2.99 See Answer

Question: There is no doubt that it was

There is no doubt that it was a disaster for the laboratory. It was the first time that a client had withdrawn from a contract so soon, and it was our fault entirely. It was also a disaster for Vincent. I feel sorry for him. I had known him for years. He was a good guy with seemingly unlimited energy and a host of good ideas. But in the end, he had to go.’ (Petra Reamer, Chief Scientist, Rapp science Labs)Petra Reamer was talking about her predecessor, Vincent De Smet, who was in charge of the laboratories (simply known internally as ‘the lab’) when one of their larger clients, MGQ Services, an extraction services firm, had exercised its right to withdrawfrom a commercial contract with Rapp science for ‘persistent and significant failure to comply with testing and analytical performance’. This came as a shock to the lab because, although they were aware that their performance had not been entirely satisfactory, MGQ had not formally complained about the lab’s performance. MGQ’s withdrawal not only a created a hole in the lab’s revenue projections, it also attracted enough negative publicity in the industry for the lab’s private equity owners, BrightSource Holdings, to replace Vincent De Smet with Petra Reamer. With a background in analytical and industrial forensic testing, Petra started the job of rescuing the lab’s reputation. Rapp science labs Rapp science Labs was located at Beveren, near Antwerp in Belgium. In the past, it had been one of the most reputable labs for analyzing mineral deposits, soil and mixed inert and biological samples for a number of clients, mainly from extraction (mining), oil and gas, and public environmental agencies. It employed 47 staff, almost all with a science or technical background, the majority in testing and analysis roles together with some in administrative and sales roles. Up until the MGQ ‘disaster’, BrightSource had adopted a ‘hands off’ policy towards how the lab was run. That changed after De Smet’s replacement, and Petra Reamer had been given the clear message that she must turn Rapp science around, or its future would be bleak. ‘We lost the MGQ contract in February. Ironically, the previous 12 months had brought in record levels of businessfor the lab. Yet it was business won by undercutting rivals on price. In fact, with hindsight, it is obvious that we had been running at a marginal loss all that year. I arrived in March, and I have spent the last month doing my best to reassure our remaining clients that they can still trust us to deliver a timely and trustworthy service. Unfortunately, a couple of contracts were up for renewal at that time and, regretfully, we lost them. We are now running at what looks like a sustained loss for the first time in our history.’(Petra Reamer) The Rapp science laboratory processthe laboratory divided its activities into four phases of what it called its ‘testing cycle’. These were pre-contract, field operations, analytics and post-analytics. Table 13.6 summarizes these passer-contract occurred at the start of the contract, and involved agreeing with the client the exact specification of the service to be provided. This usually included the range of sample specifications, how they would be delivered to the lab, the nature of the report that would be prepared, and the contracted performance in terms of analytical accuracy (which indicates the veracity of the analysis), precision (which indicates the reproducibility of the analysis) and the timeliness of the report. Laboratory errors had a reported frequency of between 0.012 per cent and 0.6 per cent. Although not large in itself, errors can have a huge impact on clients’ decision-making, as 60–70 per cent of their operational and investment decisions were made on the basis of laboratory tests.Field operations was the responsibility of the client, but the lab often supplied the containers used for the samples, and instructions for taking and packaging the samples. Some clients also insisted on more detailed sampling protocols for their field technicians, including training packs.The analytics phase included all the testing within the lab itself. This would vary depending on the nature of the tests and the procedures specified in the contract. Generally, though, all testing followed three stages; sample preparation, pre-analysis treatment and analysis (see Figure 13.10).
There is no doubt that it was a disaster for the laboratory. It was the first time that a client had withdrawn from a contract so soon, and it was our fault entirely. It was also a disaster for Vincent. I feel sorry for him. I had known him for years. He was a good guy with seemingly unlimited energy and a host of good ideas. But in the end, he had to go.’ (Petra Reamer, Chief Scientist, Rapp science Labs)Petra Reamer was talking about her predecessor, Vincent De Smet, who was in charge of the laboratories (simply known internally as ‘the lab’) when one of their larger clients, MGQ Services, an extraction services firm, had exercised its right to withdrawfrom a commercial contract with Rapp science for ‘persistent and significant failure to comply with testing and analytical performance’. This came as a shock to the lab because, although they were aware that their performance had not been entirely satisfactory, MGQ had not formally complained about the lab’s performance. MGQ’s withdrawal not only a created a hole in the lab’s revenue projections, it also attracted enough negative publicity in the industry for the lab’s private equity owners, BrightSource Holdings, to replace Vincent De Smet with Petra Reamer. With a background in analytical and industrial forensic testing, Petra started the job of rescuing  the lab’s reputation.

Rapp science labs
Rapp science Labs was located at Beveren, near Antwerp in Belgium. In the past, it had been one of the most reputable labs for analyzing mineral deposits, soil and mixed inert and biological samples for a number of clients, mainly from extraction (mining), oil and gas, and public environmental agencies. It employed 47 staff, almost all with a science or technical background, the majority in testing and analysis roles together with some in administrative and sales roles. Up until the MGQ ‘disaster’, BrightSource had adopted a ‘hands off’ policy towards how the lab was run. That changed after De Smet’s replacement, and Petra Reamer had been given the clear message that she must turn Rapp science around, or its future would be bleak. 
‘We lost the MGQ contract in February. Ironically, the previous 12 months had brought in record levels of businessfor the lab. Yet it was business won by undercutting rivals on price. In fact, with hindsight, it is obvious that we had been running at a marginal loss all that year. I arrived in March, and I have spent the last month doing my best to reassure our remaining clients that they can still trust us to deliver a timely and trustworthy service. Unfortunately, a couple of contracts were up for renewal at that time and, regretfully, we lost them. We are now running at what looks like a sustained loss for the first time in our history.’(Petra Reamer) The Rapp science laboratory processthe laboratory divided its activities into four phases of what it called its ‘testing cycle’. These were pre-contract, field operations, analytics and post-analytics. Table 13.6 summarizes these passer-contract occurred at the start of the contract, and involved agreeing with the client the exact specification of the service to be provided. This usually included the range of sample specifications, how they would be delivered to the lab, the nature of the report that would be prepared, and the contracted performance in terms of analytical accuracy (which indicates the veracity of the analysis), precision (which indicates the reproducibility of the analysis) and the timeliness of the report. Laboratory errors had a reported frequency of between 0.012 per cent and 0.6 per cent. Although not large in itself, errors can have a huge impact on clients’ decision-making, as 60–70 per cent of their operational and investment decisions were made on the basis of laboratory tests.Field operations was the responsibility of the client, but the lab often supplied the containers used for the samples, and instructions for taking and packaging the samples. Some clients also insisted on more detailed sampling protocols for their field technicians, including training packs.The analytics phase included all the testing within the lab itself. This would vary depending on the nature of the tests and the procedures specified in the contract. Generally, though, all testing followed three stages; sample preparation, pre-analysis treatment and analysis (see Figure 13.10).
One of the first modifications to the process came when Vincent had decided to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. Almost always there was sufficient material to be able to do this, and the advantage was that, if the testing proved inconclusive, or some performance indicators were outside the permitted range, the tests could be repeated. Performance indicators demonstrated whether the analytical process was behaving as planned, if it had revealed a statistical anomaly that required investigation, or when a test had failed. Most contracts specified a particular confidence level for the results (usually 99.5 per cent), but any small error or contamination in the testing procedure could reduce the confidence level. If this happened, the ‘back-up’ sample could be tested. However, this almost certainly meant that the lab would not be able to meet its promised report delivery time.
The post-analytics phase consisted of preparing the results of the analysis for the client. This was usually a simple report describing the composition of the sample, but some clients also required a more detailed comparative report, where sample data were compared with previous sample readings. Even if such comparative reporting was not required, the lab recorded all sample data.

