The Birth and Quiet Death of Definitions

Early in my career, I was the Quality Assurance Manager at the Sparrows Point, Maryland ceiling grid plant. Grid is the metal framework that supports ceiling tiles, and it’s a product where precision matters. The slightest variation in length—thousandths of an inch—can keep the tiles from fitting correctly, especially in long ceiling runs like you’d find in airports or large office buildings.

Most of the time, ceiling grid is meant to disappear into the background. Our corporate team was working on a product they believed would change that—a grid that would intentionally stand out. The idea was to improve the aesthetics of the ceiling using a three-dimensional face.

The product was called “Definitions.” It was a plastic cap, molded into various profiles, designed to snap onto the face of the ceiling grid to give it a bold, new look. Marketing was confident they could sell millions of feet of it. Our plant was chosen to be the first to bring it to life.

There was a technical challenge. Ceiling grid is made of metal and produced in a continuous process—roll formed, pressed, and finished all in one line. The plastic cap couldn’t be added as part of that process. It would have to be applied in a separate, manual operation.

We cleared out a section of the plant and set it up as the Definitions production area. Because the white plastic cap was highly susceptible to dirt and grime—and our main lines used lubricants—we enclosed the area with plastic curtains to keep it isolated and clean. Finished grid would be brought over, the caps snapped on, with the final product packaged and stored in a dedicated warehouse area.

Our first attempts to attach the plastic caps were unsuccessful. It wouldn’t locate properly and stay on the grid. Eventually, we designed simple fixtures to help guide and secure the cap during the process. Once we figured that out, we developed standard operating procedures and set up a two-person team: one to place the caps in position on the grid, and the other to apply the pressure, using a special piece of equipment.

Even with the process in place, everything had to be almost perfect. The cap had to be placed with pinpoint accuracy, and its width had to match the grid within .002” (less than the width of a human hair) or it would pop off.

Progress was painfully slow. Contamination, inconsistency, tight tolerances, and poor productivity constantly worked against us. Producing Definitions took many times longer than making standard grid.

We produced 250,000 linear feet of the product. By the time we wrapped up the first run, every operator on the line made it clear—they didn’t want to do it again. It was just too tedious, too frustrating, and too slow.

The product sat in our warehouse for years. If anyone ever bought a box, I don’t remember it. Feedback from installers was brutal: the caps were too delicate, required gloves to handle, and slowed them down so much that using it actually lost them money.

While Definitions itself was a failure, it sparked a line of thinking that led to real innovation. The idea of a dimensional grid look lived on—and eventually, we developed new products that achieved a similar aesthetic directly on the main manufacturing lines. Those products were far easier to make, faster to install, and went on to become successful alternatives to standard grid. They’re still sold today.

Experimenting in Europe

I was asked to co-facilitate a regional cost-reduction session with my Armstrong mentor, Fred, in Europe. He had facilitated many of these sessions over the years with great success. I was excited for the opportunity to work with him and tour around countries I wasn’t familiar with.

We planned the session together for a month before we left for Europe. It wasn’t unusual for these sessions to identify tens of millions of dollars of actionable improvement opportunities, so the investment of time was well spent. I was always impressed with Fred’s attention to detail and the way he was able to get strong engagement when he facilitated. I knew I was going to learn more about facilitation and strengthen my skills.

We flew to Europe on the weekend and spent a day looking at some castles and the little town we were staying in. Then, on Monday, we went to the corporate office and set up the conference room for the next day’s session.

Fred shared portions of the agenda with me to facilitate. He wanted me to gain experience leading this important session. He took most of the critical elements, including brainstorming and prioritization, as these were the areas in which he truly shined.

During the brainstorming session, I could tell Fred was getting a little tired and running out of ideas on how to draw more creativity out of the room. I suggested a short break and Fred was open to it. I asked Fred if he would be willing to let me step in for a few minutes, changing the tone of the session, by changing facilitators. He allowed me to do so, and I was able to squeeze a few more ideas out of the group.

Then, we took a lunch break. We were about to get into what Fred thought was going to be a lengthy session: the prioritization of the hundreds of ideas that had been generated. During lunch, Fred and I talked about his approach to prioritization. He was going to compare ideas against all others, generating an “A vs. B vs. C vs. all alternatives” matrix. Basically, the ideas that won the comparisons the most times would be the highest priority ideas to work on for the rest of the session.

