The first company we looked at, which employs a highly connected and automated manufacturing process, we refer to as the Process Company. Another, which employs a batch approach based on a disconnected line-flow organization of work, we refer to as the Fab fabrication-assembly Company. The third, which uses several different batch processes to make components for sophisticated electronic systems, is characterized by very rapid changes in both product and process. We refer to it as the Hi-Tech Company.
All five factories of the Process Company and three of the four factories of the Fab Company are in the United States the fourth is just across the border in Canada. In none of these companies did the usual profit-and-loss statements—or the familiar monthly operating reports—provide adequate, up-to-date information about factory performance.
Certainly, managers routinely evaluated such performance, but the metrics they used made their task like that of watching a distant activity through a thick, fogged window. Indeed, the measurement systems in place at many factories obscure and even alter the details of their performance. The variances from these standard costs became the basis for problem identification and performance evaluation. Other departments in the plants kept track of head counts, work-in-process inventory, engineering changes, the value of newly installed equipment, reject rates, and so forth.
In theory, this kind of measurement system should take a diverse range of activities and summarize them in a way that clarifies what is going on. It should act like a lens that brings a blurry picture into sharp focus. Each month, most of the managers we worked with received a blizzard of variance reports but no overall measure of efficiency. Yet this measure is not hard to calculate. In our study, we took the same data generated by plant managers and combined them into a measure of the total factor productivity TFP —the ratio of total output to total input see the appendix for more details on TFP.
This approach helps dissipate some of the fog—especially because our TFP data are presented in constant dollars instead of the usual current dollars.
Doing so cuts through the distortions produced by periods of high inflation. In real terms, however, there was a steep and significant decline in unit output. Another advantage of the TFP approach is that it integrates the contributions of all the factors of production into a single measure of total input. Traditional systems offer no such integration. Moreover, they often overlook important factors. One of the plant managers at the Process Company gauged performance in a key department by improvements in labor hours and wage costs.
Conscientious efforts to prune labor content by installing equipment—without developing the management skills and systems needed to realize its full potential—proved shortsighted. The managers we studied focused heavily on these costs; indeed, their systems for measuring direct labor were generally more detailed and extensive than those for measuring other inputs that were several times more costly.
Just as surprising, the companies we studied paid little attention to the effect of materials consumption or productivity. Early on, we asked managers at one of the Fab plants for data on materials consumed in production during each of a series of months.
Using these data to estimate materials productivity gave us highly erratic values. Investigation showed that this plant, like many others, kept careful records of materials purchased but not of the direct or indirect materials actually consumed in a month.
The latter, which includes things like paper forms, showed up only in a catchall manufacturing overhead account. Further, most of the factories recorded materials transactions only in dollar, rather than in physical, terms and did not readily adjust their standard costs figures when inflation or substitution altered materials prices.
Every year or half-year, managers would reconcile this estimated consumption with actual materials usage, based on a physical count. As a result, data on actual materials consumption in any one period were lost. Finally, the TFP approach makes clear the difference between the data that managers see and what those data actually measure.
In one plant, the controller argued that our numbers on engineering changes were way off base. He said that the controller reviewed only very large in dollar terms engineering changes and that our data were quite accurate. He was right. The plant had been tracking all engineering changes, not just the major changes reported to the controller. With the foglike distortions of poor measurement systems cleared away, we were able to identify the real levers for improving factory performance. But a handful of managerial policies and practices consistently turned up as significant.
Across industries, companies, and plants, they regularly exerted a powerful influence on productivity. In short, these are the managerial actions that make a difference. Our data show unequivocally that capital investment in new equipment is essential to sustaining growth in TFP over a long time that is, a decade or more. But they also show that capital investment all too often reduces TFP for up to a year. Simply investing money in new technology or systems guarantees nothing.
What matters is how their introduction is managed, as well as the extent to which they support and reinforce continual improvement throughout a factory. The Process Company committed itself to providing new, internally designed equipment to meet the needs of a rapidly growing product. These incremental adjustments added up to major growth in TFP.
Tips for Retailers this Halloween Like Christmas and Thanksgiving, Halloween is one of the holidays that retailers should prepare for. Applying Electronic Shelf Labels is the best way to improve pharmacy operations. Product Catalogue Download our latest and previous product catalogue. Magazine Download our latest and previous magazines. Whitepapers Download our latest and previous whitepapers. Media Kit Promote your brand with us with our media kit.
Demo kit Experience the best of ESL technology with our latest demo kit. Scroll down. But how exactly can factories impact the environment? Here are some ways in which factories contribute to the man-made damage being done to our planet: Air Pollution Industrial factories are major contributors to air pollution. Global Warming In factories, toxic materials and gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, are burned and pumped out into the atmosphere.
Factory pollution do not only affect our planet but also our health. More on this later. Pancreas damage - air pollution has been linked to the onset of Type 2 Diabetes. Heart damage - a lot of cardiovascular diseases such as stroke and atherosclerosis have been linked to air pollution.
Brain damage - brain growth in young children and pregnant women is also known to be impacted. Reduce Water Consumption Aside from saving energy, this can also lead to more time saved—helping you attain a faster turnaround time and avoid bottlenecks. Recycle Factories produce a lot product waste as well. If these are not feasible for your company, try to segregate your waste properly.
Utilize Renewable Energy Sources This is a bigger-scale change but it surely reduces your carbon footprint. As we know, every little effort helps. Furthermore, our very existence as human beings could be under threat too, not to mention the increased risk of us catching diseases such as cholera, malaria and Lyme Disease.
Industrial factories have played a big part in the amount of air pollution that we as people have to endure. The toxic gases that factories release into the air, combined with those added by automobiles on the road, mean that we have an increased risk of developing chronic respiratory disease, lung cancer, heart disease and many other illnesses, diseases and conditions.
Air pollution also has an effect on our wildlife and again could lead to species of plants and animals one day being made extinct. Factories are also a major contributing factor to water pollution across the globe. The illegal dumping of contaminated water, gases, chemicals, heavy metals or radioactive materials into major waterways causes damage to marine life and the environment as a whole.
Not all factories will be responsible for this, but those found in less regulated parts of the planet will dump their toxic wastes into oceans or rivers to be rid of it a lot cheaper. These chemicals and toxic materials can destroy the fertility of the soil, decrease the productivity of crops and even lead to the contamination of foods that we may eventually consume.
You can find this position in industrial environments. Some examples of areas in which workers might be hired are canning, beverage and candy processing, dairy processing, pharmaceutical and leather industries. A factory worker may have a regular working area or may do a variety of tasks as assigned.
Here are some tasks factory workers might do:. You could be an assembly line worker, a repair technician, an operations manager, a foreman or a quality control specialist, depending on your level of training. Working conditions of a factory worker vary with the type of operations they perform. You may need to stand for long periods or bend and lift heavy materials. You might also have to move quickly during your workday. Some factory workers monitor machinery and stay seated for most of their shifts.
The work environment can be noisy, although it can also be quiet and sterile if the factory produces food or medical products. Build a career you'll love What. Home Career Explorer Factory Worker. What does a Factory Worker do?
0コメント