Initiatives during the De Smet period
Petra Reamer was not unsympathetic to what Vincent De Smet had been trying to do at Rapp science. Not only had Vincent tried to introduce some worthwhile reforms to the lab’s operating procedures, he was laboring under pressure to increase the profitability of the operation. ‘I think that Vincent had been trying to increase the volume of business while keeping staffing levels the same. Presumably he figured that increased revenue with costs held down would equal healthy profitability. He also complicated things by introducing a number of initiatives, all at more or less the same time.’
One of Vincent’s initiatives had been his decision to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. He had done this as a ‘failsafe’ in case there were problems during the analysis phase and the tests had to be repeated. The response of the lab’s technicians to this move had been mixed. Some felt that it was a sensible move that reduced the chances of recording a ‘failed through insufficient material’ result. Although this did not happen often, it was at best embarrassing to the lab and at worst extremely irritating for the client. Others felt that, because there was the possibility of retesting a sample, there was a tendencyto take less care and ‘adopt testing shortcuts’ because the consequences of testing errors were less serious.
Another of Vincent’s innovations had been the introduction of limited statistical process control (SPC). Although the lab had always recorded measures of its analytical performance, it had not formally examined its analytics process performance in any systematic manner. It was the MGQ contract that Vincent won (and lost) that prompted the lab to take the potential of SPC seriously. During the pre-contract phase, MGQ had insisted on its use during all testing on its samples, together with periodic SPC summaries being submitted. Vincent had invested in a ‘smart laboratory’ IT system that was advertised as being able to automate the data management and statistical processes in the lab. However, almost a year after its partial introduction, the consensus in the lab was that it had not been a success. ‘It was just too sophisticated for us’, said Petra Reamer, ‘we were trying to run before we could walk’.The final initiative instituted during Vincent’s time as Chief Scientist was an enhanced set of reporting protocols. ‘It wasn’t a bad idea actually’, admitted Petra Reamer, ‘we already prepared more extensive reports for some clients, so we had the expertise to interpret their test results and advise them on their sampling processes and how they might interpret results. In other words, we have expertise that can add real value for our clients, so why not use it to enhance our quality of service? The problem when Vincent introduced the idea was that he tried to push it as a sales promotion tool. Clients were inclined to dismiss the potential of enhanced reporting because they thought that we were simply trying to get more money out of them.’

Getting back to basics
Petra had taken over from Vincent in March. After three or four weeks talking with all the staff in the lab, she felt she was ready to shape her plans for the lab’s future. She was convinced that the lab had to understand what really mattered to clients and then do everything to improve their performance in a way that would have an impact on the quality of service they were providing. Unfortunately, she was also facing pressure from BrightSource, the lab’s owners, to cut costs. ‘I persuaded them to give me time to restore our reputation. We would find it difficult to do that if we were shedding staff at the same time. Not only would it send the wrong message to the market, it would make it difficult to improve the way we do things. Having said that, we decided not to replace any staff who leftthe lab of their own volition. We also delayed any nonessential expenditure. The main objective was to survive long enough to get back to the basics of how we could serve clients better.’Her first action was to look at how SPC had been used in the lab since it had been introduced. She talked with the chief field engineer at MGQ, who had approved the initial contract that the lab had lost, and who had also insisted on them using SPC. What he said gave Petra much to think about. ‘I kind of knew that, when we insisted on Rapp science using SPC that they really didn’t understand what it was all about. They were simply doing it because it was what the client wanted. Their culture said, “If the samples are returned as the specification, then it’s O-; if not, then as long as it doesn’t happen too often, well that’s O- also. They Lust didn’t get that by seeing their process charts, it enabled us to see more or less exactly what was happening right inside their processes. I take some of the blame myself. I should have made sure that they fully understood why we were so keen for them to use SPC. It was for them to help themselves by improving their process performance. It wasn’t just a whim on our part.’ (Chief Field Engineer, MGQ)The first thing Petra did was to hold a series of meetings, first with the supervisors in each department, then with everyone in each department. She was mainly listening to their experiences of using the SPC system that Vincent had imposed, but her secondary motive was to try to judge how much they understood about the fundamentals of SPC. The answer seemed to be ‘not a lot’. They were all used to using quite sophisticated statistics within their testing procedures, but not for controlling the performance of the processes themselves. Petra rejected on this: ‘I guess it’s because the statistics that our technicians use every day are essentially static. They deal with the probability of certain elements or contaminants being present in a single sample. SPC deals with dynamic probabilities – time series in effect – that show whether process behavior is changing. However, the positive outcome from these meetings was that staff had little problem understanding the basic concepts of SPC, when they were explained. They were not frightened by the math’s.’ Petra realized that, in fact, the biggest problem was attitudinal. ‘We had been working for a year with the attitudethat testing productivity was paramount. Don’t waste time. Get as many tests done as possible every day. It took time to move to an attitude that stressed error-free testing.  What was the point of carrying on with testing when the processes themselves were pout of control? They would only have to be repeated, wasting everyone’s time. It may be counter-intuitive, but being slow but methodical, and checking the process regularly, can actually increase effective productivity.’ With the agreement of her staff, Petra devised a set of ‘check rules’. These were reference values for all the major procedures in the sample preparation, pre-analysis and analysis stages, which indicated that test results at any stage, although within the limits that indicated a reliable result, were close to those limits. If results violated these ‘check rules’, the test would be suspended and the sample investigated before it was allowed to progress. Petra had three reasons for instituting the ‘check rules. 
First, it prevented effort being wasted on samples that could be compromised. Second, it stressed the importance of trying to investigate the root causes of any problems with the process. Third, it emphasized the importance of the lab’s processes in determining their quality of service to customers, and therefore to the lab’s profitability and survival.The ‘root cause’ program September the lab’s process performance had improved to the point where the number of samples that failed the reliability test had almost halved, and the number of late  reports had fallen by over a third. But Petra believed that further improvements were possible.‘The most significant change is in the lab’s culture. Before, staff were simply going through the motions. They were not deliberately being careless, but they were not really digging beneath  what they were doing, they were not building their process knowledge. If asked, they would tell you what they were doing rather than why they were doing it. Now there is genuine curiosity about how testing procedures could be made better.’Petra wanted to use the staff’s new-found interest in the process to make further improvements through what she called the ‘root cause’ initiative. As the name implies, this was a push to discover what was causing problems in testing. The data collected from those occasions where the


check rules had been invoked provided valuable information, which was further supplemented by individual investigations by ‘root cause teams’ in each department. Petra, with the support of supervisors in each department, had encouraged the formation of these teams, but not made them compulsory. However, most staff elected to become ‘root cause team’ members.By the end of October, Petra was in a position to consolidate all the data on the root causes of all the occasions when an error of some sort had occurred in the lab’s processes. This included any defect, from ordering tests to reporting and interpretation of the results. Table 13.7 shows the root causes.
What was interesting to Petra was the dominance of errors with a root cause outside the lab. The data indicated that more than half of all errors were outside the scope of the lab’s responsibility. ‘This shouldn’t lead us into any form of complacency. We can still do a lot to tackle the errors in the phases of the process for which we are clearly responsible. Basic laboratory procedure, such as choosingthe incorrect reagent, violating process rule, or allowing contamination, should not be happening. Also, I suspect that we are actually committing more errors in the preport and record phase than it seems. 'errors in testing are more obvious, but reporting is not always right or wrong. There are probably opportunities to enhance our service to clients that we are missing. You could class them as just as much of an perform as a contaminated sample.’

Questions
1. In hindsight, what were Vincent’s mistakes in running the lab?
2. How did Petra’s approach differ, and why was it more successful?
3. Is a ‘missed opportunity’ in the report and record stage as much of an error as a contaminated sample, as Petra suggests?
4. What do you suggest that Petra does next to improve process quality further?