I told Fred I thought it could take many hours to accomplish this and I may have a quicker way to complete the prioritization. He told me he’d like to try it his way first, but we could talk about adjusting if necessary.

After lunch, Fred drew a complex matrix on a whiteboard and explained his approach to prioritization. The team understood and was engaged as he took them through the initial stages of comparisons.

About thirty minutes in, I noticed some of the participants looked distracted and tired. I also realized we hadn’t finished the first set of comparisons. There were literally dozens more to be completed. I started thinking about how I could help get all these ideas prioritized in a shorter time. Then, an idea hit me. I asked Fred if we could take a short break and regroup. He accommodated my request.

During the break, I explained what I was noticing, did a quick calculation of how long it would take to finish it the way he had started, and asked if he was willing to try my suggestion. He asked for more details, and I explained I would like to try multi-voting with criteria. Using this process, each team member would pick the top 10 ideas they thought would provide the best cost-savings, be easiest to implement, and do no harm to anyone from a safety or quality perspective. Even though this approach didn’t seem scientific, I believed it was a way to utilize the diverse perspectives in the room and quickly build consensus around the many ideas generated.

Fred gave me the go-ahead, with a caveat. If this concept didn’t generate the results the team needed, from their perspective, we’d go back to his method.

I framed out the approach and explained multi-voting with criteria in detail to the team. They asked a few questions and even added an additional criterion to the list. I knew this approach had a chance because they were owning it!

Thirty minutes later, we had prioritized the many ideas into the top 20 to develop further for the company. We took the temperature of the room and by an overwhelming majority they agreed these 20 ideas were truly the top ones out of the total group. We documented all the other ideas, just in case they might be needed in the future.

Fred agreed this quicker approach likely got to the same conclusion that the “A vs. B v. C vs. all alternatives” comparison approach would have. I don’t think either of us could prove that, but we were relieved we had completed the prioritization in a way the team owned.

Over the years, I have refined my multi-voting with criteria approach to cut the prioritization time in half. I can explain it, facilitate it, and train others to do it. I am convinced I have found something to save precious time, even in the most complex ideation and prioritization sessions.

My First True Gemba Walk

I started my career as an industrial engineer for Thomasville Furniture in North Carolina. My initial responsibilities included warehouse barcoding support and veneer plant projects. For the warehouse, I had to learn how barcodes were used to inventory, ship, and receive finished furniture from the various plants in the network. In the veneer plant, I was to conduct time and work studies and also identify improvement projects.

Time and work studies consisted of walking around with a stopwatch and a clip board and verifying a number of things: how long it takes to complete a task, how often people were working and how often they were not working. I was told to take a random tour of the plant daily and spend no more than 30 minutes conducting my studies. Holding the clip board and stopwatch can be viewed in a negative light by those you are timing and studying. I was getting some challenging comments when I walked around the plant to do my work.

I realized people at the plant didn’t understand what I was doing, and that it wasn’t designed to hurt them personally. I was helping the company determine capacity and plan appropriately for seasonal changes in demand.

One morning, I asked my manager if I could take more time during my time and work studies to better understand what I was measuring and to get to know the employees better. He agreed and I happily set out to visit the veneer plant.

I started in the matching department. This is where sliced wood with similar wood grain patterns is taped to another piece of sliced wood, to make a desired visual effect. As I started my study , one of the workers made a personal comment about me. I swallowed my pride and walked up to her and introduced myself. This caught her off guard. I then explained to her what I was doing. She told me no one had ever explained time and work studies to her. She assumed I was an “investor” and was trying to decide whether or not to buy the plant and shut it down.

I assured her I was there to do a job just like her and we started talking about why both our jobs mattered. Hers was to ensure the customers got what they paid for and mine was to ensure customers would never have to wait for the furniture they bought.

Now she was sharing her concerns and problems in her department. She also encouraged others to share their issues. I realized I had a great opportunity to learn what was really going on and to identify future critical work opportunities to share with my manager.

I had to balance the fact that my time and work studies were going to take much longer than 30 minutes with the fact that the ideas and improvements coming from the discussions would pay for the extra time. It didn’t take long to find a bunch of ideas and projects from these discussions that more than made up for the additional investment of time.

Even though I didn’t know it at the time, I was conducting a Gemba walk and learning about the processes with the people who do the work. I have used this approach in all of my work to this day and now teach others to take the time to truly understand processes with the people that do the work. Invest the time and the rewards will more than pay for themselves.