Looking for root cause: a comparative analysis

Looking for root cause: a comparative analysis

The Authors
Edward D. Arnheiter, Lally School of Management and Technology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Hartford, Connecticut, USA
Jean E. Greenland, Ford Motor Company, Harrison Township, Michigan, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that management decision making and corporate strategy must start by questioning all prior assumptions and arguments, while focusing on simple fundamental truths.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper examines fundamental principles practiced by foreign-owned transplants (e.g., Honda, Toyota, and Nissan) that have entered the automotive marketplace in the latter half of the twentieth century. They use lean production methods, while traditional industry players utilize mass production methods. The authors refer to these two production methods as “The Toyota Way” and “The Traditional Way.” Comparative analysis is conducted to identify and contrast key differences, which are examined using root cause analysis.

Findings – The paper finds that problems facing US industry could have been prevented, if companies had taken the time, and made the effort to fully understand the root causes.

Practical implications – Managers learn that it is beneficial to take time to properly identify and understand the root cause of any problem, no matter how large or small the problem may seem.

Originality/value – By turning 14 principles of lean management upside down the point is made in the paper is that one must start out questioning everything. Even changing something as simple as the order of principals examined could force a very different look at the situation. A summary of root cause analysis suggests a simple answer to the seemingly complex question: “If everyone knows what the problems are, then why isn't anyone fixing them?”

Article Type: Conceptual paper
Keyword(s): Decision making; Automotive industry; Corporate strategy; Operations management; Lean production; United States of America.

Journal: The TQM Journal
Volume: 20 Number: 1 Year: 2008 pp:18-30

Copyright ©Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN:1754-2731

Introduction

Over the last century, US industry enjoyed growth and prosperity, constantly challenged by cyclical conditions and fierce competition. In the automotive industry, notable changes included introduction of foreign transplants to the US market, and rising prices for oil and raw materials. Due in large part to competition from Japanese transplants, the demise of traditional US automakers has long been predicted.

Japanese automakers began adapting Henry Ford's system of mass production after the Second World War, establishing an oligopoly in Japan, similar to that of the US automotive industry. Toyoda Kiichiro, president of Toyota Motor Company said at that time: “Catch up with America in three years. Otherwise, the automotive industry of Japan will not survive” (Ohno, 1988). This marked the start of the Toyota Production System.

Womack (2006) described a similar encounter with the head of Ford Motor Company:

In 1997 I got a call from Jacque Nasser, who had just taken over Ford's North American Automotive Operations on his way to becoming CEO of Ford. He matter-of-factly told me that Ford's Explorer and F100 pickup series were the only Ford products that made serious money and that he calculated that he had four years to become as efficient and effective as Toyota. Otherwise, the large pickups and SUVs would be copied by foreign firms at lower cost with higher quality and Ford would be in terminal decline. “So,” he asked, “how can Ford become Toyota in four years?” We sat down to talk over just what this would mean – dramatically changing the supplier management system, dramatically changing the product development system, dramatically changing the production management system, dramatically changing what managers do – and he quickly concluded that it was just too hard. So he changed the management metrics, purged the poorest managers according to the metrics, and experimented with selling cars on the web! I was not asked back and had no desire to go back.

Womack attempted to help Nasser distinguish root causes of Ford's problems, but was dismissed as he failed to offer a quick fix. W. Edwards Deming experienced similar dismissive behavior from leaders of US industry in the early 1950s.

Womack and Deming were not viewing problems as negative, but rather opportunities leading to the identification of root causes. Likewise, Ohno (1988) did not view problems as negative, but as “kaizen opportunities in disguise”. Ohno encouraged workers to relentlessly investigate problems encountered on the plant floor using a hands-on approach to arrive at root causes. He would coach employees to “Observe the production floor without preconceptions, and ask ‘why’ five times about every matter” (Toyota, 2005).

Table I presents a comparative analysis between The Toyota Way (Liker, 2004) of foreign transplants and The Traditional Way used by Ford and GM.
Identifying the differences

As Table I indicates, several fundamental differences exist between approaches. The root cause method promoted by Ohno will be used to analyze these differences resulting in a list of underlying reasons for the decline of traditional US automakers. Despite focus on the auto industry in our example, any company operating in The Traditional Way would benefit from the root cause approach described.