There is no doubt that it was a disaster for the laboratory. It was the first time that a client had withdrawn from a contract so soon, and it was our fault entirely. It was also a disaster for Vincent. I feel sorry for him. I had known him for years. He was a good guy with seemingly unlimited energy and a host of good ideas. But in the end, he had to go.’ (Petra Reamer, Chief Scientist, Rapp science Labs)Petra Reamer was talking about her predecessor, Vincent De Smet, who was in charge of the laboratories (simply known internally as ‘the lab’) when one of their larger clients, MGQ Services, an extraction services firm, had exercised its right to withdrawfrom a commercial contract with Rapp science for ‘persistent and significant failure to comply with testing and analytical performance’. This came as a shock to the lab because, although they were aware that their performance had not been entirely satisfactory, MGQ had not formally complained about the lab’s performance. MGQ’s withdrawal not only a created a hole in the lab’s revenue projections, it also attracted enough negative publicity in the industry for the lab’s private equity owners, BrightSource Holdings, to replace Vincent De Smet with Petra Reamer. With a background in analytical and industrial forensic testing, Petra started the job of rescuing  the lab’s reputation.

Rapp science labs
Rapp science Labs was located at Beveren, near Antwerp in Belgium. In the past, it had been one of the most reputable labs for analyzing mineral deposits, soil and mixed inert and biological samples for a number of clients, mainly from extraction (mining), oil and gas, and public environmental agencies. It employed 47 staff, almost all with a science or technical background, the majority in testing and analysis roles together with some in administrative and sales roles. Up until the MGQ ‘disaster’, BrightSource had adopted a ‘hands off’ policy towards how the lab was run. That changed after De Smet’s replacement, and Petra Reamer had been given the clear message that she must turn Rapp science around, or its future would be bleak. 
‘We lost the MGQ contract in February. Ironically, the previous 12 months had brought in record levels of businessfor the lab. Yet it was business won by undercutting rivals on price. In fact, with hindsight, it is obvious that we had been running at a marginal loss all that year. I arrived in March, and I have spent the last month doing my best to reassure our remaining clients that they can still trust us to deliver a timely and trustworthy service. Unfortunately, a couple of contracts were up for renewal at that time and, regretfully, we lost them. We are now running at what looks like a sustained loss for the first time in our history.’(Petra Reamer) The Rapp science laboratory processthe laboratory divided its activities into four phases of what it called its ‘testing cycle’. These were pre-contract, field operations, analytics and post-analytics. Table 13.6 summarizes these passer-contract occurred at the start of the contract, and involved agreeing with the client the exact specification of the service to be provided. This usually included the range of sample specifications, how they would be delivered to the lab, the nature of the report that would be prepared, and the contracted performance in terms of analytical accuracy (which indicates the veracity of the analysis), precision (which indicates the reproducibility of the analysis) and the timeliness of the report. Laboratory errors had a reported frequency of between 0.012 per cent and 0.6 per cent. Although not large in itself, errors can have a huge impact on clients’ decision-making, as 60–70 per cent of their operational and investment decisions were made on the basis of laboratory tests.Field operations was the responsibility of the client, but the lab often supplied the containers used for the samples, and instructions for taking and packaging the samples. Some clients also insisted on more detailed sampling protocols for their field technicians, including training packs.The analytics phase included all the testing within the lab itself. This would vary depending on the nature of the tests and the procedures specified in the contract. Generally, though, all testing followed three stages; sample preparation, pre-analysis treatment and analysis (see Figure 13.10).
One of the first modifications to the process came when Vincent had decided to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. Almost always there was sufficient material to be able to do this, and the advantage was that, if the testing proved inconclusive, or some performance indicators were outside the permitted range, the tests could be repeated. Performance indicators demonstrated whether the analytical process was behaving as planned, if it had revealed a statistical anomaly that required investigation, or when a test had failed. Most contracts specified a particular confidence level for the results (usually 99.5 per cent), but any small error or contamination in the testing procedure could reduce the confidence level. If this happened, the ‘back-up’ sample could be tested. However, this almost certainly meant that the lab would not be able to meet its promised report delivery time.
The post-analytics phase consisted of preparing the results of the analysis for the client. This was usually a simple report describing the composition of the sample, but some clients also required a more detailed comparative report, where sample data were compared with previous sample readings. Even if such comparative reporting was not required, the lab recorded all sample data.

Initiatives during the De Smet period
Petra Reamer was not unsympathetic to what Vincent De Smet had been trying to do at Rapp science. Not only had Vincent tried to introduce some worthwhile reforms to the lab’s operating procedures, he was laboring under pressure to increase the profitability of the operation. ‘I think that Vincent had been trying to increase the volume of business while keeping staffing levels the same. Presumably he figured that increased revenue with costs held down would equal healthy profitability. He also complicated things by introducing a number of initiatives, all at more or less the same time.’
One of Vincent’s initiatives had been his decision to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. He had done this as a ‘failsafe’ in case there were problems during the analysis phase and the tests had to be repeated. The response of the lab’s technicians to this move had been mixed. Some felt that it was a sensible move that reduced the chances of recording a ‘failed through insufficient material’ result. Although this did not happen often, it was at best embarrassing to the lab and at worst extremely irritating for the client. Others felt that, because there was the possibility of retesting a sample, there was a tendencyto take less care and ‘adopt testing shortcuts’ because the consequences of testing errors were less serious.
Another of Vincent’s innovations had been the introduction of limited statistical process control (SPC). Although the lab had always recorded measures of its analytical performance, it had not formally examined its analytics process performance in any systematic manner. It was the MGQ contract that Vincent won (and lost) that prompted the lab to take the potential of SPC seriously. During the pre-contract phase, MGQ had insisted on its use during all testing on its samples, together with periodic SPC summaries being submitted. Vincent had invested in a ‘smart laboratory’ IT system that was advertised as being able to automate the data management and statistical processes in the lab. However, almost a year after its partial introduction, the consensus in the lab was that it had not been a success. ‘It was just too sophisticated for us’, said Petra Reamer, ‘we were trying to run before we could walk’.The final initiative instituted during Vincent’s time as Chief Scientist was an enhanced set of reporting protocols. ‘It wasn’t a bad idea actually’, admitted Petra Reamer, ‘we already prepared more extensive reports for some clients, so we had the expertise to interpret their test results and advise them on their sampling processes and how they might interpret results. In other words, we have expertise that can add real value for our clients, so why not use it to enhance our quality of service? The problem when Vincent introduced the idea was that he tried to push it as a sales promotion tool. Clients were inclined to dismiss the potential of enhanced reporting because they thought that we were simply trying to get more money out of them.’

