During initial plant visits all too often a dusty container labeled ‘Suggestions Box’ is spotted in some dark corner of the shop floor. When asked about this item, managers often cough up long-winded explanations of a suggestion program that was in place, but eventually did not live up to its expectations. In most all cases, blame for the failure is placed on the employees who after some time stopped submitting suggestions. While this may be true, basic root cause analysis (asking “why” until the root cause of a problem is found) reveals a much different picture. Although these specific root cause may vary slightly from company to company, in the typical case usually go as follows:
Why (#1): Why did the employee suggestion program fail?
Reason (#1): After initial enthusiasm, employees stopped offering suggestions.
Why (#2): Why did employees stop offering suggestions?
Reason (#2): They did not get any feedback from either their supervisor or a member of management, so they stopped wasting their time with the forms.
Why (#3): Why wasn’t individual feedback given with each suggestion?
Reason (#3): Managers were inundated with ideas and could not keep up. Plus, other fires had to be put out and the suggestion box was not checked first for 3 weeks, then 6 and then 12.
Why (#4): Why did the employee suggestion program fail?
Reason (#4): At best, management did not anticipate how much work it would take. At worst, the management team was not willing to put in the necessary effort.
Although the reason for the failure may vary from the one offered above, we would be hard-pressed to cite an example where the root-cause of the failure did not lie somewhere within the management ranks. To be fair, implementers have the very best intentions when rolling out suggestion systems or for that matter any continuous improvement program. Their motives are genuine. That is, they want to receive input from employees who have many individual contributions to make regarding waste reduction and the elimination of non-value added activities from the shop floor.
Go back to the TPS Basics
So what to do? What can be done to improve this bleak outcome of suggestion systems? After all, at some companies they operate very well. In fact at Toyota Material Handling USA, Inc., for example, the goal is 3 suggestions per associate per month.* Furthermore, the goal is to have all suggestions implemented within 20 days. At 1,200 – 1,500 actual plant-wide suggestions per month*, one can imagine that human intelligence clearly has an impact on quality, cost, delivery, safety and morale.
In our search for a solution, we turn towards TPS, which offers a number of production philosophies that make sense to the kaizen minded professional. First, we must remember that one way we achieve our objectives is to empower employees to make decisions themselves. If an improvement idea can be implemented immediately on the shop floor, why bother submitting a written suggestion all the way up the chain of command in the first place? What value is there in a salaried person reviewing an idea that can be implemented on the spot? Instead, why not give a response immediately. Encouraging team members to give immediate input on how they perform their jobs will begin to change the company culture towards one in which change can happen quickly and seemingly effortlessly.
TPS philosophy also reminds that when completing larger, more formalized kaizen workshops, we must follow the 3 rules of kaizen. That is, when making a continuous improvement change, we can not 1) add space to the process, 2) add people as a result of the improvement or 3) spend large sums of money to achieve the future state. Why not ask team members to follow these guidelines when developing improvement ideas of their own? Although, each person would have to think a little harder before putting their thoughts in writing, the quality of ideas may improve. This “rule” is particularly useful in a culture where employees may submit off-the wall or unrealistic comments.
A third guide that may be helpful, particularly for the company embarking on their continuous improvement journey, is to request that employee generated ideas impact the work area of the person submitting the suggestion. This constraint achieves two benefits. First, employees will not spend their time pointing out improvements in other areas or departments (as it is often easier for us to spot our neighbors weaknesses before our own), but instead will challenge the individual to begin an exercise of self-reflection. This will be challenging for many, but also equally rewarding as the program sustains success.
By imposing these three rules on a suggestion system, the following benefits will result:
1. The number of suggestions will certainly drop (since so many will be implemented on the spot, supervisors and managers will never hear of them),
2. Their ease of implementation will increase
3. The quality of each in terms of waste elimination and lead-time reduction, will improve.
Management’s Responsibility
Although the aforementioned parameters will be set by management, so far we have only focused on changes required of employees. Now it is time to focus on management. In addition to setting rules and guidelines area managers and supervisors have a significant responsibility to play with regards to the ideas received. Before implementation, the plant manager and his or her staff must be committed to several items.
First, why not push decision making down to the lowest levels? That is, why not give supervisors and leads a significant amount of discretion in implementing specific changes. This empowerment not only gets results faster, but it can be a significant motivating factor for some individuals. Also, it allows leaders to emerge from the associate ranks.
Second, for those responses that management does receive, an effort must be made to review each one promptly (5 days or less) and to provide the employee with appropriate feedback. Even ideas that will not be implemented need to be answered. If the review team decides not to move forward with a suggestion, it is best that a manager personally visit the employee on the shop floor to explain why the idea is not being acted upon; and the manager better have a legitimate reason why the idea is not to be implemented! One will certainly be expected.
A third and perhaps hardest rule that management must follow is the one of “no sacred cows”. “Sacred cows” are processes or areas of the plant that are protected from change. For one reason or another, these areas can not be touched. The management team must be open to the idea that such cows are no longer a protected species within the operation. While it is often easy to agree to this up front, when confronted with a sacred cow, it can be very tricky for those involved to deal with the beast. This is an excellent reason why upper management support is so crucial to continuous improvement activities.
Finally, managers should be ready to encourage celebrating individual and group accomplishments. Recognizing individuals or teams who offer suggestions puts them on a pedestal and shows dedication and support for the program long-term. This point can not be overstated.
Moving Forward
The rewards of embracing and implementing employee ideas can lead to tremendous accomplishments, a powerful esprit de corps, and over time can most certainly become a competitive weapon. However, as most of us know through experience, the wrong implementation can lead to frustration amongst employees and the feeling of yet another failed and passing “flavor of the month” initiative. To be sure, success will require dedication by managers who may struggle to get the process working. But then again nobody ever said that improvement was easy. If it were, all manufacturers would be as efficient as Toyota.
Bibliography:
*Dr. Shankar Basu, President and CEO, Toyota Material Handling U.S.A., Inc. speaking at the 2007 IW Best Plants Conference Keynote Presentation.
What Do The Brains Mean?