Ford Motor Company recruited Deming in 1981 to change its quality culture, leading to the phenomenally successful Ford Taurus (Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 2001). Similarly, in 1984 GM embarked on a successful joint venture with Toyota in Fremont, California. These examples prove that lean techniques can work in the USA, and that it is possible for traditional manufacturers to drastically change.

Sustaining change has proven to be more elusive. For various reasons, manufacturers practicing The Traditional Way have failed to make change stick. Why is this the case? By examining each of the fundamental differences in Table I, and by systematically asking “Why not?” some interesting answers arise.
Principle 1. Why not base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy at the expense of short-term financial goals?

Management decisions are characterized by a short-term philosophy and are often measured by short-term financial goals:

Why are decisions based on short-term philosophy and measured by short-term financial goals? Short-term performance is rewarded.
Why is short-term performance rewarded? Quick results are highly valued and make a company, organization or individual look good.
Why are quick results highly valued? There are flawed metrics that focus on measuring the wrong inputs.
Why are metrics flawed and focused on the wrong inputs? Designers of performance management metrics are motivated by self-interest.
Why are designers motivated by self-interest? There is no unifying vision driving the enterprise toward a larger goal, so individuals become motivated by self-interest.

Principle 2. Why not create continuous process flow to bring problems to the surface?

Practices discourage stopping production to resolve problems:

Why is stopping production to resolve problems not encouraged? Problems are perceived as negative and reflect poorly on the performance of the individual who identifies the problem.
Why are problems perceived this way; reflecting poorly upon the person that identifies the problem? Managers often do not have the time, patience or skill to stop and effectively address problems. If they identify a problem, they become the problem.
Why do traditional managers not have the time, patience or skill to effectively address problems? Managers seldom have time for root-cause analysis because they are too busy firefighting the current crisis.
Why are managers so busy addressing the current crisis? Problems are never really solved, so they continue to recur.
Why do problems recur and are never really solved? The real root cause of many problems is rarely properly identified and addressed.

In a results-oriented culture we are often not interested in learning from our mistakes, but rather focused on dodging the bullet and not getting the blame pinned on us. This is the same culture that views problems as a “problem” rather than an opportunity.

Principle 3. Why not use “pull” systems to avoid overproduction?

Practices do not effectively align supply with demand:

Why do practices not align supply with demand? The entire value chain is not integrated.
Why is the entire value chain not integrated? Integration of the value chain is not seen as a priority by a management team focused on short-term profits.
Why is integration of the value chain not seen as a priority? Volume production methods keep churning out vehicles demanding high profit margins per unit in the marketplace, so integration is not viewed as an immediate necessity.
Why is this not viewed as an immediate necessity? There is lack of support from management, combined with a short-term mindset.
Why is there a lack of support and short-term mindset? The need to continue to operate factories at full capacity to break even on costly capital investments necessitates a push mentality.

Principle 4. Why not level out the workload?

Practices are characterized by manufacturing process instability and inconsistent part quality:

Why is manufacturing process instability and inconsistent part quality inherent in traditional practices? There is a fluctuating daily production volume and mix requirements combined with large work-in-process and finished goods inventory.
Why do daily production volumes and mixes fluctuate with large inventories? There is overproduction as a result of making more products than necessary using a push system.
Why overproduce using a push system? Traditional systems start with the first step of the manufacturing process and end with the customer.
Why start with the manufacturing process and end with the customer? Production volumes are forecast by sales and marketing departments using forecasting models which are often inaccurate in predicting actual customer demand.
Why are production volumes and forecasts based upon inaccurate models? Practices are not linked with demand-side economics.

Most traditional manufacturers design tools and production systems with “overspeed” factors. That is, they design machines to run faster than required to protect downstream systems in case of downtime. Profitability depends upon 100 percent equipment utilization.
Principle 5. Why not build a culture of stopping to fix problems, to get quality right the first time?

Until very recently, management did not view stopping to fix problems, or to get quality right the first time as necessary:

Why does management not view these things as necessary? Until very recently the market has been largely captive, it was only necessary to fix problems when a customer complained. Consumers had very few alternatives.
Why did consumers have few alternatives? The industry traditionally has had only a few players with high barriers to entry in North American market.
Why only a few players with high barriers to entry? Trade barriers and regulations prevented pure competition, along with high levels of capital investment required for market entry, providing an insular environment.
Why prevent pure competition, and provide an insular environment? This is to protect the North American oligopoly.
Why protect the oligopoly? Without protection the oligopoly would be uncompetitive in a global marketplace.