Getting back to basics
Petra had taken over from Vincent in March. After three or four weeks talking with all the staff in the lab, she felt she was ready to shape her plans for the lab’s future. She was convinced that the lab had to understand what really mattered to clients and then do everything to improve their performance in a way that would have an impact on the quality of service they were providing. Unfortunately, she was also facing pressure from BrightSource, the lab’s owners, to cut costs. ‘I persuaded them to give me time to restore our reputation. We would find it difficult to do that if we were shedding staff at the same time. Not only would it send the wrong message to the market, it would make it difficult to improve the way we do things. Having said that, we decided not to replace any staff who leftthe lab of their own volition. We also delayed any nonessential expenditure. The main objective was to survive long enough to get back to the basics of how we could serve clients better.’Her first action was to look at how SPC had been used in the lab since it had been introduced. She talked with the chief field engineer at MGQ, who had approved the initial contract that the lab had lost, and who had also insisted on them using SPC. What he said gave Petra much to think about. ‘I kind of knew that, when we insisted on Rapp science using SPC that they really didn’t understand what it was all about. They were simply doing it because it was what the client wanted. Their culture said, “If the samples are returned as the specification, then it’s O-; if not, then as long as it doesn’t happen too often, well that’s O- also. They Lust didn’t get that by seeing their process charts, it enabled us to see more or less exactly what was happening right inside their processes. I take some of the blame myself. I should have made sure that they fully understood why we were so keen for them to use SPC. It was for them to help themselves by improving their process performance. It wasn’t just a whim on our part.’ (Chief Field Engineer, MGQ)The first thing Petra did was to hold a series of meetings, first with the supervisors in each department, then with everyone in each department. She was mainly listening to their experiences of using the SPC system that Vincent had imposed, but her secondary motive was to try to judge how much they understood about the fundamentals of SPC. The answer seemed to be ‘not a lot’. They were all used to using quite sophisticated statistics within their testing procedures, but not for controlling the performance of the processes themselves. Petra rejected on this: ‘I guess it’s because the statistics that our technicians use every day are essentially static. They deal with the probability of certain elements or contaminants being present in a single sample. SPC deals with dynamic probabilities – time series in effect – that show whether process behavior is changing. However, the positive outcome from these meetings was that staff had little problem understanding the basic concepts of SPC, when they were explained. They were not frightened by the math’s.’ Petra realized that, in fact, the biggest problem was attitudinal. ‘We had been working for a year with the attitudethat testing productivity was paramount. Don’t waste time. Get as many tests done as possible every day. It took time to move to an attitude that stressed error-free testing.  What was the point of carrying on with testing when the processes themselves were pout of control? They would only have to be repeated, wasting everyone’s time. It may be counter-intuitive, but being slow but methodical, and checking the process regularly, can actually increase effective productivity.’ With the agreement of her staff, Petra devised a set of ‘check rules’. These were reference values for all the major procedures in the sample preparation, pre-analysis and analysis stages, which indicated that test results at any stage, although within the limits that indicated a reliable result, were close to those limits. If results violated these ‘check rules’, the test would be suspended and the sample investigated before it was allowed to progress. Petra had three reasons for instituting the ‘check rules. 
First, it prevented effort being wasted on samples that could be compromised. Second, it stressed the importance of trying to investigate the root causes of any problems with the process. Third, it emphasized the importance of the lab’s processes in determining their quality of service to customers, and therefore to the lab’s profitability and survival.The ‘root cause’ program September the lab’s process performance had improved to the point where the number of samples that failed the reliability test had almost halved, and the number of late  reports had fallen by over a third. But Petra believed that further improvements were possible.‘The most significant change is in the lab’s culture. Before, staff were simply going through the motions. They were not deliberately being careless, but they were not really digging beneath  what they were doing, they were not building their process knowledge. If asked, they would tell you what they were doing rather than why they were doing it. Now there is genuine curiosity about how testing procedures could be made better.’Petra wanted to use the staff’s new-found interest in the process to make further improvements through what she called the ‘root cause’ initiative. As the name implies, this was a push to discover what was causing problems in testing. The data collected from those occasions where the


check rules had been invoked provided valuable information, which was further supplemented by individual investigations by ‘root cause teams’ in each department. Petra, with the support of supervisors in each department, had encouraged the formation of these teams, but not made them compulsory. However, most staff elected to become ‘root cause team’ members.By the end of October, Petra was in a position to consolidate all the data on the root causes of all the occasions when an error of some sort had occurred in the lab’s processes. This included any defect, from ordering tests to reporting and interpretation of the results. Table 13.7 shows the root causes.
What was interesting to Petra was the dominance of errors with a root cause outside the lab. The data indicated that more than half of all errors were outside the scope of the lab’s responsibility. ‘This shouldn’t lead us into any form of complacency. We can still do a lot to tackle the errors in the phases of the process for which we are clearly responsible. Basic laboratory procedure, such as choosingthe incorrect reagent, violating process rule, or allowing contamination, should not be happening. Also, I suspect that we are actually committing more errors in the preport and record phase than it seems. 'errors in testing are more obvious, but reporting is not always right or wrong. There are probably opportunities to enhance our service to clients that we are missing. You could class them as just as much of an perform as a contaminated sample.’

Questions
1. In hindsight, what were Vincent’s mistakes in running the lab?
2. How did Petra’s approach differ, and why was it more successful?
3. Is a ‘missed opportunity’ in the report and record stage as much of an error as a contaminated sample, as Petra suggests?
4. What do you suggest that Petra does next to improve process quality further?

