioning unit not registed with GEF, followed by a shower which had not had a risk assessment carried out. How were my actions in preventing yet another combat QA incident awarded you might ask? Surprisingly, not as you may think by an AOC commendation, but by a punch in the face from OC 18 Sqn.

Aircrew involvement with QA

I was a GE for a short while ( well one flight after my check flight that is) I was in hot dusty and dangerous place just about to leave when on my pre flight checks I noticed that the on board publications were one day out of date, knowing that the Co-pilot would ignore this and just press on, I snipped some wires to give me time to raise a QA NCR, imagine my surprise when the Captain instead of supporting my actions of ensuring the aircraft did not leave thereby causing a serious airborne QA infringement, he simply punched me in the face.

QA in an office environment


Recently, there was a small bin fire, in the office, and being the keen eyed and alert individual that I am, I quickly spotted it. I was about to put my CCS training into practice, and extinguish the fire, when I noticed that the extinguisher was 3 days out of date, obviously this lapse in the SHEF rep recording system, could not go unreported, as it has a direct affect on air power.

I refused to use the extinguisher, or to let anyone else use it, and unfortunately, the small fire became a blazing inferno, causing massive amounts of damage. Imagine my surprise when I reported the SHEF rep for his poor auditing system, instead of thanking me for highlighting this failure, he punched me in the face. When I explained to the WO fireman, that his recording and monitoring of HHFE was below the required standard, and as a direct result affecting air power, he too instead of thanking me , punched me in the face. However I know I acted correctly because using an out of date extinguisher would have totally undermined the whole ethos of the RAF Safety, Health, Environment and Fire policy (SHEF). It would also be classed as an offence under The Health and Safety at Work act (1974) and The Management of Health and Safety Act (1999) I tried to explain this to the husband of the woman who died (forever) in the above fire but he simply punched me in the face. I tried to explain that there will be some casualties as we move to a perfect QA world, but try to think of them as martyrs in the quest to ensure ALL regulations are adhered to ALL the time. At first from the look in his eye, I thought he had seen sense, but no, he simply punched me in the face again.

QA in the Gym


There was an incident in the gym where one chap had spilled industrial cleaner fluid in his eye. He was about to use the eye wash bottle, when I noticed that the seal was partially torn. I immediately impounded the bottle for evidence, and reported the FS PTI for not ensuring that it was maintained in a serviceable manner and a documented audit trail for checking this. I see the loss of sight in one eye a small price to pay, when highlighting a safety issue of this magnitude. I was mortified when later that night in the mess, the FS instead of thanking me for my prompt actions, and bringing his failure to light; he punched


LEAN and CI
LEAN is a concept to be embraced and nurtured, and failing that made to work at any cost. Only people of my inteligence like myself fully understand it Any one who is against the notion of LEAN and CI is simply resistant to change and must be forced to see things from my point of view.

 

[3wheeledtechie]

Hi Rigga, I'm guessing from your post you've been out a while. The RAF's quality system, and I'm comparing it here to standard commercial companies, not civvy aircraft engineering, is generally well regarded and pretty robust. As I recall once a quality failure is exposed by audit, a Quality Occurrence Report is raised, and the section it is raised against have 2 weeks to take corrective action, which must then be documented, and assessed as satisfactory by an SO1 level EngO. If a subsequent audit discovers a similar or the same quality failure, especially if it was minor and flagged as an advisory rather than QOR raised, this time a QOR will definitely be raised, mandating the requirement on the section to undertake action.
The change in the response to a QOR post lean is that quality failures, may where appropriate, be investigated and addressed by lean tools, especially where root casual analysis is required. This aims to alleviate sticking plaster solutions which only result in containment. The other difference is that post lean improvement (as defined as quality management system activities) are no longer continual, i.e. based on the frequency of audit, but continuous, as in there is a mechanism for anyone to flag a quality issue at any time. However it should be remembered that although lean and quality work well together in this way, and this element can be seen as kaizen or practical problem solving, lean is primarily focused on removing waste and business objectives, and therefore lean improvement events (RIEs etc) should stem from value stream analysis.
In conclusion it is not the quality system that has been hijacked (it is too mature for that) and the structure is already enshrined for Quality System Co-ordinators to report directly to Quality System Owners (usually SO1 or Harry Staish), but the chosen methodology for continuous improvement that is being subverted, mainly by middle management, to get what they want by sticking a lean flag on it, rather than what they need, or what the true improvement priorities are, driven by value stream mapping.