Traditional manufacturers have created a sub-culture of complacency, rather than competitive business and manufacturing practices, which is a fundamental difference; traditional manufacturers cannot effectively respond to changes in the marketplace because of non-competitive practices.

Principle 6. Why are standardized tasks not the foundation for continuous improvement and employee empowerment?

Manufacturing processes are constantly adjusted for changes in cycle times, number of workers, scheduled changeovers, scheduled preventative maintenance, scheduled personnel training and development, and upstream supplier production requirements:

Why are manufacturing processes constantly adjusted? Process stability would require a philosophical long-term commitment to continuous improvement and employee empowerment.
Why does this philosophical long-term commitment not exist? This commitment would require appropriate management incentives.
Why is it that appropriate management incentives do not exist? Current incentives are aligned to ensuring production volumes are met.
Why are current incentives aligned to ensure production volumes are met? The traditional mass production mindset exists amid a culture lacking management support and the desire to change.
Why does management not support or desire change? Decision makers mistakenly believe that no compelling reason exists to change.

Principle 7. Why not use visual control so no problems are hidden?

The traditional mass production dominated culture does not encourage problem solving. In this culture, “no news is good news”:

Why is no news good news? If problems are uncovered, production must be stopped and the problem addressed, requiring training, development and dedication to the problem solving process.
Why is there a lack of training, development and dedication to the problem-solving process? This is a learned behavior, requiring training and skill that takes time to do proficiently. In a mass production system, there is no time, based upon a mistaken belief that problems are a “problem” rather than an opportunity.
Why are problems not viewed as opportunities? Because they interfere with managers' ability to report only good news, and problems require time and effort directed at long-term solutions rather than a quick fix. Traditional management attention is focused on short-term metrics.
Why are traditional managers focused on short-term metrics? Short-term metrics drive the business, and performance to these metrics affects their profitable growth trajectories.
Why do short-term metrics drive the business? Lack of a long-term vision and philosophy, which over emphasizes short-term metrics.

Principle 8. Why not use only reliable, thoroughly tested technology that serves your people and processes?

Technology is viewed as a quick fix, and often used to replace labor:

Why is technology used to replace labor? The man/machine interactions and dependencies for the enterprise wide process model have not been thoroughly analyzed, tested and understood.
Why is the process model not thoroughly analyzed, tested and understood? To understand the dependencies and be able to predict how technology fits in and supports people and processes takes time, resources and collaboration, which are often scarce.
Why are time, resources and collaboration often scarce? This is because of a mistaken perception that because of production demands, time and resources are unavailable to invest in productivity and process improvements.
Why does this mistaken perception exist? Time and resources are focused on the wrong activities, often dedicated to firefighting, keeping the line running and meeting production numbers.
Why are time and resources focused on the wrong activities? This is because of a long established focus on operational and performance metrics, which have been integrated over the years into the corporate culture.

Traditional approaches assume automation fixes everything. GM has long held the belief that automation can be effectively used to replace workers, even though the cost of labor is often less than the cost of materials. This has a tendency to make the process very inflexible, and can also serve to simply automate the waste.
Principle 9. Why not grow leaders who thoroughly understand the work, live the philosophy, and teach it to others?

This indicates an inherent aversion to long-term investment in leaders that thoroughly understand the work, and would require a philosophy that grooms leaders as experts who can then teach others:

Why is there an aversion to this type of long-term investment? Lack of metrics designed to reward depth or breadth of vocational knowledge.
Why is there a lack of metrics focused on long-term investment in this skill set? Skills are seen as interchangeable and transferable. It is often cheaper and easier to hire talent from outside. Hire an MBA from Harvard Business School; they are young, ambitious and smart, so they will have no trouble managing such a simple process. With a lean approach, a college graduate might be required to work for several months as an assembler.
Why is there not a consistent application of a philosophy? Constant reorganization, movement of key personnel, and new agendas serve to undermine this type of commitment.
Why is this type of commitment and philosophy undermined? There is a fragmented hierarchy comprised of chimneys and internal competition.
Why is the hierarchy fragmented with internal competition? The sheer size and industrial legacy inherent in the organizational culture requires much effort to change, with no clear or apparent desire or plan to do so.