One of the first modifications to the process came when Vincent had decided to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. Almost always there was sufficient material to be able to do this, and the advantage was that, if the testing proved inconclusive, or some performance indicators were outside the permitted range, the tests could be repeated. Performance indicators demonstrated whether the analytical process was behaving as planned, if it had revealed a statistical anomaly that required investigation, or when a test had failed. Most contracts specified a particular confidence level for the results (usually 99.5 per cent), but any small error or contamination in the testing procedure could reduce the confidence level. If this happened, the ‘back-up’ sample could be tested. However, this almost certainly meant that the lab would not be able to meet its promised report delivery time. The post-analytics phase consisted of preparing the results of the analysis for the client. This was usually a simple report describing the composition of the sample, but some clients also required a more detailed comparative report, where sample data were compared with previous sample readings. Even if such comparative reporting was not required, the lab recorded all sample data. Initiatives during the De Smet period Petra Reamer was not unsympathetic to what Vincent De Smet had been trying to do at Rapp science. Not only had Vincent tried to introduce some worthwhile reforms to the lab’s operating procedures, he was laboring under pressure to increase the profitability of the operation. ‘I think that Vincent had been trying to increase the volume of business while keeping staffing levels the same. Presumably he figured that increased revenue with costs held down would equal healthy profitability. He also complicated things by introducing a number of initiatives, all at more or less the same time.’ One of Vincent’s initiatives had been his decision to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. He had done this as a ‘failsafe’ in case there were problems during the analysis phase and the tests had to be repeated. The response of the lab’s technicians to this move had been mixed. Some felt that it was a sensible move that reduced the chances of recording a ‘failed through insufficient material’ result. Although this did not happen often, it was at best embarrassing to the lab and at worst extremely irritating for the client. Others felt that, because there was the possibility of retesting a sample, there was a tendencyto take less care and ‘adopt testing shortcuts’ because the consequences of testing errors were less serious. Another of Vincent’s innovations had been the introduction of limited statistical process control (SPC). Although the lab had always recorded measures of its analytical performance, it had not formally examined its analytics process performance in any systematic manner. It was the MGQ contract that Vincent won (and lost) that prompted the lab to take the potential of SPC seriously. During the pre-contract phase, MGQ had insisted on its use during all testing on its samples, together with periodic SPC summaries being submitted. Vincent had invested in a ‘smart laboratory’ IT system that was advertised as being able to automate the data management and statistical processes in the lab. However, almost a year after its partial introduction, the consensus in the lab was that it had not been a success. ‘It was just too sophisticated for us’, said Petra Reamer, ‘we were trying to run before we could walk’.The final initiative instituted during Vincent’s time as Chief Scientist was an enhanced set of reporting protocols. ‘It wasn’t a bad idea actually’, admitted Petra Reamer, ‘we already prepared more extensive reports for some clients, so we had the expertise to interpret their test results and advise them on their sampling processes and how they might interpret results. In other words, we have expertise that can add real value for our clients, so why not use it to enhance our quality of service? The problem when Vincent introduced the idea was that he tried to push it as a sales promotion tool. Clients were inclined to dismiss the potential of enhanced reporting because they thought that we were simply trying to get more money out of them.’ Getting back to basics Petra had taken over from Vincent in March. After three or four weeks talking with all the staff in the lab, she felt she was ready to shape her plans for the lab’s future. She was convinced that the lab had to understand what really mattered to clients and then do everything to improve their performance in a way that would have an impact on the quality of service they were providing. Unfortunately, she was also facing pressure from BrightSource, the lab’s owners, to cut costs. ‘I persuaded them to give me time to restore our reputation. We would find it difficult to do that if we were shedding staff at the same time. Not only would it send the wrong message to the market, it would make it difficult to improve the way we do things. Having said that, we decided not to replace any staff who leftthe lab of their own volition. We also delayed any nonessential expenditure. The main objective was to survive long enough to get back to the basics of how we could serve clients better.’Her first action was to look at how SPC had been used in the lab since it had been introduced. She talked with the chief field engineer at MGQ, who had approved the initial contract that the lab had lost, and who had also insisted on them using SPC. What he said gave Petra much to think about. ‘I kind of knew that, when we insisted on Rapp science using SPC that they really didn’t understand what it was all about. They were simply doing it because it was what the client wanted. Their culture said, “If the samples are returned as the specification, then it’s O-; if not, then as long as it doesn’t happen too often, well that’s O- also. They Lust didn’t get that by seeing their process charts, it enabled us to see more or less exactly what was happening right inside their processes. I take some of the blame myself. I should have made sure that they fully understood why we were so keen for them to use SPC. It was for them to help themselves by improving their process performance. It wasn’t just a whim on our part.’ (Chief Field Engineer, MGQ)The first thing Petra did was to hold a series of meetings, first with the supervisors in each department, then with everyone in each department. She was mainly listening to their experiences of using the SPC system that Vincent had imposed, but her secondary motive was to try to judge how much they understood about the fundamentals of SPC. The answer seemed to be ‘not a lot’. They were all used to using quite sophisticated statistics within their testing procedures, but not for controlling the performance of the processes themselves. Petra rejected on this: ‘I guess it’s because the statistics that our technicians use every day are essentially static. They deal with the probability of certain elements or contaminants being present in a single sample. SPC deals with dynamic probabilities – time series in effect – that show whether process behavior is changing. However, the positive outcome from these meetings was that staff had little problem understanding the basic concepts of SPC, when they were explained. They were not frightened by the math’s.’ Petra realized that, in fact, the biggest problem was attitudinal. ‘We had been working for a year with the attitudethat testing productivity was paramount. Don’t waste time. Get as many tests done as possible every day. It took time to move to an attitude that stressed error-free testing. What was the point of carrying on with testing when the processes themselves were pout of control? They would only have to be repeated, wasting everyone’s time. It may be counter-intuitive, but being slow but methodical, and checking the process regularly, can actually increase effective productivity.’ With the agreement of her staff, Petra devised a set of ‘check rules’. These were reference values for all the major procedures in the sample preparation, pre-analysis and analysis stages, which indicated that test results at any stage, although within the limits that indicated a reliable result, were close to those limits. If results violated these ‘check rules’, the test would be suspended and the sample investigated before it was allowed to progress. Petra had three reasons for instituting the ‘check rules. First, it prevented effort being wasted on samples that could be compromised. Second, it stressed the importance of trying to investigate the root causes of any problems with the process. Third, it emphasized the importance of the lab’s processes in determining their quality of service to customers, and therefore to the lab’s profitability and survival.The ‘root cause’ program September the lab’s process performance had improved to the point where the number of samples that failed the reliability test had almost halved, and the number of late reports had fallen by over a third. But Petra believed that further improvements were possible.‘The most significant change is in the lab’s culture. Before, staff were simply going through the motions. They were not deliberately being careless, but they were not really digging beneath what they were doing, they were not building their process knowledge. If asked, they would tell you what they were doing rather than why they were doing it. Now there is genuine curiosity about how testing procedures could be made better.’Petra wanted to use the staff’s new-found interest in the process to make further improvements through what she called the ‘root cause’ initiative. As the name implies, this was a push to discover what was causing problems in testing. The data collected from those occasions where the
There is no doubt that it was a disaster for the laboratory. It was the first time that a client had withdrawn from a contract so soon, and it was our fault entirely. It was also a disaster for Vincent. I feel sorry for him. I had known him for years. He was a good guy with seemingly unlimited energy and a host of good ideas. But in the end, he had to go.’ (Petra Reamer, Chief Scientist, Rapp science Labs)Petra Reamer was talking about her predecessor, Vincent De Smet, who was in charge of the laboratories (simply known internally as ‘the lab’) when one of their larger clients, MGQ Services, an extraction services firm, had exercised its right to withdrawfrom a commercial contract with Rapp science for ‘persistent and significant failure to comply with testing and analytical performance’. This came as a shock to the lab because, although they were aware that their performance had not been entirely satisfactory, MGQ had not formally complained about the lab’s performance. MGQ’s withdrawal not only a created a hole in the lab’s revenue projections, it also attracted enough negative publicity in the industry for the lab’s private equity owners, BrightSource Holdings, to replace Vincent De Smet with Petra Reamer. With a background in analytical and industrial forensic testing, Petra started the job of rescuing  the lab’s reputation.

Rapp science labs
Rapp science Labs was located at Beveren, near Antwerp in Belgium. In the past, it had been one of the most reputable labs for analyzing mineral deposits, soil and mixed inert and biological samples for a number of clients, mainly from extraction (mining), oil and gas, and public environmental agencies. It employed 47 staff, almost all with a science or technical background, the majority in testing and analysis roles together with some in administrative and sales roles. Up until the MGQ ‘disaster’, BrightSource had adopted a ‘hands off’ policy towards how the lab was run. That changed after De Smet’s replacement, and Petra Reamer had been given the clear message that she must turn Rapp science around, or its future would be bleak. 
‘We lost the MGQ contract in February. Ironically, the previous 12 months had brought in record levels of businessfor the lab. Yet it was business won by undercutting rivals on price. In fact, with hindsight, it is obvious that we had been running at a marginal loss all that year. I arrived in March, and I have spent the last month doing my best to reassure our remaining clients that they can still trust us to deliver a timely and trustworthy service. Unfortunately, a couple of contracts were up for renewal at that time and, regretfully, we lost them. We are now running at what looks like a sustained loss for the first time in our history.’(Petra Reamer) The Rapp science laboratory processthe laboratory divided its activities into four phases of what it called its ‘testing cycle’. These were pre-contract, field operations, analytics and post-analytics. Table 13.6 summarizes these passer-contract occurred at the start of the contract, and involved agreeing with the client the exact specification of the service to be provided. This usually included the range of sample specifications, how they would be delivered to the lab, the nature of the report that would be prepared, and the contracted performance in terms of analytical accuracy (which indicates the veracity of the analysis), precision (which indicates the reproducibility of the analysis) and the timeliness of the report. Laboratory errors had a reported frequency of between 0.012 per cent and 0.6 per cent. Although not large in itself, errors can have a huge impact on clients’ decision-making, as 60–70 per cent of their operational and investment decisions were made on the basis of laboratory tests.Field operations was the responsibility of the client, but the lab often supplied the containers used for the samples, and instructions for taking and packaging the samples. Some clients also insisted on more detailed sampling protocols for their field technicians, including training packs.The analytics phase included all the testing within the lab itself. This would vary depending on the nature of the tests and the procedures specified in the contract. Generally, though, all testing followed three stages; sample preparation, pre-analysis treatment and analysis (see Figure 13.10).
One of the first modifications to the process came when Vincent had decided to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. Almost always there was sufficient material to be able to do this, and the advantage was that, if the testing proved inconclusive, or some performance indicators were outside the permitted range, the tests could be repeated. Performance indicators demonstrated whether the analytical process was behaving as planned, if it had revealed a statistical anomaly that required investigation, or when a test had failed. Most contracts specified a particular confidence level for the results (usually 99.5 per cent), but any small error or contamination in the testing procedure could reduce the confidence level. If this happened, the ‘back-up’ sample could be tested. However, this almost certainly meant that the lab would not be able to meet its promised report delivery time.
The post-analytics phase consisted of preparing the results of the analysis for the client. This was usually a simple report describing the composition of the sample, but some clients also required a more detailed comparative report, where sample data were compared with previous sample readings. Even if such comparative reporting was not required, the lab recorded all sample data.

