Raising the bar for quality

Armstrong World Industries and Worthington Steel combined forces to create the number one ceiling grid manufacturer in the world. It didn’t start out that way, as employees of both companies were feeling their way through the combination of cultures.

I had been a team manager (shift supervisor) at our plant near Chicago. We shut down the plant and I moved to the Baltimore facility as the Industrial Engineering and Quality manager. It was a critical moment for our new company and my career. We had to establish ourselves as a quality leader, in order to build consumer confidence.

I spent many hours on the factory floor, understanding where we stood in regard to production reliability and quality control. We had each line leader measuring the grid that was being produced and comparing it to  product standard drawings. My early observations were that each person was interpreting the drawings differently and also measured based on their “feel” for the product. This meant somebody might think a product was within tolerance limits, even though the customer didn’t agree. This was reflected in a higher than industry standard return rate. We were at risk of losing customers unless we corrected our quality problems quickly.

I reviewed the product quality drawings and realized they were confusing and written for engineers, not production workers. Also, depending on how hard the measuring device was handled, people could make their measurements vary by up to .020” (twenty thousandths of an inch). This was a huge problem for ceiling grid, as tolerances could be as small as .010”.

I reviewed my plan with the plant manager. I would reformat the product quality drawings so they would be easy to understand and interpret as intended. At the same time, I would develop a measurement training program to help all employees measure the same way, with the same “feel.” I got approval for new measuring equipment, that was more repeatable and accurate than what we currently had at the plant. I was off and running.

I did an informal survey of many of the production technicians to help me understand how to format the product quality drawings to be easily understood by them. Specifically, I wanted them to understand the tolerance limits for any critical measurement. Previously, an example measurement would say 24.025” +/- 0.15”. This forced employees to add and subtract and sometimes make errors. Through their feedback, I changed all measurements to look like this (for the prior example): 24.010” – 24.040”. Now there was no confusion. As long as the measurement was within the range shown, it was a good product.

There were literally dozens, if not hundreds of drawings to correct, so I prioritized my work by the products that ran the most frequently first. Then, time permitting, I would correct the lower frequency products. Sometimes, I would have to change my process, as a rare product would be ordered, and we didn’t want to take the chance it would be measured incorrectly.

Now it was time to improve measurement reliability. Some people had a “hard” hand, meaning they would squeeze the measuring device against the bar of grid with much force. Others had a “soft” touch, meaning they barely touched the bar with the measuring device. I had to come up with another way to consistently find the correct measurement and then verify the variation between operators would be acceptable.

After many tests and trials, I developed the 2-step touch technique. Basically, the technician would squeeze the measuring device to find the bar, then back it off, and then bring it back to just “touch.”

No matter how hard or soft a hand people had, they were very consistent when it came to the second touch. In fact, the variation between operators was reduced from .020” to .003”. I instituted an audit and follow-up process to ensure we sustained our consistent measuring technique.

Over time our returns rate was reduced drastically, and we became the number one grid producer in the world. I learned that systems must be designed for the people who use them, rather than the people who create them.

Don’t be afraid to expose your weaknesses

I was the quality control manager for a ceiling grid factory in Maryland. In my first days at the plant, I observed that quality performance was minimally acceptable. There was a lot of room for improvement. I learned from my prior experience as a supervisor in Chicago to involve more people in the process and give them the information they needed to make proper quality decisions.

People weren’t very involved in the quality process at the Maryland plant. I was determined to do something about it. The first thing I did was review all quality specification drawings for our products. They seemed to be designed for engineers, not operators. The drawings were often ignored and out of spec product was found after it had been produced, even though operators had signed off that everything was in spec. I simplified the drawings to make them easier to use and understand.

The next step I took was to train our employees to install and measure grid properly. Once they understood the mechanics of the grid, they knew they couldn’t let out of specification product end up in the hands of our customers.

One day, early in my tenure, I noticed a visitor from Underwriters Labs (UL) at the plant. He met with Dwayne, the engineering manager. They talked in the break room for thirty minutes. Then, they shook hands and the UL rep left, without going into the plant.

Me: “What was the UL rep doing here?”

Dwayne: “He was auditing our quality certification process.”

Me: “What was he doing in the breakroom?”

Dwayne: “Oh, we had a cup of coffee and talked about fishing.”

Me: “Are you telling me that all he does is visit during his visit?”

Dwayne: “Sure. We don’t want him to come out into the plant.”

Me: “Why not? Don’t we pay Underwriters Labs for their certification? Wouldn’t you want to make sure we’re actually doing what we’re supposed to be doing?”

Dwayne: “We could get in trouble if we’re not doing everything correctly.”

Me: “Not if we take steps to correct our errors.”

Dwayne: “It’s probably best if we keep these visits to the breakroom.”

I wasn’t satisfied and decided to do some research into our UL certification process. Once I was sure we were trying to do the right thing, I spoke with Alan, our plant manager.

Me: “I want to get our house in order in a quality control way and I need your support.”

Alan: “What are you thinking of doing and what are the risks?”

Me: “I want to take the UL inspector on a tour and identify anything that we might be doing wrong. The risk is that we may be doing a lot of things wrong and get cited for any issues.”

Alan: “How are you going to minimize our exposure?”

Me: “I’ve already had conversations with Joanne, our corporate UL expert. She explained what’s supposed to happen during a UL audit and the steps that must be taken if a non-conformance is found. As long as we respond in a timely and proper way, our risk is minimal.”

