The Government Gets One Right

by BILL WADDELL

Twenty four years ago I took on my first kaizen event at a Copeland plant in North Carolina.  We didn't know it was to be called a 'kaizen event' and had no way of knowing that we were using what would be called a 'value stream map'.  We were just making it up as we went along using Shingo's original green book as a guide.  The target of our efforts was a machining and sub-assembly process that fed a refrigeration compressor assembly line.  By the time we finished we improved a lot of things, but I clearly recall the first and biggest opportunity was to fix the quality inspection process.  There was no real quality problem - just a waste of a days inventory, lots of floor space and some material handling time due to holding up production until an inspector could get around to sampling some of the output.

The lesson learned was that, not only is it impossible to inspect quality into a product, the mere act of inspecting can often undermine quality and drive an extraordinary amount of waste by serving as a bottleneck in the flow.

The Obama administration has been a regulatory and waste inducing train wreck for American manufacturing.  The history has been one of a gang that never passes up an opportunity to burden manufacturing with another regulation, and to do everything and anything it can to render CPR to the dysfunctional carcass of organized labor.  That makes it all the more surprising - pleasanty shocking actually - to learn that the USDA plans to reduce its inspection of poultry lines, and enable the poultry companies to speed up the flow.

"Under the proposal, production lines would be allowed to move 25% faster, while the government would cut by as much as 75% the number of line inspectors eyeing chicken bodies for defects before the carcasses are packaged for consumption."

It is the same thing as my old Copeland experience.  Inspecting is a huge drag on flow and cost with no realistic prospect of assuring quality.  "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that there are 1.2 million incidents of salmonella illness each year. Unlike other food-borne illnesses, the incidence of salmonella has risen 10% in recent years. When Consumer Reports tested 382 broiler chickens bought from grocery stores in 2009, 14% were found to contain salmonella."  The Who's Who roster of leftist wackos - Food and Water Watch, Food Integrity Campaign for the Government Accountability Project - opposing the change see this as proof of the need for more inspection.  In fact, it is rock solid evidence of what people who understand quality well know:  Inspection does not assure quality.  Quality can only be assured by controlling it at the source.

The whole episode is also proof of how little the bleaters about food quality really know about quality control.  That's the problem with having passionate people with no idea of what they are doing being given access to lots of money. 

It doesn't end with ignorance of quality control, however.  These folks rant about private sector apathy for consumer safety.  I am as vocal a critic of publicly traded company mismanagement as you can find anywhere - but even the most short sighted CEO knows that poisoning customers is not good business.  And they are painfully aware of the hord of bottom feeding lawyers just waiting to catch them peddling poison food.

Just what the food companies are up against is evidenced by the position of the United Food and Commercial Worker's International Union.  They want to keep the quality inspectors on the job in order to keep the lines slowed in the interest of worker safety.  There is some curious logic.  If safety is a real concern, I suggest they call OSHA, but to bog down production with quality inspectors for the sake of reducing carpal tunnel syndrome is just plain dumb.

Make no mistake, I am not saying chicken is safe.  I don't have a clue.  All I know about the subject is that chicken and I have always got along just fine.  What I am saying is that inspection doesn't make it better.  It doesn't make anything better.  It only adds cost.  Quality can only come from controlling it at a well designed source.  The USDA data proved the point.  Good or bad, "In testing its relaxed rules at 20 chicken slaughterhouses and five turkey plants, the USDA found little difference with conventional plants in the instances of salmonella and other pathogens."

Original: http://idatix.com/manufacturing-leadership/the-government-gets-one-right/

Comments

[AC]

Bill,
You are right in that we can't inspect quality, but you are forgetting that companies have money which equals the power to manipulate the truth(and the market)and lobby government into removing the ability to sue companies for damages (Tort reform anyone?).
I have worked in both the medical device industry and in pharmaceuticals and I can tell you that companies in both industries cut corners to the point that it's scary.
If the profits from selling low quality product outweigh the costs of someone getting sick or worse, companies will sell low quality product.
Is more regulation the answer, probably not. However, we need enough regulation to assure safety and prevent companies from manipulating the markets while keeping business flowing.

[Bill Waddell]

AC - No doubt you are right about the pharms taking a cost-benefit approach to tort risk (so far tort reform has been a non-strater for decades). The big difference is patents. When the pharm or med products company can keep their product on the market in spite of losing a few lawsuits they may well come out ahead.

Tyson, however, doesn't have a patent on chicken. If word gets out that Tyson chicken kills people, the market will switch en masse to Perdue in a heartbeat. They better be bending over backwards to keep their reputation clean because their product is as close to a commodity as you will find.

[AC]

Bill,
The situation(Tyson selling bad chicken) you described is one where the market(The sum total of people's buy and sell decisions)is reacting to an event. Market mechanisms are inherently reactive and subject to manipulation.

Where the combination of smart regulation and "enlightened" business leadership comes in is in preventing bad chicken from going out the door in the first place. That is where you and I as lean enthusiasts/students can make a difference (See Steven Oulette's article in Today's Quality Insider for a slightly different take on your point.)

[Rick Bohan]

You're right, of course. Inspection never ASSURES quality. But it's tough to argue that chicken producers will, as a result of less USDA inspection, get better at preventing bad chicken from reaching the market.

I can't believe you used that old canard about businesses realizing that doing bad things to customers is bad for business. No CEO has, as a part of his or her company's stated strategy, "We will accept a certain level of harmed customers because operating in a way that reduces that level is too expensive." But we all know of companies that behave in precisely that way.

[Bill Waddell]

"But it's tough to argue that chicken producers will, as a result of less USDA inspection, get better at preventing bad chicken from reaching the market."

I don't think anyone is making that arguement Rick.

"that old canard about businesses realizing that doing bad things to customers is bad for business."

The basic underlying principles of free enterprise and free markets are an "old canard", huh? Thank God we have the government to protect us from capitalism!

[Donna]

I just find it funny/ironic that your call people "bleaters" while bleating about them. Honestly, your posts are always interesting and insightful if one can manage to wade through the snotty and childish name-calling. Please try to write like a polite adult (which I realize I did not do in this post, but I don't run a blog).