Some discussions on team assessment methods
Thread Content
Let me first explain the situation here. In our factory, due to continuous chemical production and a low level of automation, on-site supervision as well as human factors play a significant role. The existing assessment system places excessive emphasis on widening the gap between teams, increasing competition among them, in order to ensure that those who work more get more. However, at present, the old assessment system has severely restricted current production, as evidenced by the following: 1. Each team focuses only on its own interests, without considering the overall situation; they fail to cooperate with one another and place excessive emphasis on their own team’s benefits. As a result, they often oppose the plant’s efforts to carry out equipment maintenance during their shift, as this affects their own production output. 2. The handover process is problematic and unstable, with parties hindering each other and engaging in disputes. 3. With a fixed production capacity, teams employ various methods to increase output, which severely disrupts production balance and leads to a recurring cycle of production chaos. To address this issue, I adopted a method of jointly evaluating the output and quality of each team: 1. Based on the current situation, the output of each team is assessed using a 6:4 ratio between its own output and that of the previous shift, thereby linking the outputs of different teams together. 2. A total target for the workshop is set; if this target is achieved, then a cyclic evaluation system is used, otherwise an average evaluation is applied. From current practices, this approach has effectively solved the problem of unstable handovers between teams. However, the company’s management believes that it leads to a situation where everyone works equally without any real competition. What are your thoughts on this?
There’s no really good way to do this, because everyone has their own self-interests. Or increase the assessments that create obstacles?
As mentioned earlier, the level of automation is low; everything relies on manual labor. It’s impossible to effectively supervise the night shifts, and in some cases, even if there is knowledge of certain issues, there is no evidence to support it. Therefore, trying to address this issue through performance-based evaluations seems like a solution – if the production volume during a shift is too low, then that shift will also be affected, which should help to reduce such problems.
In continuous production, the night shift and the early shift are, strictly speaking, part of the same shift; it’s definitely not possible to evaluate them separately
In continuous chemical production, it is best not to use output and energy consumption as the main criteria for evaluation; otherwise, conflicts between teams will arise, there will be disputes among different positions, and relationships between people will become cold. Doing so only results in fluctuations in output and energy consumption among different teams, with no actual change for the plant itself; it can be said to be a loss rather than a gain. I believe that strict control over process stability is necessary; only when the process is stable can the output of the plant and its energy consumption be optimized.
Could you please explain your approach? The term \"stable process\" is too vague; it’s necessary to break it down and quantify it in order to assess it properly. The method I introduced is the best one I can think of at the moment.
We conduct sampling and analysis of various control indicators one hour after taking over the shift; any failures are considered as serious deficiencies in performance for that shift. A sample analysis is also conducted within this class; if the results are unsatisfactory, the entire class is assessed. This prevents operators from focusing only on themselves, which would otherwise cause operational difficulties for the next shift. By monitoring some key process parameters, there will be no significant fluctuations in output and energy consumption. Additionally, the stability rate, as well as output and energy consumption levels for each shift, should be summarized on a monthly basis to rank them, followed by appropriate rewards and penalties. It is not recommended that the original poster use a 6:4 ratio for production; conflicts will still arise, and it will also be exhausting.
First, the control room analyzes this; on our end, the material data is one aspect, and sampling is to be arranged for analysis by the control room within half an hour of taking over the shift. However, this kind of situation has occurred many times before; since the control room is part of various teams rather than an independent department, there are cases where the incoming crew deliberately frames the previous crew. In addition, the control room needs to produce samples six times during working hours. Also, our equipment is small in number but large in quantity – three people have to monitor over 200 such devices, and everything that needs to be checked has to be inspected one by one, which is clearly impossible to do within half an hour or an hour of taking over. So it’s more convenient for us to control the final result. 6:4 is very simple; I wrote my own software that allows you to enter the production volume for each class, and it automatically calculates the result. . .
In production, people are the most unstable factor; in order to increase their own or their team’s output and income, many will act in their own interest at the expense of others. Appropriate regulation, suitable random inspections, and intermediate controls can be considered
I personally have never been very optimistic about using assessments to achieve goals, because more or less the situation you mentioned will arise in such cases! Why don’t we use rewards?
I agree as well; for continuous production operations, the assessment should primarily focus on aspects such as the stability of equipment operation, labor discipline, process conditions and product quality, as well as on-site organization and management