What are the procedures, methods, and approaches for issuing production operation instructions and for reporting on them, in order to ensure consistency and transparency in these instructions?
Thread Content
This post was last edited by 328104062 on 2016-6-13 23:10. As the title suggests: 1. Regarding the methods used to issue production instructions, what procedures, approaches, or techniques are in use to ensure consistency and transparency in these instructions, and to prevent discrepancies in the actions taken by various management departments? With the increasingly strict requirements for refined management, everyone in various departments – the production department, equipment department, process technology department, safety and environmental protection department, dispatchers, shift supervisors, shift managers, deputy production directors, deputy equipment directors, deputy safety directors, and so on – is a leader and involved in production. Just as there are thousands of threads at the top but only one needle at the bottom, different people in different departments have their own interpretations based on their positions, experiences, knowledge, personal interests, and departmental interests. There is no right or wrong in these interpretations, but it’s unclear whether they align with reality on the ground, as no one can know everything about all the equipment, especially since the vast majority of these people aren’t from the front-line workshops. When assigning production tasks and requesting progress reports, the timing, setting, method, and way of communication vary widely: some orders come during morning meetings, others are given during meetings, some are mentioned casually when meeting someone, through phone calls, text messages, or via dispatchers; sometimes ideas arise spontaneously during conversations, in the cafeteria, while using the restroom, or through implied understanding (“you know what I mean”), or even through mutual assumptions... As a result, on the ground level, employees often follow the instructions of one department only to be evaluated by another, and it’s difficult to identify which department gave the order. Moreover, they can’t complain either (because every management department has the authority to evaluate, while frontline employees never have any protection). Unable to find the source of the instructions, frontline employees end up sweating and crying. Regarding the reporting system, how is it implemented? What situations require reporting, how should it be done, to whom should it be submitted, and how can we prevent reporting from becoming a means of passing responsibility around and delaying issues, thereby undermining efficiency? A. When problems arise and accountability is sought, it’s common to hear from subordinates that they had already informed the relevant higher-up department, thinking thus that it has nothing to do with them. B. During meetings, when the top manager asks the department leaders about certain matters, the lower-level staff respond that they are unaware of them, as no one informed them; such significant issues were not reported to them at all” ； When the grassroots staff submitted requests in paper form after the meeting, the department leader replied, “Find a solution on your own; it’s your own problem, and I don’t know how to resolve it either.” C. There is a noticeable tendency to report issues directly to higher authorities: during the morning meeting, the department leader asked the grassroots leaders what caused the bearing of a certain machine unit (or pump) to burn out last night The grassroots leader replied: I didn’t know about this (in fact, he really had no idea about the night-time production). As a result, he was scolded by his superior: How can you manage things like this? Even I know about it; how is it possible you don’t?
At present, we are mainly reporting on the establishment of procedures, which are divided into two tracks: the workshop level and the team level. We make full use of the WeChat platform; any changes to processes must be documented in written forms, so that there is a record of such changes
Making changes here is very troublesome; when there are problems, everyone has to take responsibility, which in effect means that no one really takes any responsibility
There are too many reporting procedures; organizing one meeting and then using another meeting to verify the previous one – it’s a frustrating mechanism
The problems with state-owned enterprises are that there are too many leaders, and everyone wants to get involved and show off their presence. But when something actually happens, no one steps forward out of fear of taking responsibility, and in the end it is the frontline staff who have to bear the burden. If leaders’ earnings are closely linked to production, then people will pay attention
The key is how to change? How are organizational structures and job responsibility systems implemented and enforced?
State-owned enterprises complicate simple issues
It can’t be changed. It existed in the past and will exist in the future. This phenomenon is rare in private businesses, as it involves the boss’s own money, so he will pay close attention to it
The key is to clarify responsibilities and keep all powers within the framework of established rules. What leaders say must be documented, and those who issue orders must be held accountable; a responsibility system must be fully implemented. The control room is the only department authorized to issue orders, and written instructions are required – anything else is not accepted. This is also a means of protecting lower-level units. Especially when making adjustments at night, it is necessary to communicate with the main leaders at the grassroots level. Actually, the key still lies in communication, after all, few people can master everything.
The question is, do you dare to follow through on what you said about the leader?