Rubber In the Dough
5-Whys tool to identify the root cause(s)
Five whys (also known as 5 whys) is an iterative interrogative approach that is used to investigate the cause-and-effect linkages that are at the root of a certain situation (Perry & Mehltretter, 2018). The fundamental purpose of the approach is to uncover the core cause of a defect or issue by asking the question “Why?” again and over and over again. Each response serves as the foundation for the next inquiry. This method’s main purpose is to determine the precise explanation for a particular situation by asking a series of “Why” inquiries. The 5 Whys strategy assists your team in concentrating on identifying the fundamental cause of any issue. The 5 why approach will be used to outline the problem of “rubber in the dough” as experienced by the customer.
Peter Senge, a scientist from the United States, spoke about his approach to systems thinking. According to him, learning companies are those in which individuals are encouraged to develop their critical thinking skills in order to achieve remarkable achievements (Dochy & Laurijssen, 2021). Such firms are able to respond rapidly to client requirements and achieve success in their respective industries. In the words of Senge, systems thinking is concerned with the way in which a person interacts with a system (Dochy & Laurijssen, 2021). However, it does not concentrate on the person inside an organization as much as it does on the individual’s relationship with other organization members. Being able to hear multiple perspectives from different individuals about a system enables the introduction of fresh ideas that reduce waste in the system. He claimed that the use of communal intelligence would allow him to work more effectively.
In June 2014, Marco Benevento, president of Benevento Foods (BF), received a complaint from one of the main distributors concerning the presence of rubber in the dough (Wood, Vachon & Singh, 2015). The root cause of the problem can be properly explained using the key concept of system thinking that includes interconnectedness, and synthesis (Arnold & Wade, 2015)
Interconnectedness: That everything is scientifically related to everything else in some way or another is known as the scientific principle of causation (Kramer & De Smit, 2012). Consider this kind of interconnection to be similar to an ecosystem of some sort. Interconnectedness examines the correlation between top management and junior employee regarding system operations and performance for the problem mentioned above to emerge in a company that has been operating and consistent with its customers for more than twenty years to occur. It means that there was “increased laxity” among the senior management in overseeing operations of key departments in the organization, specifically in production. Thus, it can be assumed that in recent years Benevento’s leadership in the company has been focused on business development and growth while failing to oversee key production processes to ensure they operate optimally. Benevento “disconnection” with vital production areas in the company for an extended period can be linked to the problem of rubber in the dough.
Synthesis: when two or more ideas, factors, or actual items are combined, a new and innovative product is created (synthesis). This is significant because the polar opposite of observation is analysis. The process of breaking down a system into more manageable bits is called analysis. In this context, synthesis examines how various factors combined have individually contributed to the company’s problem. Overall, the company’s CEO can be indirectly linked to the presence of rubber in the dough.
Nevertheless, employees at the production and testing departments overseeing the quality of the products are equally responsible. The assessment of the key production processes in the company indicates that production managers fail to consult with junior workers regarding prevailing problems experienced in the production line. For instance, the manager “tell off” employees who are idle in the production line. However, they fail to acknowledge that the day caused in the filling out pre-operational inspection forms and in the mixing room is to be blamed for such idleness. More so, research has shown that employees who are scolded or mistreated in the production line by their managers or supervisors are likely to underperform. Workers who are not well motivated can lose interest or concentration in the production line. This can lead to the assumption that the employees’ lack of motivation contributed to poor performance, as evident by the presence of rubber in the finished product. In order to better comprehend how the pieces work together as a whole, systems thinking might sometimes rely on graphical representations of the system.
Causal loop diagram
Ideally, when a causal loop diagram is used to visualize how distinct variables in a system are causally interconnected, it is known as a causal loop diagram (CLD). The graphic is made up of a collection of text and arrows. An accompanying narrative summarizes the causally closed condition described by the causal loop diagram, which is used in conjunction with the figure. Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) to cognitively describe dynamic systems in a holistic way, mapping how variables (e.g., factors, problems, processes) impact one another, is known as causal inference. In the context of this paper, the causal loop diagram can be used to visualize the various variables which have directly or indirectly contributed to the present challenge facing Benevento Foods (BF). The table below shows that the CEO, production line, and quality control are the main actors in Benevento Foods (BF), whose actions can be linked to the problem of the rubber in the dough.
The production line employee incompetency and mismanagement have created a situation where production breakdowns and delays have not been reported or professionally handled. Their actions resulted in the “spillage” of rubber in finished products. Coherently, the quality control operators failed to notice the presence of rubber in the dough when checking for the quality and authenticity of the finished products. Their incompetency “extended” the mistakes of the production crew to the market. The company’s CEO failed to supervise and harmonize the production and quality control processes. From the assessment, it can be noted that the CEO had no current knowledge on challenges facing employees handling production and quality assurance in respect to proper supervision and availability of equipment. His management negligence as Benevento Foods (BF) leader can be indirectly associated with roubles facing the company. The image below summarises the casual loop diagram of the Benevento Foods (BF) “rubber in the dough” problem.
Recommendation
The product’s weight in the paper bag was a key indicator of potential foreign material contamination. However, Benevento Foods required the employees to add extra content to the bags to minimize the issue of under-filled product bags. More so, the automatic filler weight machine was known to be incorrect in some instances. This poses a significant dilemma to the company regarding using weights to check if the products were contaminated with foreign materials such as the “rubber.” To eliminate the problem, the paper recommends intermediate and long-term plans that can be adopted by Benevento Foods (BF).
Intermediate
First, Marco Benevento, the president of Benevento Foods (BF), should be chairing a weekly meeting with all heads of departments, especially in the production and quality control departments. This will enable the CEO to understand the company’s day-to-day operations or challenges. Secondly, the managers should adopt new leadership and management skills that will enable them to relate and work effectively with their juniors. This will eliminate the “friction” in the production and quality control departments. Thirdly, the company can introduce new guidelines or policies that will enable employees, irrespective of their position in the company, to make suggestions or recommendations to the management on improving the efficiency of operations.
Long term plan
The company can invest in new technology that can synthesize critical production steps impacted by human error. Adopting new machines and systems can eliminate problems linked to measuring and mixing ingredients, idling, and quality control. There is a need to develop a new weighing formula or technique to eliminate the identified dilemma that limits Marco Benevento Foods (BF) employees from identifying contamination of finished products. The company can invest in long-term training programs for employees. Such training will improve the technical skills and competency of its employees.
Reference
Arnold, R. D., & Wade, J. P. (2015). A definition of systems thinking: A systems approach. Procedia computer science, 44, 669-678.
Dochy, F., & Laurijssen, J. (2021). Systems Thinking and Building Learning Organisations: Peter Senge. In Theories of Workplace Learning in Changing Times (pp. 173-198). Routledge.
Kramer, N. J., & De Smit, J. (2012). Systems thinking: Concepts and notions. Springer Science & Business Media.
Martin, R. L., Greenspon, J., & Karn, D. (2019). Rethinking efficiency. Harvard Business Review, 97, 1-41.
Perry, W., & Mehltretter, N. (2018). Applying root cause analysis to compressed air: how to solve common compressed air system problems with the 5-whys. Energy Engineering, 115(4), 56-62.
Wood, D., Vachon, S., & Singh, M. (2015). Benevento foods: When the rubber hits the dough. Ivey Publishing. http://hbr.org
Leave a Reply