As a supporting consensus began to emerge,
the need to broaden the QIP leadership team became apparent. In February,
1987 we established the Corporate QIP Council, which I chaired. In
addition to Ray (the CEO) and Jerry (the COO), it included the VP of HR, the
corporate controller (representing the support functions), and three general
managers representing our manufacturing and sales divisions. This Council
assumed leadership for all aspects of our TQM and performance measurement
initiatives.By August of 1987, the October 1986
presentation had evolved into the basis for our long range QIP plan (see August
1987 QIP Strategic Plan Presentation). Customer purchase criteria were refined (see
Evolution
of Anaolg's "Strategy Map") and a QIP deployment strategy was conceived (6/15/87):
This slide, created in June of 1987, depicted
the relationship between the basic elements of Analog's QIP strategy. The
starting point was the Corporate Objective, created by the vision of the CEO and
tempered through the top-to-bottom consensus process. This statement of purpose was
articulated in the voices of our five stakeholder groups. The Corporate
QIP Council, serving as the interface between the stakeholders and the rest of
the organization, was given the job of defining initiatives and metrics that
would assure stakeholder delight in Analog. We gave these initiatives
names like "Customer Service" (for the order fulfillment process),
"Manufacturing Excellence" (for the manufacturing process),
"Innovation" (for the product/process generation process), "HR
Excellence" (for the many processes that assure recruitment and retention
of the best people: e.g. recruiting process, training process, performance
appraisal process, etc.), and
"MIS Excellence" (for the processes associated with the timely
collection and conversion of raw data into actionable information).
Many of our existing improvement efforts fit well
into this framework. On-time delivery and leadtime reduction, for example,
were the most leveraged elements of improved customer service. Cycle time
reduction and product quality and yield improvement were the key drivers for achieving
manufacturing excellence. On time-to-market and automation (CAD, or
computer aided design) were obvious enablers of innovation. The last two categories,
HR and MIS excellence, lacked specific initiatives at that time, but were
recognized as essential for the achievement of our corporate objective.
Analog had had a Technical Council for many
years. Its primary purposes were to foster cross-divisional knowledge
sharing and provide a forum for the introduction of new ideas from the broader,
external technical community. In 1986, I created and chaired Analog's first Manufacturing
Council. In partnership with the Technical Council, chaired by the Chief
Technology Officer, we took on the joint challenge of assuring manufacturability
of Analog's leading edge products in support of both our Manufacturing
Excellence and Innovation initiatives. Our two HR committees: the HR
Advisory Committee (a mixture of HR professionals and line managers) and the HR
Forum (the HR managers from all business units) were assigned the task of
operationalizing the concept of HR Excellence.
This cascading process, starting from the
high level corporate objective, provided the proposed template for
development of our Corporate QIP Objectives. The results of our
mutual efforts was Analog's five-year QIP Goals (c. 7/12/87):
From the start, I recognized the need to
limit the number of goals to a manageable set. For several years, I had
been a student of Hoshin Kanri, a Japanese approach to accelerated improvement,
where careful analysis of organizational capacity leads to a realistic choice of
at most two to three breakthrough initiatives. Also, Juran had taught us the importance of
focusing on the vital few. So we chose the three most important stakeholder
requirements as our externally focused metrics. Given that our customers
were our least satisfied stakeholders, it should be no surprise that all three
were customer related. Our internal focus was initially in the area
manufacturing metrics: cycle time, pre-inspection quality and manufacturing
yield, as well as product innovation as measured by time to market. The
last sentence, concerning cost management, was added at the request of one of
our general managers who was concerned that increased inventory and inspection
might be substituted for real process improvement to achieve these goals.
Our first challenge was in defining the
current (1987) state. I've written elsewhere about the many difficulties associated with this deceptively simple task. I refer you to my
contemporaneous description of this chart in my transcribed presentations (see for
example January 1989
APICS/Babson Presentation). The next challenge
was in determining our 1992 goals for these metrics. First, we used my
half-life method to determine where we could be by the end of 1992 through
the effective use of QIP's incremental improvement tools and methods. The middle
column is the assumed half-life or number of months required to close the gap
between current and potential performance by 50%. We then compared these
projected performance levels against our customer's perceptions of their future
requirements and our expectations of competitor's performance.
Fortunately, incremental improvement could get us to where we needed to be:
rated #1 by our customers in total value delivered. Had they not, we would
have turned to other approaches (reengineering or outsourcing) or been forced to
change our strategy.
But we recognized the need to deploy
these high level goals to the lower levels of the organization, where the actual
improvements would occur. I created the following model for Divisional QIP
implementation (7/12/87):
The model was straightforward.
Corporate goals were disaggregated and deployed to the division level. Each division
general manager formed a division QIP council that was modeled after the
Corporate QIP Council. They used a combination of Steering and Problem
Solving QIP teams to attack each of their deployed goals. Steering QIP
teams had the job of chartering two or more problem solving QIP teams to address
the largest root causes of the gap between current and potential
performance. Membership on the various QIP teams was knowledge, not hierarchical
or functionally based. In general, however, Steering QIPs were chaired by divisional staff
members. Each deployed goal had one (or in a few cases two) owner(s) whose
job it was to assure that sufficient progress was being made toward the
established goal.