← Home About Archive Photos Replies The Point Engineering Sea and Shore Also on Micro.blog
  • The wonderful world of the PPAP

    There is an intriguing little phrase I came across in a trombone technique book that hovers in a limbo between right and wrong: "It's not what you play but how you play it"

    There is a lot to be said for giving your best at all times, no matter what music you have been asked to play. It is a matter of pride, of professionalism, of maturity - of character, too. I can certainly say that I gave my best to (and received a lot back from) playing in a Shropshire brass band, even though I really do not like much of the music we played.

    However, one cannot really be expected to be able to find one's best when playing the wrong sort of music for you. The talent isn't there, the fluency goes, the "Selbstverständlichkeit" is lost. Asking a striker to play in defence can work, but, if it goes on for too long, his motivation will drop to the extent that he becomes a liability, or he will ask to leave the team.

    And so I come to PPAPs. PPAPs are the scourge of the auto industry, a chain of disinterest ending in a dark pool of valuelessness. Nominally, it is an acronym; Production Parts Approval Process. Its meaning and raison d'être lies in ensuring that each and every part that goes onto a car is tested, approved and well managed. A noble pursuit, naturally - and of course impossible to argue against. Even when every single type of screw in a vehicle has a 20 MByte PPAP file associated with it. Each car has around 30000 parts, maybe 10000 unique part numbers; so perhaps each model of car has a 200 GByte file associated with it that nobody uses. (Except when something goes wrong and the lawyers start crawling around, which is the reason for the whole PPAP escalation)

    So when I was working on managing fittings for my company, and PPAPs were a major part of this, I swiftly found myself playing the wrong sort of music. Each and every PPAP had to be exhaustively inspected; are test results all present and complete (usually not); all dimensions understood and properly measured (ditto); control plans, process flow plans, material data sheets all present...? It was very rare for a PPAP to be completed in a single sitting, so I ended up with a backlog of semi-complete, interim-approved files awaiting further information from their suppliers (who were sometimes less keen than me on getting things done properly). It was - and is - a never-ending controlling position in a company; one that requires a Kafkaesque, bureaucratic mind, a mind I categorically do not possess.

    Alas, those that do possess such minds, and (is that 'and' necessary?) the lawyers, also own the process, so that it has embedded itself deeply into its own work groove; a record that only a small clique would find cool. Similarly a shame, the process does not seem to be enough of a financial burden on each and every supplier in the industry for there to be a concerted effort to remove it, or at least streamline it.

    Every industry has its administrative and proofing methods, but few outside of the medical industry seem as fat as the auto industry's. If you're the type of person who enjoys being the controller, or can simply accept such a role, then fine. If you're not - then avoid at all costs; PPAPs and their ilk will ruin your day, every day.
    → 9:57 PM, Oct 3
  • Frog, Toad and bureaucracy

    The other night I was reading my 3 year-old a bed-time story from one of our favourite series of childrens' stories, Arnold Lobel’s “Frog and Toad” collection, when this little exchange between the two got me thinking:

    {Frog’s List has blown away in the wind}

    “Hurry!” said Frog. “We will run and catch it."
    “No!” shouted Toad. “I cannot do that.!
    “Why not?” asked Frog.
    “Because,” wailed Toad, “running after my list is not one of the things that I wrote on my list of things to do!"

    This resonates with so much of business life; procedures, workflows, instructions, audits, filling out forms. We all have lists of things to do, from our (largely ignored and occasionally conscious-pricking) task lists, to those procedures.  We need to realise that we can make the choice between “merely” following the procedures to the letter, and rehumanising them.

    Naturally, this all applies to the bureaucracy of life, too (I recently married and had a child, so I know all about filling out forms and chasing the right administrator at the right time…) but since I have been thinking has been about business life lately, that’s where the brain cells decided to resonate with interest.

    At work, I have a great collegiate friendship with a quality manager who is also a trained auditor. He is (it sounds strange to write this), a human being. By this I mean that he treats the audit procedures as a frame within which he must operate, but not as a constraint. He is a detective who understands that humans have created these constructs around them to force themselves into doing the right thing, in the sense of doing the best for the company and (by extension) the best for society in general. He also knows that humans tend to cut corners, in order to maximise leisure time. He understands that rigidly following an audit checklist is the surest way of ruining a day and of missing the real issues that a list can paper over. Yet without this list, even he is lost.

    We need to force ourselves to get things done properly. These constructs, sets of instructions, whatever we call them, that we have placed for ourselves - in business, bureaucracy, religion and in every walk of life - do not necessarily stifle or strangle creativity. They can postpone the effort of thinking to more important tasks. Yes, they take time to complete and yes, they require an effort of willpower; but no, it is often not really time or energy wasted. And if there is waste involved, then it is a business benefit to eliminate this waste.

    (If there is waste involved, then it is a religious necessity. If there is waste involved, then it is a bureaucracy…)

    With all of our lists, we must ensure that the free thinkers - the frogs - amongst us have room to breathe, to innovate, to dream; and we must ensure that the petty list-followers - the toads - do not exceed their remits or relish their “powers” excessively.

    → 11:06 PM, Sep 20
  • RSS
  • JSON Feed
  • Micro.blog