When I think of Dan, I think of the days when the system was "living in the scene"
I always think of Dan's smile when he handed me the review form. There is a "Dan" in his name, which sounds like a girl's name. However, with engine oil stains on his cuffs and squatting beside the warehouse shelves to count supplies, he looks more like a "reliable man" than anyone else. In those years of system management, it was all thanks to him that he "hammered" the "rules on paper" into the cracks of the workshop floor tiles, which brought us the most reassuring performance.
The past system "followed the on - site situation"
The system construction at that time was never about "writing documents on a whim". The Enterprise Management Department invited management experts from Tianjin University to stay on-site and selected 28 "capable hands" from production, quality control, administration, and the warehouse - including old workers who had been tightening screws for ten years, engineers who had been in charge of quality for five years, and old accountants who had been keeping warehouse accounts for eight years - to form a system group. Dan led us to go through the old documents three times and changed the "vague requirements" into "implementable standards". For example, in the past, it only said "materials should be clearly labeled". We changed it to "for the materials in the 5th grid on the 3rd layer of the warehouse shelves, the labels must include the name, batch number, and expiration date. The font size should be no smaller than 5, and the label should be pasted 10 centimeters from the left side". In the past, it said "operations should comply with the specifications". We changed it to "when a welder is welding, the protective mask must cover the entire face, and the angle between the welding rod and the workpiece should be kept at 45 degrees".
Auditing is by no means "sitting in the meeting room flipping through documents". Dan often says, "The system lives on - site." Therefore, on our audit form, "on - site inspection items" account for 70%. During the day shift, we follow the assembly line to check operations, seeing if the assemblers have tightened the screws 12 times as required by the SOP. During the night shift, we stake out in the warehouse to check the materials, seeing if the warehousemen at 2 a.m. have registered the batches. Even whether the toolboxes in the workshop are put back in place and whether the fire extinguishers in the rest area have expired are on the checklist. After each audit, we list the problems in a report with white characters on a red background and directly submit it to the general manager. If anyone perfunctorily conducts rectifications, Dan can block the door of the department manager's office with the report until the manager signs and seals it.
To motivate everyone, the company offers "extra performance rewards" to reviewers: a 200-yuan bonus for each "serious non-conformity" detected, and a 500-yuan bonus for those who don't miss any problems for three consecutive months. It's not about the large amount of money, but about "being recognized". When we take the rewards to have a late-night snack, we talk about "the safety hazards detected today that have prevented accidents" and "the warehouse picking becoming half an hour faster after the problem of material labeling was solved". The sense of achievement from "doing something useful" is warmer than money.
The results are there for all to see: In those years, our defective product rate was 15% lower than the group average, our cost control ranked among the top 3, and the employee turnover rate dropped from 12% to 5%. Even Lao Zhou in the workshop said, "Now we don't have to guess when doing our work. We just need to follow the system, so we won't get scolded."
The current system has become "papers in the drawer"
But what about now? The system has become a "tool for coping with inspections".
The audit has changed from "spot-checking for problems" to "filling out forms on paper": The supervisor of the new system holds a folder, flips through a couple of pages, and checks if the documents are signed and stamped, and then considers the "audit" completed. I saw in the workshop last week that the safety guard of a piece of equipment was loose, and no one repaired it; there was a batch of expired materials in the warehouse still piled on the shelves - these obvious problems were not mentioned at all in last month's audit report. Even more ridiculous is that no one argued at the audit meeting. Everyone held their teacups and said, "There are no problems" and "Everything is fine", making it seem like a tea party.
I asked the new internal auditors, "Why don't you conduct on - site inspections?" He said, "It's so troublesome to conduct on - site inspections. Anyway, the documents don't say we need to check this." I pointed to the safety hazards in the workshop and said, "But this is required by the system." He scratched his head and said, "I haven't learned the process of on - site audits." —— The internal auditors who have spent money on training haven't even seen the checklist for on - site audits.
Behind the decline of the system lies the change of "people" and "environment"
It's not that the system has changed, but that "the people using the system" have changed.
The former general manager has retired, and the new general manager pays more attention to "order volume". The manager of the enterprise management department has been replaced by a new person who "only looks at reports" and thinks that "the management system is a cost". After Dan was transferred to be the manager of a subsidiary of the group, the system supervisor was replaced by a young girl who graduated just two years ago. She hasn't even walked through the assembly line in the workshop. How can she understand the "on - site management system"? The old group of internal auditors have either been promoted to department managers or transferred to other positions. The newly - promoted young people have never seen the "Dan - style audit" and think that "the management system is just about filling in forms".
More realistically, the "environment" has changed. In the past, orders were scheduled six months in advance, and employees were stable. Everyone was willing to work within the system. Now, orders come and go. In the first half of the year, people are extremely busy, while in the second half, they are extremely idle. Employees are not even sure if they will have work tomorrow. Who still cares about whether the "system is implemented"? The "extra performance" of auditors has long disappeared, and training has become "accumulating online class hours" - the paid training doesn't even teach the "skills for on - site audits".
The value of a system never lies in "certificates", but in "rules"
I always wonder what the value of a system really is.
It's not the ISO certificates on the wall, nor the manuals in the filing cabinets. It's the "rules". Without rules, employees don't know how to work. Without inspections, the rules will become "empty words". Without checks and balances, problems will pile up. In the past, we were able to do a good job in the system because Dan understood that "the system should be closely integrated with the on - site operations", because we made "inspections" a part of our "daily routine", and because the general manager was willing to get angry for "rectifying problems". But what about now? The system has become a "white elephant". It's not because the system is useless, but because we "don't use the system".
Dan, I miss you
Yesterday, when I passed by the Enterprise Management Department, I saw the new system supervisor filling out the audit form. The pen stopped at the column of "On - site audit situation" and he didn't write a single word for a long time. Suddenly, I thought of Dan. If he were here, he would definitely put down the pen and say, "Come on, go to the workshop with me."
Dan, are you still leading people to inspect the work site in the new company? Do you still block the office door over a problem? Do you still say, "The system lives in the work site"?
I really miss you. I miss the days when you led us to "break into" the on - site with the system. I miss the sense of achievement of "doing something useful". I miss the company where "the system was alive".
The value of a system has always been in the hands of "those who use it". If we can, just as in the past, make the system "fit" the actual situation, turn inspections into daily routines, and implement the rules effectively - perhaps, we can regain that "reliable performance" and that "vibrant system".
What do you think, Dan?