Business growing, more jobs, more employees = repeat production error ?

[Grafika]

Hi,

(Sorry for my poor english)

I'm in charge of a small printing shop. A lot of things are going through me : price estimation, pre-press, press operation, buying, problem resolution.

The shop is growing but there's a lot production problems :

We are using printing docket with all the information to complete the job. Sample for color matching from the last time the job was printed, approval sheet with the last modifications, the last docket to compare information if needed....time sheet,

The time sheet form include a small check list (10 points) per department: Design, prepress, printing, finishing. All department can leave a comments about problem production : missing information, technical problem, printing machine problem...

There is a short meeting every morning to established priority jobs for the day and take the feelings from everybody and their idea or commnets.

I am trying to be everywhere, but now, with de business growing I can't.


All those tools seem to be working (GOOD) for me...but they don't work for others. After, a production error, they seemed to be shocked but 2 or 3 days after another problem happens...


- color miss match
- wrong file printed
- missing bleed
- score to stong
- etc...


I don't wanna be part of the problem, i am working to hard for so long time...


P.S. cannot write a 500 points check list ? cannot fired everybody ?


Thank you for any suggestions.


Grafika

[CSimpson]

Have you tried having a second person sign off on jobs?
What I mean is my operators run the first copy of something and then get another operator to look at it and the ticket and sign off on it. This way two people are looking at it which doubles your chances of catching an error without really any extra expense and it also forces people to slow down when checking the job for accuracy. This will help out a lot at getting rid of the dumb overlooked errors from people who really care, but just might be going to fast. If your still getting a ton errors after getting two people to look at each job then I think your problem might jut be a lack of caring on your employee's part and you might have to can a few to get the point across.

[gordo]

There are a few ideas to get you started here:

The Print Guide: To err is human

To that list I would add: Systemic issues. That refers to the systems that you have set up in your production workflow from order entry to final delivery that allow errors to occur without being detected, avoided, or corrected. Sometimes it is easier to find systemic issues by have an expert from outside the company examine your production workflow systems.

If you can understand there errors that are made using that guide then you can work out a plan to prevent them from hhappening.

best, gordo

[Grafika]

Gordo, CSimpson,

Thank you for your comments.

I will try the 2 signatures system : it's a kind of ''press OK'' but for every step of the workflow.
But, the way the shop is configured, i will be the second person to sign off.

I would like to tranfer a minimum of responsability to the person working in each step of the workflow.

Maybe, i'm dreaming ? Can't figure out how simple for me it's easy to drove a job from a to z, but it so complicated with others...


Your wright Gordo, i've got the problem right in my face and i can't find the real problem...maybe the solution will be an expert from outside.


But, that mean to me, i am not able to complete my job...that hurt a lot.


Thanks again.

Grafika

[Rikkie]

It's not that you don't know how to do your job - it's more that you can't see the wood for all the trees. It often happens to busy people.

[MailGuru]

Like many execs in a small to medium shop, we must wear multiple hats. Not knowing about the make-up of your organization (such as number of employees, number of customer service reps, production work-flow, etc) it's difficult to come up with a solution for you. Your customer service rep, (or even the person who sold the job), is your "customer-facing" person, and, ultimately must answer to an irate customer if something goes wrong. Our workflow is designed to make that person the "hub" of quality control for his/her jobs. All jobs travel from the CSR out to a department, and then back to the CSR for QC signoff, and then out to the next department, and back to the CSR, etc.

If that arrangement doesn't work for you, here's a another suggestion that I have seen work quite well: Establish a "bonus-pool" consisting of a small percentage (usually 1 - 2 percent, or, whatever you can comfortably afford) of the profit off of each job. Any mistakes made that cost re-runs, re-prints, etc. are subtracted from that "bonus-pool". At the end of the year, or, quarter, etc. Whatever is left-over in the bonus pool is split up amongst your production staff. This method accomplishes 3 very important objectives in correcting quality control issues and, it does it naturally and seamlessly: (1) It rewards good work (2) it punishes bad work and (3) since all employees must pay the price when only one screws-up, it encourages a "team" buyin from all employees and applies a "natural" peer pressure to do the job right, the first time.

[gordo]

@mailguru:
Dr W Edward Deming, the father of quality in manufacturing, would disagree with you. It's the wrong way to deal with this kind of problem and can be counter-productive.

Best, gordo

[MailGuru]

@mailguru:
Dr W Edward Deming, the father of quality in manufacturing, would disagree with you. It's the wrong way to deal with this kind of problem and can be counter-productive.

I know, and, you're probably right. I have the upmost respect for Dr. Deming and his teachings. The man was a visionary. That being said, I don't necessarily agree with every single word he put on paper. For instance, Dr. Deming also did not agree with annual performance reviews or merit pay raises...............

[Al Ferrari]

Gordon,

A quick review, or such, of Deming's thinking on this would be appropriate here, or at least a tittle or other reference. The more specific, the better.

Al

[gordo]

Gordon,

A quick review, or such, of Deming's thinking on this would be appropriate here, or at least a tittle or other reference. The more specific, the better.

Al

I'll try and find a more direct quote/reference, but in the meantime:

"The idea of merit rating is alluring. The sound of the words captivates the imagination: pay for what you get; get what you pay for;motivate people to do their best, for their own good.

The effect is exactly the opposite of what the words promise. Everyone propels himself forward, or tries to, for his own good, on his own life preserver. The organization is the loser.

Merit rating rewards people who do well within the system. It does not reward attempts to improve the system."

W. Edwards Deming in Out of the Crisis

And read this:

http://carmine.se.edu/cvonbergen/Incentives.pdf

And think on this:

"Alfie Kohn, in a now-classic Harvard Business Review article, wrote:

... at least two dozen studies over the last three decades have conclusively shown that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task or for doing that task successfully simply do not perform as well as those who expect no reward at all.

He concludes that "incentives (or bribes) simply can't work in the workplace". DeMarco and Lister go further, stating unequivocally that any kind of workplace competition, any scheme of rewards and punishments, and even the old fashion trick of "catching people doing something right and rewarding them," all do more harm than good. Giving somebody positive reinforcement (such as stupid company ceremonies where people get plaques) implies that they only did it for the lucite plaque; it implies that they are not independent enough to work unless they are going to get a cookie; and it's insulting and demeaning."

Oh, and ask yourself, have the performance bonuses that Antonio Perez received at Kodak over the past years made a positive impact on Kodak's business?

I'm not against giving a financial bonus to employees, as long as it is not a reward based on a target, or goal, that they meet, or based on internal competition. Going back to the points in the OP, why should my share of the bonus be reduced because someone else in the production chain screwed up? Why should a co-worker profit from my performance?

Best, gordo