And Bruce, there is no your or my point of view, only 5 principles which are non-negotiable.

 

[chiefy]

Quite topical that this thread has been reincarnated I'm about to embark on my own LEAN adventure later this year. Having been exposed to some absolutely shocking cost saving exercises masquerading as LEAN efficiency during my time in the service at Cottesmore and Wittering I'm a bit sceptical.

My industry has decided it would like to embrace LEAN as a way of improving customer service, I have therefore been asked to develop some training. One phonecall to a very expensive consultant left me choking, not with bile or anger but laughter. My phonecall ended abruptly with me putting the handset down - the guy wouldn't shut up and he talked utter nonsense, at one point I felt like I was in a scene from the karate kid! The one question I asked him, which he talked around in some far eastern bollox was "what does the process do to benefit the customer and how do you measure that?" Put simply it put him on the backfoot, he didn't have a constructive take on the point, the one thing he said which started my spidy senses tingling was "sometimes it can be tricky to actually identify the customer we prefer to reflect on the process and how simple improvements can make a big difference"

Now this guy spent some time telling me that he had been heavily involved in the MoD's embracement of LEAN and how he had worked with RAF and was head hunted into his current role (I get the idea he wasn't actually in the RAF but possibly a matelot or pongo although he could have just been a Civil Servant). When I put down the phone I admit to feeling a little ignorant and perhaps a little inferior to this chap who confidently talked in bollox without any attempt to communicate what he was saying - either he assumed this stuff was common sense and I would know it, or he was showing off and attempting to bull**** me with lingo. I am a Project Manager, very familiar with all the latest corporate/ business speak (some of which is utter nonsense but most of which is just a way of communicating idea's effectively and simply amongst people who understand the concepts - despite what you read in the papers) But some of the stuff coming out of this guy was utter drivel. Constantly referring to Ishikawa diagrams; I assume to impress, when I told him I'm familiar with fishbone diagrams and use them often he proceeded to tell me that Ishikawa diagrams were similar but more efficient - I knew at this point that everything coming out of his mouth was drivel and that's when the phone went down.

Anyway, I note that this month IET mag has a 2 page article about LEAN, very interesting. The key idea that runs through the article is that many of the "improvements" associated with the adoption of LEAN are false, it has been mis-applied all too often. LEAN is about developing people not processes and targeting changes to ensure better customer satisfaction not cost or time savings per se (obviously one advantage of cost saving is a cheaper product which cheers customers up)

Well after reading the article I feel vindicated, the "LEAN Consultant" I spoke to on the phone tried to bull**** me and had no real concept of what he was touting and to think he was by his own admission "heavily" involved in RAF LEAN transformation. I now have a far better contact and possibly a man who is going to help me develop this training, interestingly a man who talks in English referring only to Toyota's Japanese corporate speak occasionally by way of explaining how the processes came about, we have had a chuckle at the expense of the other guy. LEAN is a concept where a little knowledge can be dangerous and there are plenty of amateurs masquerading as experts.

 

[Fu Fu Valve]

The consultants like to baffle people with bullsh1t. I've been involved in CI and i refuse to talk Japanese or try to make it look like i know everything. LEAN/CI is a tool kit you use to reach a conclusion (hopefully the correct one) but all the decisions should made by the team not the CI Monkey at the front, it is their train set thats being played with.
As with most things in the military it was brought in for the right reasons but at the wrong time so everyone stills see's job cuts and massive savings on the horizon when CI is mentioned. Alot of it is also down to what the management want to achieve and how they want to use it. Toyota have never sacked anyone due to LEAN they get re-trained or given a new job but it is an understanding within the company, LEAN is an efficiency tool not an excuse to cut manpower.

:0

 

[Rigga]

This is still a good debate...

