Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelwww | Hacker News Reader

You've clearly never worked in a factory as a low level person who is usually asked last, if at all, how to solve a problem concerning their job. I've forwarded this to my father, who will love it as a person who rose from the shop floor to the highest levels of management and never lost his distrust of "college boys."

View on HN

I think one of the first things the college boys are taught now - or should be - is that one of the first things they should do is talk to the low-level folks on the floor. Even if they don't have the solution, they often have information/experience that can inform the solution or even better, what the real problem is. And this applies not only to factory floors, but to any "system" made up of people and processes (equipment optional).

As an engineering major, I did a few co-op assignments in a factory. I was assigned the task of figuring out how to optimize a particular line in the factory - we had new equipment coming in and were considering retrofitting some of the other equipment. The folks working on the floor told me how much they appreciated that I spoke with them and got their input rather than simply coming down with my "stopwatch and measuring tape."

Now I'm on the other side of the line <sigh>. And I'm sick of management and/or experts trying figure out how to improve morale and processes without consulting those of us in the trenches.

I sure hope you're right. It wasn't drilled into me when I was in engineering school (mid-2000s), but I will heartily confirm that operators are a fantastic resource. Interviewing operators is definitely not optional if you want to succeed. Engineers who just leap in often look foolish and face a lot of resistance getting upgrades implemented (well, ideally at least).

That said, operators tend to be masters of their section, but do not often have a comprehensive high-level view (excepting relief operators, who need to have a good idea of the whole process to cover multiple positions). As a result, I treat their input as a deposition or raw data/evidence: pure, unfiltered signal. Some interpretation is likely needed to make it fit into the overall whole of the process, but it's miles away better than guessing or just trusting assumptions!

Process engineering is a comprehensive and collaborative field. Leave operators out, and you're just not looking at the process. People matter. A lot.

This story is probably part of the "blue collar innovation" legends. For more: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/innovate.asp

"The legend about a low-level employee who pipes up with a shockingly brilliant yet simple suggestion that either makes or saves his employer untold millions of dollars has long been part of the canon of business legends."

No doubt. But these sorts of things also do happen.

I used a 20 dollar pen cam off eBay for diagnostics once, avoiding tens of thousands in diagnostic downtime needed otherwise and found a root cause of an otherwise undetected massive failure mode. All because the blasted thing fit. (Full disclosure: the idea started with a plant tech who wondered if there was an application for the pens - research and testing later showed it safe under our operating conditions (a small explosion was possible).)

It's a rare opportunity, but magical when it happens (and modern, cheap tech is magical for heavy industry).

Oh sorry, I didn't realise the connotations of "legend". I just wanted to refer to other similar/related stories. Interesting story.

I really wish I didn't default to reading the word "legend" as implausible. I don't use it in spoken conversation that way, at least.

I like another poster's point that even if it's not real, it's still useful as a parable, so your link to more is appreciated!

"tales" might be what you were looking for. They could be either true, embellished, or not true but a great tale.

My MBA had an entire course on the Toyota philosophy.

One of the biggest points put forward was (paraphrased).

> At Toyota we don't automate. Well we do automate, but we wait as long as possible to automate. Why would we build a machine to do a process that we don't understand? The machine won't improve the process, it will keep doing whatever broken thing you tell it.

Basically treat all of your employees as the assets they are, and get them to help improve the process.

I don't think your father will like the joke, either. According to the story, the line workers had the ability to fix the problem all along, but they didn't bother until the $8 million system made it personally inconvenient for them when an empty box reached the scales. It makes them sound clever but also rather lazy and selfish.

>the line workers had the ability to fix the problem all along

Yes they had the ability, but did the line workers know that empty boxes being shipped was a problem?

There is no solution without a problem.

They most likely didn't. My father used to be sent around as a trouble shooter and would tell stories of managers never setting foot on the factory floor to talk to the workers.

Are the workers so stupid that they think shipping empty boxes is normal?

Common sense is not always wrong.

Yes, we all know that the line workers are usually:

* given high(er)-level information on how the company is doing

* asked for their opinions

* highly motivated by management to solve problems like that

I highly recommend reading The Gervais Principle.

unfortunately line workers are never asked "what would you do?"

And even if asked "how would you fix the problem"

Answering with "Put a fan right there to blow all the empty boxes off the line" would be seen as taking the piss and laughed off with comments like "You're missing the big picture"

>>the line workers had the ability to fix the problem

But not the authority.

This reminds me of an article about lazy people innovate. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4178031

Reply on news.ycombinator.com