This is the second installment of this series: “Indianeering”, an amalgamation of engineering [science], management [art] and reasoning [logic]. The previous article clarified the meaning of these three terms, separately, as well as introduced this new technology to the world. This article will again illustrate some concrete examples to show the mechanics of practicing “Indianeering” in a manufacturing scenario. Most of these examples, however, are limited to steel manufacturing, specifically GSPI. As usual, the manner of presentation would be: an exposition of pertinent Production and Operations Management theory[1] followed by the application of that theory using “Indianeering”, and a short conclusion, usually the ramifications, as an end note.
Maintenance
Exposition: The objective of maintenance is to keep the production system in good working condition at minimal cost. Maintenance decisions typically reflect a trade-off between preventive maintenance, which seeks to reduce the incidence of breakdowns and failures through a periodic program of lubrication, adjustment, cleaning, inspection, replacement to avoid the associated costs, and breakdown maintenance, which seeks to reduce the impact of breakdowns when they do occur. Although other maintenance programs exist, such as corrective, predictive, adaptive, and productive maintenance, these are but improvements on the preventive aspect. With no preventive maintenance, breakdown and repair costs would be tremendous. However, beyond a certain point–the optimum point–preventive maintenance activities are wasteful. Thus: strike a balance between prevention costs and breakdown costs.
“Indianeering”: As most Indian expats at GSPI always say: “Money is no object”, thus equipment maintenance are planned more on the breakdown side. Although there is a semblance of a preventive maintenance program being followed, the maintenance work schedule seemed on an endless loop–activities scheduled for this week, usually are re-scheduled in the next. With intermittent production runs, sometimes occurring after a month-long lull, opportunity arises to do preventive maintenance activities, but these are few in number. Most of the work done during opportunity maintenance is repairing what should have been repaired prior to the production run. When equipment failure occur during operations, if the failing component could be disabled yet the line could still run, then so be it: disable the component! If the failing component could be replaced by a makeshift contraption a la McGyver, then temporarily cease operation, then replace the component with the contraption. As there are no insurance spares on stock or backup equipment available, when the failing component or equipment–essential to the continued operations–eventually fails, then the production run stops! Frequently, if a component is available from a related equipment of another production line, the failing component is replaced by that component from the other production line. When equipment breakdown do occur, most of the expat biggies will cluster in that location, and everybody is endlessly asking “Why?”, as though the question could miraculously revived the failed component back to operative state! When nonchalantly answered, every expat in attendance would scramble to report that iota of information to whoever is the expat’s boss, then would follow-up with another “Why?”
Conclusion: Pareto phenomenon tends to agree to the fact that breakdown programs are most effective when they take into account the degree of importance a piece of equipment has in the production system and the ability of the system to do without it for a period of time. GSPI wrongly cater to the idea of the Pareto extremes: equipment that is the focal point of a production system; and equipment that is seldom used. Every seldom-used equipment becomes the source of spares for the focal-point equipment.
Decision Making
Exposition: Decision Making is a fundamental process of management. Most decisions follow the process: identification of the problem, specification of objectives and decision criteria, development of alternatives, analysis and comparison of alternatives, selection of the best alternative, implementation of the chosen alternative, and monitoring of the results. Failures in decision making are traced to come from a combination of reasons: mistakes made in the decision process, bounded rationality, or suboptimization. Skipping a step or distraction to jump a step causes mistakes in the decision process; bounded rationality limits are imposed on decision making because of costs, human abilities, time, technology and the information available; while suboptimization occurs as a result of different departments each attempting to reach a solution that is optimum for that department. Operations decision making involves the use of quantitative models, a system approach, and sensitivity analysis of solutions.
“Indianeering”: GSPI’s expats are prone to the use of “I’m the boss here, so just follow my decision!” Unfortunately, being Indian, excessive arguments could be heard among expats, but they are only addressing the doughnut, and not the hole. The best alternative for these expats is usually selected through majority rule, or who has the biggest voice, or who is truly the boss. Never mind if the chosen alternative is flawed at the start because of wrong specification of the objectives and decision criteria. Furthermore, decision making is bounded by high costs: if the solution–even though proves to be effective–but would entail some costs, it could be summarily rejected. Time is of no essence, though, as arguments would tend to be lengthy without a resolution made at the end, then asking: “What was the problem, by the way?” Oftentimes, when decisions are made, every decision has a priority one status! When departments are discussing a decision, if the decision is optimum for one department, then all others are made to suffer. Example: “Stop this line, take its component, install it on that line then operate that line!” Thus, the problem was not solved but rather only relocated. Neither are constraints taken into consideration, example: “Oh, there are no forklifts to transfer these materials? Then, find a way to borrow one!” or “I want that report submitted to me this afternoon. Oh, [after realizing the fact] there are no available computer for you to use, just submit it today!”
Conclusion: When time-pressured, decisions made are hasty; luckily they have expats to answer too; thus wrong decisions have no dire consequences. They could just make up excuses, and those excuses are usually the locals.
Notes:
1 Stevenson, William J. (1990). Production/Operations Management 3rd ed. New York: Richard D. Irwin/Toppan, 1990. p. v. back to text