I have been involved in aircraft and airline quality assurance and airworthiness for about 13 years now - and I have to say that I left ISO 9001 methodology behind when I left the RAF!

I have neven been involved with LEAN, 6-sigma, RIE, CIE, CI, BBC or ITV and I have stuck to good old BCAR/JAA/EASA stuff with no problems whatsoever.

I am a qualified ISO 9001 Lead Auditor and, although I acknowledge the format and techniques, I have largely ignored the routines in favour of the logic of EASA systems. I have been quite successful in my diligence to get things changed for the better - for the right reasons!

The EASA quality system has a few details better than ISO or even RAF systems in that it has only three levels of Findings:

1 (Stop everything and fix it now)
2 (fix within 3 months) or
Observation (Advice/we'd like to see improvement next time)​

I believe the RAF now has up to six levels! Why? What do 'they' hope to prove?

 

[3wheeledtechie]

So this may be a necro post, but I thought it was about time to find out what the current status of lean/CI is in the air force, seeing as its some time since I left; and perhaps to write the next chapter in the saga.

I'm sure you remember Rigga back in your time in the reputation of anyone connected with QA as a Quality Nazi. Fast forward to 3 tranches of redundancies and lean being introduced purely focused on cutting cost. Hey presto - lean is responsible for job cuts!!
Cut to a bay where Sgt Hairy-arsed Ol'fart has just got promoted to chief. Fortunately he knows exactly how this bay should run, he was in there as a Cpl. Hold on here comes some jumped up fecker from the Lean team (a stacker, no less) who proceeds to tell him how to run his bay the "lean" way. The cnut!!! CT Ol'fart's blood pressure boils over and he has four months off sick.
In the interim Fg Off Tristan Thruster has a jolly good idea how to improve his little empire (based on his 2.2 degree from Grimsby Poly, sorry University of the East Riding, and of course his RAF EngO course). Now of course seasoned NCOs have seen off more than one "good idea" from a baby officer, but he knows just how to get round this, (well it keeps being mentioned in the mess), he's gonna stick a flag of Lean on it and sail it under that. Its like buzzword bingo, but in Japanese at the 'event' outbrief. Several NCOs do something they swore they'd never do, and apply for instructor posts.
Meanwhile it is decided that in the interests of being 'lean' it is wasteful to have two groups of people on station who are universally despised, and hence QCIT emerges like a phoenix from the flames of cost cutting, to merge lean and quality teams, fooling absolutely no one. Only now the Quality Nazis are in tears, because just once, for a fleeting moment, they were not the stickiest dogsh!t on the shoe of engineers. Worse is to come as their workload is trebled as they seek new unpopularity in areas never before explored, such as PSF and the newly named Base Support Wing, and for some reason a JPA error causes a number of the team to receive SAC wages for several months.
Of course whilst this is causing much turmoil in RAF circles, the lean initiative is an overwhelming success in the new partnering arrangements with several defence firms whose stated aim is to make a profit out of the public purse. Many senior officers have to allocate valuable time to attending self-congratulatory photograph sessions with the management of these companies, before accompanying them to the mess to be dined in a fashion befitting such important profiteers. Unfortunately the photo and all afternoon drinking sessions dry up with the news that not a single aircraft will ever be delivered on time for its crucial deployment to the gulf, and the managers launch an all out strike to renegotiate the contracts as the lack of bonuses is the cause of concern in many a golf club. Meanwhile the lean team, or QCIT, suffer a change of fortune, and are now banned from all company premises that yesterday used to belong to the RAF, as it is quite clearly their fault.
Fortunately this debacle has been hushed up and a fresh squadron arrives in a foreign land, where their dashing leader sets about making new friends by issuing pieces of card (confusing also known as QCITS) to all other sections, by way of criticising their work, in an attempt to improve the shoddy service offered to the hard working engineers of this det, by the sun worshipping cling-ons in their scant working day. Said Sqn departs and all other Sqns are tarnished by association, even by cling ons who weren't even in theatre at the time.
In the meantime anyone who really knows anything about lean, is either posted after 2yrs if they are of the cravat wearing variety, or overlooked for promotion, and decide to either leave to seek fortune in civvy street, or swiftly ask for a posting back to trade, and never mention to anyone that they ever had anything to do with lean.