Initiatives during the De Smet period
Petra Reamer was not unsympathetic to what Vincent De Smet had been trying to do at Rapp science. Not only had Vincent tried to introduce some worthwhile reforms to the lab’s operating procedures, he was laboring under pressure to increase the profitability of the operation. ‘I think that Vincent had been trying to increase the volume of business while keeping staffing levels the same. Presumably he figured that increased revenue with costs held down would equal healthy profitability. He also complicated things by introducing a number of initiatives, all at more or less the same time.’
One of Vincent’s initiatives had been his decision to split the sample into two parts before it was tested. He had done this as a ‘failsafe’ in case there were problems during the analysis phase and the tests had to be repeated. The response of the lab’s technicians to this move had been mixed. Some felt that it was a sensible move that reduced the chances of recording a ‘failed through insufficient material’ result. Although this did not happen often, it was at best embarrassing to the lab and at worst extremely irritating for the client. Others felt that, because there was the possibility of retesting a sample, there was a tendencyto take less care and ‘adopt testing shortcuts’ because the consequences of testing errors were less serious.
Another of Vincent’s innovations had been the introduction of limited statistical process control (SPC). Although the lab had always recorded measures of its analytical performance, it had not formally examined its analytics process performance in any systematic manner. It was the MGQ contract that Vincent won (and lost) that prompted the lab to take the potential of SPC seriously. During the pre-contract phase, MGQ had insisted on its use during all testing on its samples, together with periodic SPC summaries being submitted. Vincent had invested in a ‘smart laboratory’ IT system that was advertised as being able to automate the data management and statistical processes in the lab. However, almost a year after its partial introduction, the consensus in the lab was that it had not been a success. ‘It was just too sophisticated for us’, said Petra Reamer, ‘we were trying to run before we could walk’.The final initiative instituted during Vincent’s time as Chief Scientist was an enhanced set of reporting protocols. ‘It wasn’t a bad idea actually’, admitted Petra Reamer, ‘we already prepared more extensive reports for some clients, so we had the expertise to interpret their test results and advise them on their sampling processes and how they might interpret results. In other words, we have expertise that can add real value for our clients, so why not use it to enhance our quality of service? The problem when Vincent introduced the idea was that he tried to push it as a sales promotion tool. Clients were inclined to dismiss the potential of enhanced reporting because they thought that we were simply trying to get more money out of them.’

Getting back to basics
Petra had taken over from Vincent in March. After three or four weeks talking with all the staff in the lab, she felt she was ready to shape her plans for the lab’s future. She was convinced that the lab had to understand what really mattered to clients and then do everything to improve their performance in a way that would have an impact on the quality of service they were providing. Unfortunately, she was also facing pressure from BrightSource, the lab’s owners, to cut costs. ‘I persuaded them to give me time to restore our reputation. We would find it difficult to do that if we were shedding staff at the same time. Not only would it send the wrong message to the market, it would make it difficult to improve the way we do things. Having said that, we decided not to replace any staff who leftthe lab of their own volition. We also delayed any nonessential expenditure. The main objective was to survive long enough to get back to the basics of how we could serve clients better.’Her first action was to look at how SPC had been used in the lab since it had been introduced. She talked with the chief field engineer at MGQ, who had approved the initial contract that the lab had lost, and who had also insisted on them using SPC. What he said gave Petra much to think about. ‘I kind of knew that, when we insisted on Rapp science using SPC that they really didn’t understand what it was all about. They were simply doing it because it was what the client wanted. Their culture said, “If the samples are returned as the specification, then it’s O-; if not, then as long as it doesn’t happen too often, well that’s O- also. They Lust didn’t get that by seeing their process charts, it enabled us to see more or less exactly what was happening right inside their processes. I take some of the blame myself. I should have made sure that they fully understood why we were so keen for them to use SPC. It was for them to help themselves by improving their process performance. It wasn’t just a whim on our part.’ (Chief Field Engineer, MGQ)The first thing Petra did was to hold a series of meetings, first with the supervisors in each department, then with everyone in each department. She was mainly listening to their experiences of using the SPC system that Vincent had imposed, but her secondary motive was to try to judge how much they understood about the fundamentals of SPC. The answer seemed to be ‘not a lot’. They were all used to using quite sophisticated statistics within their testing procedures, but not for controlling the performance of the processes themselves. Petra rejected on this: ‘I guess it’s because the statistics that our technicians use every day are essentially static. They deal with the probability of certain elements or contaminants being present in a single sample. SPC deals with dynamic probabilities – time series in effect – that show whether process behavior is changing. However, the positive outcome from these meetings was that staff had little problem understanding the basic concepts of SPC, when they were explained. They were not frightened by the math’s.’ Petra realized that, in fact, the biggest problem was attitudinal. ‘We had been working for a year with the attitudethat testing productivity was paramount. Don’t waste time. Get as many tests done as possible every day. It took time to move to an attitude that stressed error-free testing.  What was the point of carrying on with testing when the processes themselves were pout of control? They would only have to be repeated, wasting everyone’s time. It may be counter-intuitive, but being slow but methodical, and checking the process regularly, can actually increase effective productivity.’ With the agreement of her staff, Petra devised a set of ‘check rules’. These were reference values for all the major procedures in the sample preparation, pre-analysis and analysis stages, which indicated that test results at any stage, although within the limits that indicated a reliable result, were close to those limits. If results violated these ‘check rules’, the test would be suspended and the sample investigated before it was allowed to progress. Petra had three reasons for instituting the ‘check rules. 
First, it prevented effort being wasted on samples that could be compromised. Second, it stressed the importance of trying to investigate the root causes of any problems with the process. Third, it emphasized the importance of the lab’s processes in determining their quality of service to customers, and therefore to the lab’s profitability and survival.The ‘root cause’ program September the lab’s process performance had improved to the point where the number of samples that failed the reliability test had almost halved, and the number of late  reports had fallen by over a third. But Petra believed that further improvements were possible.‘The most significant change is in the lab’s culture. Before, staff were simply going through the motions. They were not deliberately being careless, but they were not really digging beneath  what they were doing, they were not building their process knowledge. If asked, they would tell you what they were doing rather than why they were doing it. Now there is genuine curiosity about how testing procedures could be made better.’Petra wanted to use the staff’s new-found interest in the process to make further improvements through what she called the ‘root cause’ initiative. As the name implies, this was a push to discover what was causing problems in testing. The data collected from those occasions where the


check rules had been invoked provided valuable information, which was further supplemented by individual investigations by ‘root cause teams’ in each department. Petra, with the support of supervisors in each department, had encouraged the formation of these teams, but not made them compulsory. However, most staff elected to become ‘root cause team’ members.By the end of October, Petra was in a position to consolidate all the data on the root causes of all the occasions when an error of some sort had occurred in the lab’s processes. This included any defect, from ordering tests to reporting and interpretation of the results. Table 13.7 shows the root causes.
What was interesting to Petra was the dominance of errors with a root cause outside the lab. The data indicated that more than half of all errors were outside the scope of the lab’s responsibility. ‘This shouldn’t lead us into any form of complacency. We can still do a lot to tackle the errors in the phases of the process for which we are clearly responsible. Basic laboratory procedure, such as choosingthe incorrect reagent, violating process rule, or allowing contamination, should not be happening. Also, I suspect that we are actually committing more errors in the preport and record phase than it seems. 'errors in testing are more obvious, but reporting is not always right or wrong. There are probably opportunities to enhance our service to clients that we are missing. You could class them as just as much of an perform as a contaminated sample.’