This conclusion brings out some basic differences in the composition and duration of the business plan, and failure to stick with a single plan. The existence of a single plan, supported by top management, over a long period of time, is a primary difference between approaches.
Principle 10. Why not develop exceptional people and teams who follow your company's philosophy?

Traditional firefighting behaviors are rewarded and individual competition is encouraged:

Why are these behaviors rewarded and encouraged with no single philosophy to follow? Due to a revolving door of executives, with varying agendas, there are no clear objectives or philosophy.
Why is there a revolving door of executives? There is an apparent lack of a definitive and effective long-term organizational design, planning and succession mechanism.
Why is there a lack of organizational design, planning and succession mechanisms? If no one is in charge and held accountable for planning and decision making, then everyone is in charge, resulting in a chaotic organization.
Why is no one in charge and held accountable? Lack of a single plan means everyone is not pulling on the same rope, working toward the same set of goals and objectives.
Why does no single plan exist? Speed, momentum and trajectory of the growth pattern experienced during the industrial revolution resulted in a reactionary rather than a proactive approach to problems. As companies grow and get larger, it is difficult to maintain a single plan or philosophy because people become more diverse in their thinking. Speed of growth makes this especially difficult.

Principle 11. Why not respect your extended network of partners and suppliers by challenging them and helping them improve?

Supplier and partner relationships are often antagonistic and driven by negotiations and cost cutting. Rather than having a win-win philosophy, relationships are often viewed as win-lose predicaments:

Why are relationships antagonistic and driven primarily by cost cutting measures? The primary motive is profit.
Why is this the primary motive? Due to a limited focus on the proposition of potential value generating alternatives.
Why is the value generating focus limited? Lack of long-term strategic focus and overemphasis on cost with focus on profit maximization only.
Why is there a lack of long-term strategic focus? Lack of long-term vision and a clear understanding as to how supplier relationships can enhance the long-term value equation.
Why the lack of understanding? There are few shared goals and objectives with suppliers and partners.

The right approach is to understand and improve the entire value system, including suppliers of suppliers and customers of customers. For example, a seat supplier has suppliers of its own, and the focus should be on improving them as well. Traditional practices focus primarily on first-level suppliers, not on enhancing the overall value system.
Principle 12: Why not go and see for yourself, to thoroughly understand the situation (genchi genbutsu)?

Practices include clear lines of demarcation between salaried and hourly workers, with clear delineation apparent throughout levels of salaried workers comprising the hierarchy of the organization:

Why such prevalent lines of demarcation? Hierarchical command and control is a customary culture built up over the past century of industrial operations. This hierarchy has its roots in the separation of labor popularized by F.W. Taylor.
Why is this customary? Industry founders had no other models to follow for such large ventures, other than those that had been developed by military organizations. The management function became increasingly insular as the size of the organization increased, and management functions were taken over by management professionals rather than engineers.
Why were management functions taken over by management professionals rather than engineers? Primarily due to an increase in the population, and a desire by the population to want to improve their lot in life by moving away from jobs requiring grueling manual labor into a professional career.
Why were engineers not promoted more readily into management ranks? It is rare for good engineers to also make good managers; it is more the exception than the rule (not so in Japan). Because of the hierarchical structure of most industrial organizations, and influx of management rather than engineering professionals in the upper levels of management, the practice of promoting from the plant floor occurred less frequently.
Why did this practice occur less frequently? An insular approach to managing at senior levels from behind a desk took the emphasis off the “roll-up-your-sleeves and get your hands dirty” approach. Management was increasingly distanced from the plant floor by management briefs prepared by staff. Understanding the process became less fact based and experiential, and more focused on data.

Traditional practices tend to reward and promote accountants and lawyers. This is one of the reasons that the USA has fewer people engaged in advanced research. In Japan, many upper level managers are engineers by training. A hands-on management approach tends to break down barriers, enhance creativity and motivate by creating a commitment to shared goals.
Principle 13. Why not make decisions slowly by consensus, thoroughly considering all options; implement decisions rapidly?

