Process Vulnerabilities
[continuted from part 1]
Another problem is employees drafted for peer review groups already have full time jobs. Where is one expected to find the extra time? Unless peer reviews are a part of an employee’s job description or are only conducted during slack times, taking employees away from their assigned tasks to conduct a peer review automatically lowers productivity in that employee’s home area.
An outfall out of this ”pitfall” (using the rational that the company is cutting expenses by choosing only internal employees for PRGs) is that measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of their peer reviews is viewed as a low priority matter. (Effectiveness = the defects found vs. actual defects. Efficiency = the number of defects found / per hour of peer review preparation and review). Thus, peer review group findings often fall far sort of their true potential for creating high-value process improvements. Even worse, the problem often goes un-noticed because no benchmark was set from which one could measure [Effectiveness & Efficiency].
It is imperative that top management shows strong support for the benchmarking initiative from the beginning. If top management fails to show strong support, it is almost certain the PRGs process will be treated as a low-value initiative by employees and lower management both. It is easy to see why picking the correct peer review group and benching that peer review group’s performance is vitally important; otherwise, the “Process Improvement Project” may actually end up costing more than it saves.
By always benchmarking the performance of a peer group it becomes much easier to select the correct mix of team member skills for future PRG sessions. If a small businesses is serious about Continuous Process Improvement then usually means collaborating with an outside entity such as customers, suppliers, or a similar business. This allows companies to share similarly skilled employees on each other’s peer review groups.
One of the greatest advantages of collaborating with outside entities is that it does not remove from the work force of the company being reviewed. Thus the review is conducted in a normal “steady state” rather than an atypical situation.
Quantum Components encourages customers and suppliers alike to visit our facilities on a regular basis. We have learned first hand how valuable and cost saving comments are to building a strong CPI program and an efficiently run company.
