As a young operations leader, I managed a custom packaging department, where items that didn't fit in the standard box sizes were packed. These items were often large and bulky and the work was difficult. And when I started working with the department, there were a large number of quality defects being generated: tape that didn't cover the full seam of the box; incorrect items being packaged; receipt slips missing... And senior leadership's read was that it was a people problem. So I investigated.
When I spoke with the team, they knew the quality errors were there. They told me that the quality requirements slowed them down. They were held to an hourly rate, and when they applied extra tape, or waited for the slip to print out, or verified the item on the screen, they had trouble making rate.
This is a classic defect and the finding isn't the main point to this story. In most departments, packages per hour is an important metric. Distribution centers are often handling huge demands with limited labor available. Maintaining a reasonable work pace helps meet that demand. But this department was different. The demand was minimal and the work was more difficult. Quality mistakes stood out. It was being measured like the other pack departments and that was the issue.
I had found the problem, but telling senior leadership that I needed the team to go slower wasn't the answer, in and of itself anyway. I dove into the data and saw that these quality mistakes were costly. And with the lower volume of packages, speed didn't save a lot. There was a small trade-off in additional labor hours to allow the team to slow down, but it didn't outweigh the money gained by mitigating the quality issues. I presented the math and I got the green light to experiment.
I went back to the team and I told them to prioritize mitigating the quality errors. Their immediate response was that they would not be able to "make rate" and my rebuttal was to not worry about the rate. Quality improved immediately. It was measurable and evident on day one. Packages per hour slowed by about 15%, but quality errors went to near zero. We stopped celebrating the wrong KPI and the team gladly followed suit. People genuinely want to do what is right most of the time. That's what makes what you measure so important. The results were an estimated $400,000 annual net savings from a six-person packaging team. The team was proud. Senior leadership was happy. And I became a better operations leader through the experience.
What I often think about is what would have happened if I didn't dig deeper. If I simply took the initial diagnosis at face value. The consequences would have been a tension with the packaging associates, a worsening in the quality issues as the team was held to unrealistic standards, and a complete loss of trust from the team, senior leadership, and likely myself. If your team looks like they're underperforming, take the extra time to check the scoreboard before you check the players.
This article was first published on Featured News.