And that is the history of lean in the air force, or did I dream it all?

Gp Capt Raftache is sat in his office, the Station Commander's office at RAF Marcharsmouth, contemplating the forthcoming AOC's visit. It was only a few short months ago he was flying a desk at the MoD, fortunately wholly concentrating on aircrew matters, and prior to that he had spent his whole fairly traditional career on flying duties, racking up 10,000hrs on two types. Nonetheless he kept hearing snippets about CI and QCITs (is that what they call lean these days?) in the mess, about how "CI had gone corporate" or some such gibberish, and apparently how a RAF wide transformation team had been set up. In fact rather than going away, (many had predicted its early demise after the consultants had disappeared) it appeared to have survived, and there was even a recently created one star post responsible for CI and agility. He guessed this was part of the strategy to keep as many star posts as possible despite the savaging expected in the forthcoming Defence Review.
Still this had all largely passed him by in his time at MoD, he had had more important things to do. Now however it was rapidly becoming his problem. Word was spreading that ministers had believed the RAFs own publicity that it was the most forward thinking service in terms of take up of lean (mainly from the last CAS, who had by now of course retired on a pretty pension, and was awaiting to be annointed in ermine by the new coalition government, as he was known to be no friend of NuLiarbour), and hence the ministerial view was that the RAF had had expensive training from the consultants, and therefore lean/CI was now "operationally fit", and should be used to find new savings opportunities. Bringing out some of the mess's best wines and a superb bottle of port was unlikely to be enough to satisfy this AOC, he was one of the new breed, and his attention was now highly tuned to any sniff of a savings opportunity for his lords and masters in Whitehall. In fact one of his assistants had called the previous week, specifically to confirm that sufficient time was allocated to visiting the QCIT section, which apparently exists on every camp these days (something the Gp Capt had never even heard of last time he had a job on an operational unit).
No doubt the AOC would be accompanied by a bunch of flunkeys, and probably someone from this goddamn RAF transformation team, no doubt armed with a copy of the last unit "CI audit". No doubt he should get hold of a copy of the blasted thing, just in case the AOC had read it. Secretly he shared the view of many of his Wing Commanders that if you wanted a immediate saving, get rid of the QCIT team and no one would notice any drop in operational performance, however he was too old and canny to fall into that trap and say it.
His predecessor, Harry, an old mate from Bucc days, had played a bit of a blinder - he'd found a thrusting young Sqn Ldr to head up the team, and give him free reign to run around the station improving things / or hang himself, whichever came first really. Now when the Gp Capt had arrived, he done the usual tour of the sections and met the QCIT. His assessment was that they were an odd bunch, a couple of SNECs who'd been there longer than was prudent, and had been trained by the consultants, and a few misfits and the type of arse kissers and career climbers you always meet on sections doing non-core activities - the type of people who have a high profile with their top management, normally by having an armful of secondary duties, and who are universally despised by their colleagues who are busy servicing kites. He had a great deal of sympathy with their colleagues, as despite being an outstanding pilot, he himself had been overlooked several times. It seemed to him the couple of SNECs were the real experts, directing the team and successfully preventing their boss from stepping on any landmines. Only problem was the whisper was these SNECs were leaving, either time ex or waiting on the inevitable redundancies - some had even lined themselves up consulting jobs.
Still what to do? He knew that the team current output of tidying sections (didn't sections used to do that for themselves before? wasn't that managed by WOs?) was not going to cut it in the hunt for savings that would be required as part of SDSR, and despite the fact he could undoubtedly make the young Sqn Ldr run round camp twice as fast with his head on fire, he needed a man with experience at the helm. None of the current crop of Wg Cdrs would be easily persuaded to take the poisoned chalice, perhaps he could find someone at Command who job was under sufficient threat to make them take any job at an operational unit. Hmmm



Okay guys, you'll have to tell me if this is close to reality or not DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[Rigga]

Okay...I'll say it.