Organizations are not strongly aligned around a common purpose, goal or set of objectives. Decisions tend to be democratic, sometimes revolving more around options with political agendas and the popular vote rather than through true consensus:

Why are decisions based on politics rather than consensus? The outcome of the decision making process is not always directed toward the best decision for the enterprise, but rather aimed at the interests of a specific function, thus sub-optimizing the outcome.
Why is the outcome allowed to be sub-optimal? Often because of individual power plays, “one-upsmanship” and in-fighting combined with reward systems which encourage the quick fix and recognition for players that can (on the surface) solve problems quickly.
Why do reward systems encourage the quick fix? Lack of detailed knowledge and intuitive understanding by senior leaders as to what constitutes true resolution, thorough understanding of all available options and lack of emphasis on root cause analysis.
Why do senior leaders not know and understand what constitutes resolution? Due to emphasis on rapid decision making and Johnny-on-the spot judgments. Rapid rewards are commensurate with quantity of problems solved, with an under-emphasis on the quality of decisions, and the impact of these poor decisions on the organization.
Why is there an under-emphasis on quality of decisions? Inexperienced leadership lacking training, combined with revolving door management fails to hold decision makers accountable.

With traditional leadership training, rewards are based on “high potential lists” derived from dysfunctional performance metrics and political rating systems. Managers are moved into areas with little or no technical background, and are promoted to positions without adequate training.
Principal 14. Why not become a learning organization through relentless reflection (hansei) and continuous improvement (kaizen)?

Reactionary management practices allowing little room or time for reflection, without a solid foundation of process stability required for continuous improvement. Many organizations are more focused on unlearning undesirable behaviors rather than learning new and better ones:

Why are traditional organizations focused on unlearning undesirable behaviors? Due to a long tradition, born during the industrial revolution, resulting in a culture represented by modern day overhead.
Why is this considered modern day overhead? As long as the organization is focused on unlearning they will not have the requisite motivation, time or skills necessary to focus instead on learning new behaviors.
Why should they be focused on learning new behaviors? New behaviors will build the foundation to effectively compete in a global environment of unprecedented industry change, innovation and competition. Without these skills any traditional organization will be doomed.
Why will any organization be doomed without these skills? World-class organizations possess these basic skills and are moving into the future rather than being burdened by a legacy from the past. They are not looking over their shoulders at where the competition is but rather ahead to where they want to be in the long-term to secure a sustainable and viable future.
Why is the focus so far forward? An organization is either focused forward on a vision for the future, or is destined to be left behind.

Conclusion

If we have properly applied the method suggested by Ohno, of asking “why” five times about every matter, we should have arrived at the root cause of the problem. Shown below is a summary of root cause analysis:

If everyone knows what the problems are; then why isn't anyone fixing them? Due to the mistaken perception that it is necessary to employ complex means to solve complex problems: 1. There is no unifying vision driving the enterprise toward a larger goal, so individuals become motivated by self-interest.2. The root cause of many problems are rarely properly identified and addressed.3. The need to continue to operate factories at full capacity to break-even on costly capital investments necessitates a push mentality.4. Practices are not linked with demand-side economics.5. Without protection the oligopoly would be extremely uncompetitive in a global marketplace.6. Decision makers mistakenly believe that no compelling reason exists to change.7. Due to the lack of a long term vision and philosophy, short term metrics are emphasized.8. Due to a long established focus on operational and performance metrics, which have been integrated over the years into the corporate culture.9. The sheer size and industrial legacy inherent in the organizational culture requires much effort to change, with no clear or apparent desire or plan to do so.10. Speed, momentum and trajectory of the growth pattern experienced during the industrial revolution resulted in a reactionary rather than a proactive approach to problems.11. There are few shared goals and objectives with suppliers and partners.12. A more insular approach to managing at senior levels from behind a desk took the emphasis off the roll-up-your-sleeves and get your hands dirty approach. Management was increasingly distanced from the plant floor by management briefs prepared by staff.13. Inexperienced leadership lacking training, combined with revolving door management fails to hold decision makers accountable.14. An organization is either focused forward on a vision for the future or is destined to be left behind.

This provides insight into the differences between foreign transplants and traditional industry players.