Questions
1. In hindsight, what were Vincent’s mistakes in running the lab?
2. How did Petra’s approach differ, and why was it more successful?
3. Is a ‘missed opportunity’ in the report and record stage as much of an error as a contaminated sample, as Petra suggests?
4. What do you suggest that Petra does next to improve process quality further?

check rules had been invoked provided valuable information, which was further supplemented by individual investigations by ‘root cause teams’ in each department. Petra, with the support of supervisors in each department, had encouraged the formation of these teams, but not made them compulsory. However, most staff elected to become ‘root cause team’ members.By the end of October, Petra was in a position to consolidate all the data on the root causes of all the occasions when an error of some sort had occurred in the lab’s processes. This included any defect, from ordering tests to reporting and interpretation of the results. Table 13.7 shows the root causes. What was interesting to Petra was the dominance of errors with a root cause outside the lab. The data indicated that more than half of all errors were outside the scope of the lab’s responsibility. ‘This shouldn’t lead us into any form of complacency. We can still do a lot to tackle the errors in the phases of the process for which we are clearly responsible. Basic laboratory procedure, such as choosingthe incorrect reagent, violating process rule, or allowing contamination, should not be happening. Also, I suspect that we are actually committing more errors in the preport and record phase than it seems. 'errors in testing are more obvious, but reporting is not always right or wrong. There are probably opportunities to enhance our service to clients that we are missing. You could class them as just as much of an perform as a contaminated sample.’ Questions 1. In hindsight, what were Vincent’s mistakes in running the lab? 2. How did Petra’s approach differ, and why was it more successful? 3. Is a ‘missed opportunity’ in the report and record stage as much of an error as a contaminated sample, as Petra suggests? 4. What do you suggest that Petra does next to improve process quality further?


> How Can I Have a Successful Career?

> Discuss trust as the essence of leadership.

> Describe modern views of leadership and the issues facing today’s leaders.

> Describe the four major contingency leadership theories.

> Compare and contrast early leadership theories.

> Define leader and leadership.

> Discuss current issues in motivating employees.

> Compare and contrast contemporary theories of motivation.

> Compare and contrast early theories of motivation.

> Define and explain motivation.

> Discuss contemporary issues in OB.

> How Can I Show My Professionalism?

> Discuss learning theories and their relevance in shaping behavior.

> Describe perception and the factors that influence it.

> Describe different personality theories.

> Explain the role that attitudes play in job performance.

> Identify the focus and goals of organizational behavior (OB).

> Discuss contemporary issues in managing teams.

> Discuss how groups are turned into effective teams.

> Describe the major concepts of group behavior.

> Define group and describe the stages of group development.

> Explain what workforce diversity and inclusion are and how they affect the HRM process.

> What is a Decision Trees?

> Discuss contemporary issues in managing human resources.

> Describe strategies for retaining competent, high-performing employees.

> Explain how employees are provided with needed skills and knowledge.

> Discuss the tasks associated with identifying and selecting competent employees.

> Describe the key components of the human resource management process and the important influences on that process.

> Discuss the design challenges faced by today’s organizations.

> Compare and contrast traditional and contemporary organizational designs.

> Identify the contingency factors that favor either the mechanistic model or the organic model of organizational design.

> Describe six key elements in organizational design.

> Explain how entrepreneurs control organizations for growth, downturns, and exiting the venture.

> Define Payoff Matrices

> Define Early Management

> Tea and Sympathy is a British restaurant and café in the heart of New York’s West Village. It is tiny, with around a dozen tables packed into an area little bigger than the average British sitting room. Expatriate Brits, native New Yorkers and celebritie

> (a) As a group, identify a ‘high-visibility’ operation that you all are familiar with. This could be a type of quick-service restaurant, clothing store, public transport system, library, etc. (b) Once you have identified the broad class of operation, vis

> Consider this record of an ordinary flight. Breakfast was a little rushed but left the house at 6.15. Had to return a few minutes later, forgot my passport. Managed to find it and leave (again) by 6.30. Arrived at the airport 7.00, dropped Angela off wit

> Most countries have blood collection and distribution services that collect from donors, process the blood by either breaking the blood down into its constituent parts or keeping it whole, and transport the blood from collection centers to hospitals in r

> Pantone is the Italian Christmas cake, traditionally made in Milan. Then it became popular outside its traditional Italian markets. Now more than 40 million of them are consumed throughout Italy and all over the world during the holiday period. This boos

> Airline catering is a tough business. Meals must be of a quality that is appropriate for the class and type of flight, yet the airlines who are their customers are always looking to keep costs as low as possible, menus must change frequently and respond

> Grace Whelan, Managing Partner of McPherson Charles, welcomed the three solicitors into the meeting room. She outlined the agenda, essentially their thoughts and input into the rolling three-year plan. McPherson Charles, based in Bristol in the West of E

> Most of us are familiar with ‘drive-through’ fast-food operations. Think about (or better still, visit) a drive-through service and try mapping what you can see (or remember) of the process (plus what you can infer from what may be happening ‘behind the

> Just outside Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Francine Jansen, the Chief Operating Officer of Aarons Electronic (AE) was justifiably proud of what she described as ‘the most advanced machine of its type in the world, which will enable us to achieve new stan

> Anyone who has been involved with designing and constructing video games will tell you that game development never goes as planned. I sometimes think that it is a miracle that any game gets developed. Technical glitches, bottlenecks in production, confli

> For decades, IKEA has been one of the most successful retail operations in the world, with much of its success founded on how it organizes its design, supply and retail service operations. With over 400 giant stores in 49 countries, IKEA has managed to d

> Keaston-Trenton Service (KTS) was a domestic heating boiler maintenance company, based in the East of England. Founded in the 1960s by plumber Christopher Trenton, it had grown substantially and was now run jointly by Christopher’s two

> Well that’s the bad news!’, said Tao, the Managing Director of Kloud BV, a consulting and executive development firm headquartered in Amsterdam, specializing in operations and supply chain improvement. â€&#1

> Slaveless Industrial Services (SIS) had become one of Europe’s most respected suppliers of die-cast zinc, aluminum and magnesium parts to hundreds of companies in many industries, especially automotive and defense. The company cast and engineered precisi

> Mario Romano, the owner and General Manager of Ferndale Sands Conference Centre, had just seen an article in The Conference Centre Journal, and he was furious. The excellent reputation that he had worked so hard to build up over the last ten years was be

> led to an understanding of all the processes that affected quality indicators. It was a shift to seeing the hospital as a whole set of processes that governed a set of flows – flows of patients through their treatment stages, flows of c

> It had been ten years since Dan Audial founded Audial Auto Servicing as an independent vehicle-servicing and repair business. Previously he had been the manager of the servicing department of a ‘premium’ car dealership

> Focus plastics (see the previous question) moved into what it called ‘design house partnerships’ – design collaboration between their internal designers and Italian design houses, creative product designers who rarely manufacture or distribute their own

> Founded more than 20 years ago, supplies4medics.com has become one of Europe’s most successful direct-mail suppliers of medical hardware and consumables to hospitals, doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries,

> Carlos, are you ready to head out then?’, Antonia called across the office. ‘Too right! After the morning I’ve had, I could do with the break!’ Carlos laughed, as he grabbed his wall

> It was a warm afternoon as Stefano Moretto, Commercial Director of Hinkley Point C (HPC), and Eva Glens, Senior Supply Chain Engagement Manager, stood looking out of their office. Stefano, having recently joined EDF, had been tasked with establishing a

> Action Response is a London-based charity dedicated to providing fast responses to critical situations throughout the world. It was founded by Susan Nutini, its Chief Executive, to provide relatively short-term aid for small projects until they could obt

> Revisit the case example that examines legal and general’s modular housing venture. Does their use of a factory to ‘build’ houses invalidate the idea that volume and variety govern the nature of operations processes?

