Page 35 - MetalForming April 2012

workstation. We spot-
ted the blue and red scrap containers on the floor in their correct locations and segregated
in the scrap area. The general foreman assured
us that all procedures were being followed to the letter. And, he again suggested that the mill must be mixing materials at their location.
As we were leaving, I asked
to speak to an operator running
a machine that was generating scrap being deposited into a red container. When asked about the procedure for disposing of the scrap, he pulled out the procedure book and correctly recited the process.
I asked: “Do you always place the dangerous material in the red con- tainers?” His answer: “The material is always placed in the red containers.”
As I turned to walk away, he added, “... except when we run out of red containers.”
The foreman was devastated, yet this type of situation occurs routinely. The error: Management mistakes writ- ten procedures for compliance.
The scenario goes something like this:
To have the right procedures, a com- pany holds meetings attended by man- agement, operators and other person- nel responsible for the ISO procedures. Procedures are documented and reviewed, and meetings are held to ensure they are correctly communi- cated. Timely audits are conducted to maintain compliance.
All of this works perfectly, in a per- fect world. Everyone assumes that the procedures are in control. But, the real- ity is that your procedures are not in control, because people are not always in control. Situations happen.
Expecting the Unexpected
In our case as described above, there was no procedure to cover a shortage of red containers. It happened only once in a great while, but it did happen.
The operator running the equip-
ment was more
interested in run-
ning the equipment; dis-
posing of scrap is not production. He probably did what he thought was right, staying focused on keeping the equipment running. He may have told supervision about the problem, or maybe not. It is not production. The shift foreman may have told the general
foreman, or maybe not. It is not pro- duction.
It is human nature to deflect the blame for these and other similar prob- lems, and instead fault others. Investigating the real root cause of prob- lems becomes secondary to production. In my 40- plus years in the business, I find that probably 90 per- cent of complaints are jus- tified. Most companies believe that the customer does not know what he’s talk- ing about. Customers know the affect, they just don’t know
the cause.
I love complaints. They have
to be investigated much like a mur- der case, because something murdered our product.
The moral to the story: Business is not round. The slam dunk is neces- sary, and I suggest hands on until it goes through the hoop. MF
Eifeler-Lafer Variantic Duplex PVD Treatment
Eifeler-Lafer's in-situ Duplex PVD treatment provides advanced forming support and superior coating adhesion. Variantic-Duplex has replaced CVD and TRD treatments for stamping stainless, DP and AHSS materials.
• D-2 tool steel hardeness checked 47 Rc prior to Variantic Duplex
• Die History: 4 previous TD coatings causing re-coat every 3 months
• All steels were de-coated and treated with Variantic Duplex PVD
• 24 months – 461K quality parts and the die sections look like new
• Low Temperature PVD Variantic Duplex will not distort die sections
Eifeler-Lafer, Inc. – your provider of high-perfomance PVD-coatings
20+ years of thin-film coating experience
Eifeler-Lafer Inc.
3800 Commerce Drive • St. Charles, IL 60174 ph: 630-587-1220 • fax: 630-587-1230 www.eifeler-lafer.com • sales@eifeler-lafer.com
Die sections coated with TRD
Tool damage due to TRD failure
Die sections with TRD coating removed and coated with PVD Variantic Duplex Treatment
www.metalformingmagazine.com
MetalForming/April 2012 33