I assume, from the long delay between 3WT's very long looking monologue and the lack of replies, that:
1. no-one wanted to read through another long monologue.
2. no-one that read it understood it.
3. no-one could agree with it.
4. no-one could argue with it.
5. no-one could give a......monkeys?

 

[John Lloyd]

Rigga, I remember being told that in order to gain and hold the attention of an audience the aim was to be.
Clear
Concise
Controlled
and pertinent
With ideally no more than 5 bullet points

I read the post and confirm your bullet point No5.

 

[Tin basher]

Okay...I'll say it. I assume, from the long delay between 3WT's very long looking monologue and the lack of replies, that:
1. no-one wanted to read through another long monologue.
2. no-one that read it understood it.
3. no-one could agree with it.
4. no-one could argue with it.
5. no-one could give a......monkeys?

Option 4 is closest but mainly its the fact that no one in an ivory tower takes any notice of shop floor comments and ploughs on with this years latest new best * thing (* Insert ISO 9000, Lean, 6S, CI or buzz word of choice). The directive is that the system is to be used to save money or slim down the organisation ideally it is to do both. Nay sayers as regarded as pagans at best or practicing heratics who are sooo far off todays buzz word blue toothed message.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

Nay sayers as regarded as pagans at best or practicing heratics who are sooo far off todays buzz word blue toothed message.

See, there you go again TB, being a bl00dy dinosaur...

You'll never soar with eagles while you.... blah....
DT_Xtremez_42:
(Takes tongue back out of cheek again)
DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[UlsterExile]

What's this thread about again?

 

[Tin basher]

The consultants like to baffle people with bullsh1t.

Part of their charm

See, there you go again TB, being a bl00dy dinosaur...

It's not the improvements it's the basic methodology behind it that really and truly grinds my gears. A good SNCO/manager would always be looking to do things better and make his troops life easier, he would look at making the work flow in a more sensible way it's been like that since year dot. Not now the system has created a monster that must be fed. People are plucked from the working environment and then formed into an ever growing team CIT, 6S, LEAN etc from within this team they seek to spread the latest gospel around the various workplaces they visit. So we have moved from a situation were a better workplace is created by a decent SNCO/manager who knows the job inside out and can apply some common sense and good practice to todays ludicrous position. Large numbers of people have abandoned their denims for desk jobs, from the safety of which, they can now advise people who actually do the job how to do it better without every having to put their important clipboards down. These teams grow unchecked costing god knows how much both in absorbed now non productive man power and simple cold hard cash. So we arrive at a point were team of maybe 12 experts who don't work in a section can dictate to the people who actually do, how they can work better. This level of advise can obviously only be given after a suitable amount of courses have been attended by all the team, for an even more complex level of meaningless drivel disguised as feedback just hire in some very expensive civvy consultants.

 

[MrMasher]

. A good SNCO/manager would always be looking to do things better and make his troops life easier, he would look at making the work flow in a more sensible way it's been like that since year dot. .

What grips my sh1t is when you try to improve or suggest an improvement to IPT. Ignorant tawts!!

I suggested an improvement to be told "we cant do that, you'll have to ask your boss to ask our boss, who will then ask his boss"

So I did. My boss ignored it.
A few months later the current system continued to deliver a sh1t product.

Why don't you MEMS it someone asked. Righto, MEMS went in.

About 4 months later the sh1t system was once again highlighted and a Wg Cdr requested a task audit.

The task auditors gave me a visit because they saw my MEMS and we discussed at length the current system, the problems, how to get around them and how we could change the system and stay within the regs.
Hmmm they say, good idea Masher. Wg Cdr agreed, make it so.

Still waiting, 6 months later. Apparently my suggestion is "just about" to go "live" (how many months is "just about"??).

So currently from my initial suggestion to now we have been waiting 13 months.Hardly LEAN is it? Hardly listening to the troops when suggestions are made.

This solution is dead simple and cuts about 4 steps out of convoluted chain making it a 2 step "process". It also cuts out loads of errors we keep getting.

Now I'm all for improving things, but we keep getting let down by those further up the chain.