> Visit a supermarket and observe people’s behavior. You may have to exercise some discretion when doing this; people generally don’t like to be stalked around the supermarket too obviously. (a) What layout type is a conventional supermarket and how does i

> The table below shows the planned time and budget for a legal consulting project being developed for a client in Copenhagen, Denmark. Complete an earned value analysis (EVA) for the project based at the end of month 4, given that only activities A, B and

> The table below shows the activities, their durations and predecessors for designing, writing and installing a bespoke computer database for a commercial bank headquartered in Singapore. Draw a network diagram (activity-on-node) for the project and calcu

> Revisit the Vasa project example in this chapter. (a) Who should be held responsible for this disaster? (b) What can be learnt from the Vasa story for the management of different kinds of modern-day projects?

> Four Seasons Hotels is a chain of very ‘upmarket’ hotels famed for its quality of service. From its inception the group has had the same guiding principle, to make the quality of our service our competitive advantage. The company has what it calls its Go

> Focus plastics originally made precision plastic components for the Aerospace sector, together with some basic (cheap) ‘homeware’ items such as buckets and dustpans. However, competition became intense in this market, so they decided to specialize in hom

> Consider a country operating under fixed exchange rates. The IS curve is given by equation (20.1) a. Explain the term (i* - πe). Why does the foreign nominal interest rate appear in the relation? b. Explain why when πe increases, t

> Human error is a significant source of quality problems. Think through the times that you have (with hindsight) made an error and answer the following questions. (a) How do you think that human error causes quality problems? (b) What could one do to mini

> Step 1 – As a group, identify a ‘high visibility’ operation that you all are familiar with. This could be a type of quick service restaurant, record stores, public transport systems, libraries, etc. Step 2 – Once you have identified the broad class of op

> A transport services company provides a whole range of services to railway operators. Its reputation for quality was a valuable asset in its increasingly competitive market. ‘We are continually looking for innovation in the way we deliver our services be

> For over 10 years, a hotel group, had been developing self-managed improvement groups within its hotels. At one hotel reception desk, staff were concerned about the amount of time the reception desk was left unattended. To investigate this, the staff beg

> Develop cause–effect diagrams for the following types of problem: • staff waiting too long for their calls to be answered at their IT helpdesk; • poor food in the company restaurant; • poor lecturing from teaching staff at a university; • customer compla

> Everything we do can be broken down into a process’ said Lucile, COO of an outsourcing business for the ‘back office’ functions of a range of companies. ‘It may be more straightforward in a manufacturing business, but the concept of process improvement i

> Sophie was sick of her daily commute. ‘Why’, she thought ‘should I have to spend so much time in a morning stuck in traffic listening to some babbling halfwit on the radio? We can work flexi- time after all. Perhaps I should leave the apartment at some o

> A production process is required to produce 980 of product X, 560 of product Y and 280 of product Z in a 4-week period. If the process works 7 hours per day and 5 days per week, devise a mixed model schedule per hour that would meet this demand.

> Examine the marking process of an assignment you are currently working on. What is the typical elapsed time between handing the assignment in and receiving it back with comments? How much of this elapsed time do you think is value added time?

> An insurance underwriting process consists of the following separate stages. What is the value-added percentage for the process? (Hint – use Little’s law to work out how long applications have to wait at each stage bef

> The health clinic described in the worked example earlier in the chapter has expanded by hiring one extra employee and now has six employees. It has also leased some new health monitoring equipment which allows patients to be processed faster. This means

> Consider this record of an ordinary flight. ‘Breakfast was a little rushed but left the house at 6.15. Had to return a few minutes later, forgot my passport. Managed to find it and leave (again) by 6.30. Arrived at the airport 7.00, dropped Angela off wi

> The Zucchero mail-order clothing company in Milan receives order forms, types in the customer details, checks the information provided from the customers and that the products are in stock, confirms payment and processes the order. During an average eigh

> What elements of lean are described in the Toyota Production System (TPS)?

> A lunch kiosk serves two meals every day: Veggie Fritters and Mushroom Stroganoff, the recipes for which are as follows. Veggie Fritters (serves 10) – Prepair the ‘veggie mix’ by grating 500 g of carrots, 500 g of courgettes (zucchini), and chopping 300

> Your company has developed a simple, but amazingly effective mango peeler. It is constructed from a blade and a supergrip handle that has a top piece and a bottom piece. The assembled mango peeler is packed in a simple recycled card pack. All the parts s

> Re-read the ‘Operations in practice’ example, ‘‘What a waste!’. Why did things go wrong with the relationship between SAP and Waste Management?

> Re-read the ‘Operations in practice’ example, ‘The life and times of a chicken salad sandwich Part 2’. Why do you think that integrating an ERP system with those of suppliers and customers is so difficult?

> Re-read the ‘Operations in practice’ example, ‘SAP and its partners’. If you were managing SAP’s strategic partner programme, how would you ensure their long-term collaboration?

> Rolls-Royce is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of gas turbines. They are exceptionally complex products, typically with around 25,000 parts, and hundreds of sub-assemblies, and their production is equally complex with over 600 external suppliers

> Re-read the ‘Operations in practice’ example on ‘An inventory of energy’. It mentions the potential of battery storage of energy, but stresses the cost of this method. What do you think would be the implications for energy distribution if batteries becom

> Xexon7 is a specialist artificial intelligence (AI) development firm that develops algorithms for various on-line services. As part of its client service it has a small (10-person) help-desk call centre to answer client queries. Clients could contact the

> Revisit the ‘Operations in practice’ example on the Blood and Transplant service at the beginning of the chapter. (a) What are the factors which constitute inventory holding costs, order costs, and stock-out costs in a National Blood Service? (b) What ma

> Our suppliers often offer better prices if we are willing to buy in larger quantities. This creates a pressure on us to hold higher levels of stock. Therefore, to find the best quantity to order we must compare the advantages of lower prices for purchase

> A fruit canning plant has a single line for three different fruit types. Demand for each type of tin is reasonably constant at 50,000 per month (a month has 160 production hours). The tinning process rate is 1,200 per hour, but it takes 2 hours to clean

> A local shop has a relatively stable demand for tins of sweetcorn throughout the year, with an annual total of 1400 tins. The cost of placing an order is estimated at £15 and the annual cost of holding inventory is estimated at 25 per cent of the product

> A supplier makes monthly shipments to ‘House & Garden Stores, in average lot sizes of 200 coffee tables. The average demand for these items is 50 tables per week, and the lead time from the supplier 3 weeks. ‘House & Garden Stores’ must pay for inventory

> Airline catering is a tough business. Meals must be of a quality that is appropriate for the class and type of flight, yet the Airlines who are their customers are always looking to keep costs as low as possible, menus must change frequently and respond

> Many companies devise a policy on ethical sourcing covering such things as workplace standards and business practices, Health and Safety conditions, human rights, legal systems, child labour, disciplinary practices, wages and benefits, etc. (a) What do y

> If you were the owner of a small local retail shop, what criteria would you use to select suppliers for the goods that you wish to stock in your shop? Visit two or three shops that are local to you and ask the owners how they select their suppliers. In w

> The example of the bull-whip effect shown in Table 12.2 shows how a simple 5 per cent reduction in demand at the end of supply chain causes fluctuations that increase in severity the further back an operations is placed in the chain. a) Using the same lo

> A chain of women’s apparel retailers had all their products made by Lopez Industries, a small but high-quality garment manufacturer. They worked on the basis of two seasons; Spring/Summer season and Autumn/Winter. ‘Sometimes we are left with surplus item

> The environmental services department of a city has two recycling services – newspaper collection (NC) and general recycling (GR). The NC service is a door-to-door collection service that, at a fixed time every week, collects old newspapers that househol

> Re-read the ‘Operations in practice’ example, ‘Extracts from Levi Strauss’ global sourcing policy’. (a) What do you think motivates a company like Levi Strauss to draw up a policy of this type? (b) What other issues would you include in such a supplier s

> A Pizza Company has a demand forecast for the next 12 months that is shown in the table below. The current workforce of 100 staff can produce 1,500 cases of pizzas per month. (a) Prepare a production plan that keeps the output level. How much warehouse s

2.99

See Answer