To develop recommendations we will use another Ohno technique, which he credited to Henry Ford, and called “Inverse Conception and Business Spirit” (Ohno, 1988). Ohno (1988, emphasis added) describes this technique:

As Ford pointed out, people will follow tradition. This might be acceptable in private life, but in industry, outdated customs must be eliminated. In this process of asking why we see vividly one facet of Ford's business spirit. Progress cannot be generated when we are satisfied with existing situations. This also applies to improving production methods. If we just walk around aimlessly, we will never be able to ask good questions. I have always tried to view things upside down. Reading Ford, I was encouraged by the way he repeatedly came up with brilliant inverse conceptions.

This was the basic approach applied by Ohno to improve upon Ford's system of mass production. By viewing mass production upside down, Ohno envisioned a “pull” system that started at the end, with the customer. In other words, Ohno looked at the Ford model of production upside down.

In the earlier referenced e-mail, Womack (2006) concludes:

It will be tragic if the originator of lean thinking is crushed in the end by failing to learn lean lessons from its most earnest pupil.

To conclude, we turn the 14 principles upside down. Changing something as simple as the order of the principals examined forces us to look at the situation differently.
Recommendations
Principle 14

Always focus forward, not behind.
Principle 13

Hold yourself and others accountable, expect more from yourself and others than you do today. Trust in your strength and abilities; if they are lacking, develop them.
Principle 12

Be involved and know what you are managing; deeply understand processes and people. Do not focus on metrics and data; it is intuition that will tell you when you are generating progress.
Principle 11

Find the single goal that is larger and more compelling than anything that can be accomplished by you.
Principle 10

Be a strong leader. Be proactive in your approach to problem solving.
Principle 9

Always lead by example; never expect anyone to do anything that you would not be willing to do yourself.
Principle 8

Eliminate management by metric. Eliminate the word “culture” from your vocabulary.
Principle 7

Look as far into the future as you can see, and then look again. Create the future that you can imagine, even though you may not be able to see it clearly today.
Principle 6

Always embrace change, expect change, desire change and make change. Always look for a better idea.
Principle 5

Never expect protection; succeed based upon your own merit.
Principle 4

Integrate the value chain.
Principle 3

Make only what you need.
Principle 2

Always take the time to discover the real root cause of any problem.
Principle 1

Tomorrow, take what you have learned today, and make it better. Weave each lesson into a long-term vision, share the vision, improve the vision, live the vision. The future will not wait, tomorrow is not guaranteed and survival is not guaranteed, today is the only chance you have to change tomorrow.

There is a tendency to let well enough alone and well enough never can be left alone. Nothing can remain static. Things are either moving forward, or moving backward (Ford, 2005, p. 10).

ImageComparative analysis
Table IComparative analysis
References

Ford, H. (2005), My Philosophy of Industry and Moving Forward, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish, MT, (originally published in 1928), .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York, NY, pp.37.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Ohno, T. (1988), Toyota Production System; Beyond Large-scale Production, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.3.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Society of Manufacturing Engineers (2001), “Ford embraces six-sigma quality goals”, available at: www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-press.pl?&&20012513&ND&&SME&, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Toyota (2005), “Toyota Traditions: Ask ‘why’ 5 times about every matter”, available at: www.toyota.co.jp/en/vision/traditions/mar_apr_06.html, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Womack, J.P. (2006), "Jim Womack's e- letters: the lean way forward at Ford", Lean Enterprise Institute Online E-letter, available at: www.lean.org, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
About the authors

Edward D. Arnheiter is an Associate Professor in the Lally School of Management and Technology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Prior to beginning his academic career, Arnheiter spent 11 years in industry as an operations management practitioner, in both the defense sector and in consumer products manufacturing. He held managerial positions with several major companies including; General Electric Defense Systems, Spalding Sports Worldwide, and Titleist and Foot-Joy Worldwide. Mr Arnheiter has taught numerous courses in quality management and control, managerial statistics, and operations management. Arnheiter received a doctorate in industrial engineering and operations research from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Edward D. Arnheiter is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: arnhee@rpi.edu

Jean E. Greenland is a research assistant at the Lally School of Management and Technology at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Hartford, Connecticut. Previous employment experience includes working for five years as a senior manufacturing engineer at GM, and for the last 19 years as a manufacturing management with Ford Motor Company. Ms Greenland completed the Lally School's Master of Science in Management Program in May 2006 and earned a diploma in Business Administration from Northwood University in 1995