Back in the early 90’s, the company I worked for trained us all in TQM, team building, and thinking “outside the box”. One of the combination team building / innovative thinking exercises was just moronic from my viewpoint.
The hypothetical situation was that we were a company that made paperclips – just regular, everyday, #1 sized paperclips. We were very good at making paperclips but we had a problem; a customer required a test of the paperclips.
This test consisted of dropping a paperclip from waist height onto a large file card, which was to be at ground level. We had to inspect 10 paperclips from each lot of 100. If any of those paperclips bounced off the file card, the whole lot was to be rejected.
We were handed several boxes of paperclips and told to test them for conformance. We tried several methods of dropping them, but there were always at least a few the bounced off the card and onto the floor. The method that was the closest to passing was dropping the paperclip so that it would land flat – only 1 or 2 would skitter off the card when they were dropped that way.
We were told then to figure out a way that we could get the paperclips to stay on the file card, without changing the design of the paperclip. And, by the way, we could only use materials that were in the conference room.
The only way to do this (at least for the several teams that went thru this exercise, and with the materials at hand) was make a cylindrical wall of copy paper around the card so that if a paperclip bounced too enthusiastically, it would hit the wall and be knocked back onto the card.
Team building? Maybe, although we found that the engineers tended to just take over this exercise and ignore everyone else. Thinking “outside the box”? Yes, certainly. TQM – NO. I just couldn’t get over how moronic it was to have a test that you had to cheat on to pass.
TQM and other quality methods emphasize improving the process so that a most, if not all, of a product meets requirements. It does not condone the changing of measuring standards to make product pass requirements.
I could certainly think “outside the box” and find a way for everything we ever made to pass inspection. OD just a bit too small? Adjust the micrometer so in its closed state, it reads .002”. That way we can say that the undersized product measured large enough.
Heck, I don’t even have to physically adjust the micrometer; all I have to do is measure with different micrometers until I find one that gives me a reading I like. There is always at least one measuring devise around that is out of whack because of mechanical problems – but it may read 0.000” when closed, so seems to be okay.
I understand that the exercise was an oversimplification designed to be solved without any actual engineering, and within the time limit involved. However, it also emphasized to people who inspect product that there are ways to get around a test if you look for them hard enough.
Funny you should mention that. None of our testing equipment is out of whack. They all have plenty of whack. We buy it in bulk so we never run out.
And our material is never out of tolerance. We have plenty of that also.
We are known for putting the "fun" in "disfunctional".
Can your company brag about that? Hmm, hmm? I'm waiting for an answer.
Posted by: Wichi Dude | January 14, 2005 at 06:27 PM
The first question I ask when someone tells me that something measures within tolerance: Is the instrument calibration up-to-date?
Sorry about the engineers. We tend to be that way. I'm surprised that you didn't smack them up aside of their heads to set them straight--LOL.
I completely missed where you were going. I could see you heading for an understanding of the difference between precision and accuracy. That must have been on another day.
Posted by: Cop Car | January 14, 2005 at 06:44 PM
Cop Car - Ah, but up-to-date calibration doesn't neccessarily mean that a measuring devise is still within measuring tolerances. I've had tools, on a 6 month calibration cycle, come back to me within one month of being calibrated because it was measuring "off". Just dropping the dang thing can do nasty things to the mechanical parts, not to mention that sapphire tears up tools anyway.
As far as smacking them upside the head - somehow that's just not done when you are a peon in production and are being trained by the controller (who happened to be going out with the president at the time).
Wichi Dude - I think we had a bunch of fun in the the disfunctional area. However, sometimes the tolerance ran out (we were on a budget and couldn't afford to buy too much at a time). Wackiness was never in short supply though (it's cheaper).
Posted by: bogie | January 15, 2005 at 06:52 AM