Viktor Machek

I experienced both extremes: 1. Processes are written by engineers who know those inside out or they even defined the process in the first place. The steps are evident to the engineers but not to any new employees. Processes need to be written in a way that an average individual can understand and follow them step by step regardless experience, background, or technical knowledge. 2. Processes are left with technicians to define. When the key technician quits the business, the next employee in the position starts to “redefine” the process. This sometimes means ignoring the entire process, cutting corners, not using the designated tools, etc. The telltale sign is when human error is to blame for repeated errors. The solution is teamwork.

This is where useful insight can be gained from other team members. In my experience, technicians and operators are more often aware of manufacturing problems and how to contain them, because they are ones who physically deal with the products on daily bases. And in many cases they also suggest ideas how to prevent or detect the issues. Diring my career the best ideas were born when I joined technicians in production areas or invited them to a meeting room. Never underestimate the knowledge, expertise, creativity, and willpower of your technicians or operators. They are usually keen to find out root causes and even trial new approaches.

First and foremost you must be approachable, otherwise your team will hesitate to ask your opinion or support when they need them. Even if you’re busy to deal with their problem at hand, you can block a short meeting in your calendar to reassure the team member you’ll have their attention. You can have regular ckeck-ins, 1-2-1 meetings, or work on a problem together, this way advocating a positive and supportive environment. Sometimes people don’t recognise what support they need, thus some well-directed questions can help them figure out. For example, “what is the largest obstacle in your project?” or “what additional resource you require to meet the deadline?”.

Many already mentioned that defining the problem is the first step…What I’d like to emphasise is defining the problem is not always straightforward. Firstly, I’d determine whether it’s a problem or an issue. A problem in my interpretation is a known error or fault, and usually it requires a little time to find the root cause. An issue, on the other hand, is more complex, and sometimes the symptoms need to be tracked back to the fault or defect. That’s why it’s important to gather all information in the beginning of the investigation, otherwise we may try to resolve a different problem/issue. I’ve seen in many times people jump on the wrong conclusion, simply because they hadn’t put the effort in defining the problem/issue.

GD&T is indeed a very useful tool for the reasons described above. Sadly, many people working in quality can’t interpret them correctly, and even designers don’t use them in the right way. It’s not rocket science, but it definitely requires practice. The best approach in my opinion is starting with the easier forms as there are links among the different symbols and meanings, this way the more difficult ones can be understood later.

In my opinion motorists meed to change their mindset. Many of them believe if they are not forced to slow down, they can go fast, not considering their environment. I usually go for long walks where I have to cross roads. The straights are fine, but you can’t see through roundabouts. Many times I’m given an angry look, because they have to slow down a bit to let me get across the road. Not to mention pedestrians have priority over turning vehicles if they have already started crossing the road.