Alan: “Have you identified anything that we’re doing that may be out of compliance?”

Me: “I have and I think everything is correctable.”

Alan: “If that’s the case, I’ll support you and talk with Dwayne to get his alignment.”

Alan, Dwayne, and I spoke and came to an uneasy agreement. Dwayne was skeptical and worried we might be overwhelmed with issues. I knew we were doing the right thing. If we had issues, it was time to deal with and correct them.

I called the UL inspector, introduced myself, and invited him for an off-cycle review of our process. He was surprised to have someone reach out to him, but was appreciative for the interest.

One month later, he and I took a detailed walk through our quality assurance processes. He found many things that needed to be corrected. Fortunately, they were all simple and minor. For example, a label on a box of grid referenced test method 205. It should have said 205L. Most issues were similar and were corrected within 2 weeks.

Now we were confident that we were producing products that met customer requirements and were properly representing their UL certifications. In the following years, our relationship with Underwriters Labs strengthened and we became partners in the growth of our ceiling grid business.

350 Business Owners

An engineered flooring plant in Kentucky was losing money. They knew their product yields were deteriorating and didn’t know what to do about it. Process Improvement Partners was invited for a site visit. After reviewing performance and discussing the issues with plant leaders in a meeting room, we took a Gemba Walk to see what was actually happening.

As we walked around the plant, it was obvious that safety was the top priority in the plant. There was signage and effective placement of supporting tools and materials. Most importantly, all leaders in the plant were demonstrating their commitment to safety.  It was clear production was the next priority. There were hour by hour production boards, and all kinds of measures of productivity posted around the lines and in the offices.  There was no sign of the importance of quality or yield to be found. We searched all over the plant, but there was nothing that showed people what to do to reduce defects or improve yields.

We suggested a three-day Kaizen to develop managing systems to shift the plant from a culture of productivity to one of quality and yield.  The Plant Manager was unsure how we would do that, but was open to the possibility of using a Kaizen for such a significant effort. We agreed the team would be made up of all of the members of the plant leadership team, with a few extra guests added to provide outside perspective. We also suggested a few highly trusted production operators be included on the team, as they would provide an unfiltered view of what they would need in support of their efforts to improve yield and quality.

The Plant Manager was not comfortable with the production operators participating in the entire Kaizen, but did agree they should participate in part of the agenda to provide their perspective on efforts to improve yield and quality. Their part would be on the agenda on the first day, representing the Voice of the Customer.

The Kaizen started with a kick-off from the Plant Manager. It was clear most of the team wasn’t sure anything important was going to happen during the three scheduled days and were wondering why they weren’t in the plant running operations. After introductions, we reviewed some Lean managing systems and had a discussion about the current mind-set and culture of the plant. It was apparent all team members valued safety above all and then production. They were not sure quality and yield was well emphasized or even highlighted.

At about 10:30am, a group of six production operators and two production supervisors entered the room. They took their seats with the rest of the team and waited uncomfortably to see what would happen next. It seemed as though nobody had explained to them why they were there and they hadn’t interacted with the leadership team in this type of setting before.

I thanked them for joining us and explained the purpose of the three-day Kaizen and their role in this part of the agenda. They were our Customers. They were not impressed. Next, I told them we wanted to get their honest feedback about how the plant was run. Still not impressed or even believing we would listen to and use their feedback, it seemed likely they wouldn’t offer anything of value unless I could get them to relax and open up.

I asked a series of open-ended questions, such as “What is the message you currently receive about the importance of quality and yield vs. productivity? Is it clear or confusing? How do you decide to prioritize productivity vs. quality and yield vs. safety when you are in the middle of a production run?” A few gave some short, terse answers, and a few of the leadership team members asked follow-up questions to show they were listening. Still, nothing of high value was being shared.

After about 30 minutes of questioning and terse answering, I asked this question, “If you could change one thing about how the plant is run, what would it be?” One of the production operators, let’s call her Sally, blurted out, “If these SUMBICHES would just care enough to come to work every day, things would be better!” Blushing, she put her face in her hands. The room roared and clapped with approval. The Plant Manager thanked her for being so open and honest and said he wanted to know more about what she meant by her statement.

All of the sudden, the Customers opened up and told the team exactly what they thought. They talked about the leadership approach and the message that was being sent to the production operation about the value of quality and yield. People were now sharing their thoughts, feelings, and ideas, and leadership was listening. We were getting somewhere. After another hour or so, we had exhausted all topics and thanked our Customers for joining us. There were handshakes, high fives, and hugs and everyone left feeling like they had contributed to something important.  It was clear that the production operators and supervisors truly cared about the company and its impact on their families and the community.

The team now knew they had important work to do, and the next step was to create a vision for the plant emphasizing what their customers needed to do their job in the best possible way. It didn’t take long, and they came up with this vision statement:

“350 business owners with a yield-first mindset making every plank matter. Close is not good enough – stop until the customer will be delighted. Encourage everyone to take the time to make it right the first time.”

The rest of the Kaizen was spent developing strategy and tactics to support and emphasize the new vision. There was energy and excitement, and by the end of the Kaizen, you could see and feel the difference in the plant. The initial results were promising, as quality and yield performance improved. More than that, 350 people were aligned around what’s most important to them, their families, and their community.