Process Engineering Proposal/NTAR Assessment
However, after reading the Nuclear Tube Assembly case and then he Process Engineering Proposal find that the two factions are extremely different in their vision of the American Radiation CICS Company, their management style, and job design. What I want to first bring your attention to and in the long run is probably the most important factor in making your decision is the future of your company. The American Radiations Company is one of the prominent leaders in the nuclear electronics industry.
This prestige position comes with somewhat of a heavy burden specifically in terms of keeping pace. Within an industry so be it cars, computers (or any kind of electronics), education, construction and so on and so forth a company/establishment needs to be able to adapt to or set current trends within that industry. In other words, modernization is absolutely key to maintaining a strong customer base. As time goes on and consumer needs change a company needs to find ways to efficiently match those need and come up with new advancements in technology.
Harold Singer, Dry. Daniel and their supporters see this need and feel that this is the best course of action for the company. While I do believe that the new LTD seems to be an exceptional product and something the company should in fact go forward with; I’ve located a handful of discrepancies within Dry. Daniels proposal that are potentially hazardous to the company’s work environment. In section A of part I of the proposal Dry. Daniels states that she desires to hire new workers with higher salaries than existing employees.
Of the eleven workers in the Nuclear Tube Assembly Room the average age is just over 42 with average years with the company approximately 4. 68 years. To hire new faces with higher salaries would send a message to your existing employees saying to them they’re not worth much or held in high regard for their contributions to the company. In most cases; when employees don’t feel that their work is valued it decreases their motivation which often leads to subpart production quality.
In addition, I don’t believe any of the proposed technicians have an education that justifies a higher salary. Another major issue I have with the proposal is that a lot of the “improvements” conflict greatly with the work Walter Long has done in the ANTA. In part A of section II of the proposal Dry. Daniels goes into detail of “Monitoring of Process Changes. ” One of the issues I have with increasing the amount of monitoring done within the ANTA is that it clashes with one Walter Loon’s effective managing traits.
One of the ways Walter encourages team- building and manages stress is by not crowding his workers. In the Walter Long case one of the workers, Betty Giles states, “… We all feel the same way about meeting schedule, provided no one is pushing us. We meet our own schedules and no one breathes down our backs. We do it ourselves” (Walter case). Another issue within the same section is that part (b) specifically talks about not deviating from the process procedure.
As I read in the Walter Long case I discovered the switch from stainless steel to platinum anodes for the tubes first actually occurred out of a mistake by assembly worker Martha Holt. This turned out to be a more efficient and profitable product specification as it greatly decreased the number of bad tubes that had to be sent back. Section B of part II of the proposal suggests for strict work specialization as means to vastly increase process quality. It has been historically proven that this particular job design does not infuse well with the human condition.
Once again, this is where and how Walter Longs ability to delegate, build team esteem, set goals and vision, and managing time and stress are conflicted by the ideologies of the proposal. While some workers like Sylvia Johns do primarily stick with one job; others like Martha Holt and Betty Giles do a variety of different tasks. Skill variety is a major component in high work titivation and Walter Longs effective managing of individual decisions has helped the workers find their niche and what works best for the group to collectively operate together as a function and meet the production deadlines.
I do concur with section C or part II of the proposal that separate testing functions need to be put in place apart from assembly operations. As Alice Homage points out in the Walter Long case, whenever something goes wrong with the tubes or machinery the assembly workers need to figure out what the issue is and this is takes time away from their production and enders them inefficient. In conclusion, in order to facilitate the introduction of the LTD I highly recommend hiring an entire team specifically dedicated to assembling them.