Search results

The author details nine pitfalls that sabotage efforts to execute a quality improvement strategy and insists that management must take a more active role in promoting the importance of customer‐focused quality.

Struggling to keep plant managers and plant personnel motivated about customers, manufacturers have spent a lot of money and tried various methods to make plant personnel sensitive to the needs of customers. The methods to do this, development of internal customers, continuous improvement circles, visits to customer sites and others, are expensive and have not been very effective. For small firms it is especially difficult. However, retaining customers is considered critically important by academics and management consultants. This article offers a method to directly link customer satisfaction with targeted manufacturing processes and management decisions that occur within the plant. By identifying the component attributes of a major plant process that can have an affect on customers, firms can find out more specifically how a specific plant process is helping or hurting the manufacturer’s ability to retain important customers. This knowledge can ultimately affect make/buy decisions, investment in new equipment, strategic plans, managerial decisions, and operational procedures.

This paper presents an organizational learning framework for reframing management practices within large bureaucratic organizations. Reviewing the relevant literature, the paper argues managers' control orientations and practices effectively stifle learning and personal development by severely limiting the ability of employees to exert control or change the nature of their work activities. To encourage organizational learning, a number of reframing tools are proposed The paper concludes by discussing how reframing tools may be used in conjunction with other psychoanalytic techniques to challenge and change managers' control orientations and practices.

A discussion “ On the Neglect of Science in Commerce and Industry ” seems to involve the assumption that this neglect is general if not total. As this would be an exaggeration, I prefer to speak of the inadequate appreciation of science in the British commercial and industrial world. During the last thirty years immense efforts have been made to provide instruction in physical science for all classes in the community, and with some success. Every British university is provided with laboratories and gives degrees in science; the number of colleges and technical schools has increased enormously, and the quality of the teaching provided has greatly improved, while there are but few secondary schools which are not furnished with good laboratories in which physical science is taught up to a comparatively advanced stage. Out of these universities, colleges, and schools proceed annually many hundreds of young people with a tincture of scientific knowledge, some of them possessing even a certain amount of practical skill and experience. I do not refer to engineers whose training and professional qualifications require separate discussion.

A report on this subject has recently been issued by the Local Government Board. It owes its origin to the interest—unfortunately brief—that was aroused some two years ago, when certain allegations were made concerning the methods in vogue on the other side of the Atlantic for, the preparation of meat products intended to be placed on the English market, and has been drawn up by Dr. A. W. J. MACFADDEN. The report is based on the results obtained by Public Analysts throughout the country, who, in the performance of their official duties, were called upon to examine various samples of canned meat sent out by the United States packing houses; on certain statements made by trade representatives to Dr. MACFADDEN; and, finally, on the results of some analyses of canned meats made by Mr. ELLIS RICHARDS, F.I.C., at the request of the Board. The figures must be regarded as representative of the state of affairs then and now. By far the greater quantity of canned meat that reaches this country and is consumed therein is imported from the United States, and hence, almost of necessity, any criticisms that are made regarding this part of our food supply resolve themselves into criticisms of the Federal Meat Inspection law of the United States and the way in which it is applied by the officials there. The conclusion that Dr. MACFADDEN draws as to the efficacy of this law so far as it regards ourselves is one that was expressed in this journal in May last. He observes that “our position, so far as safeguards provided by American law are concerned, is apparently much as it was before the enactments came into force,” that “so far as the use of preservatives is concerned, the new law has not affected the conditions under which the canned meat trade has been conducted with this country in past years,” and that “the onus of protecting their inhabitants in this respect continues to rest, in the first place, with the Governments of the foreign countries themselves.” The first two statements are sufficiently damning, and the corollary is, of course, obvious. The difficulties must be tackled from this side, but the entire absence, up to the present, of all official standards renders the task of the Public Analyst and the other municipal officials who are jointly concerned with him as regards the health of the districts with which they are connected, a most difficult one, and the business of the unscrupulous “poisoner for dividends,” to use an American phrase, correspondingly easy. We go a little farther than Dr. MACFADDEN, and say that the new law does not protect us even with regard to the general wholesomeness of these products. As late as January last the Inspecting Officer of the Manchester Port Sanitary Authority had occasion to draw attention to the unsatisfactory nature of certain canned goods that were imported direct from America. The examination of a consignment of 1,200 six‐pound tins of canned meat showed that 157 tins were blown, and that 156 tins were of doubtful quality. It follows that in this single instance 1,800 pounds of garbage were exported to this country from the United States, the new law notwithstanding.

Many of the difficulties that have been experienced by Health Authorities in this country in the examination of imported butcher's “offal”—using the term “offal” in its trade sense—would seem to have been due to injudicious methods of packing on the other side. The organs that constitute “offal”—livers, plucks, kidneys, sweetbreads, and so forth—have hitherto been closely packed into a bag, box, or crate, and the whole mass then frozen hard. Hence on arrival at the port of inspection the separate examination of these organs for possible disease conditions was rendered a matter of extreme difficulty. The exporters have now, it appears, almost all arranged for the separate freezing of the larger organs before packing, and in the case of smaller organs, such as kidneys and sweetbreads, some packers now make use of shallow boxes.

RELIEF, which came to Europe in the early morning of September 30th, will be felt no more keenly anywhere than in libraries. Since Richard de Bury implored peace because war was the worst enemy of the book, we have had reason to know for ages what war may mean for our collections. Already, indeed, library staffs had been drawn upon for service in the Forces, in Air Raid Precautions and other urgent war work and some have not returned to their usual places yet. In the last war the proceedings began for libraries with drastic retrenchments and these were restored only when it was found that even at such a time the book was a necessity and not a superfluity.

1. Preservatives should be prohibited in all articles of food and drink offered or exposed for sale whether manufactured in this country or imported, except that—(a) Sulphur dioxide only should be permitted, (1) in sausages in amounts not exceeding three grains per pound, (2) in jam in amounts not exceeding 0·3 grains per pound, (3) in dried fruit in amounts not exceeding seven grains per pound, (4) in preserved (but not dried) whole fruit or fruit pulp in amounts not exceeding five grains per pound, (5) in beer and cider whether in bottle or in cask in amounts not exceeding five grains per gallon, (6) in alcoholic wines, non‐alcoholic wines, and cordials and fruit juices sweetened and unsweetened in amounts not exceeding three grains per pint; (b) Benzoic acid only should be permitted (1) in coffee extract in amounts not exceeding three grains per pound, (2) in non‐alcoholic wines and cordials and sweetened and unsweetened fruit juices (as an alternative to sulphur dioxide) in amounts not exceeding five grains per pint, (3) in sweetened mineral waters and in brewed ginger beer in amounts not exceeding one grain per pint. The methods of estimating the foregoing preservatives should be prescribed by the Minister of Health.

During the past twenty‐five years the importance of chemistry as applied to the practical affairs of everyday life has increased. In every Secondary School of repute, chemistry now forms an important part of the teaching. A large number of Technical Schools have been founded and at least partly endowed or assisted out of the Public Funds. Numerous Societies have been formed with the object of furnishing means and opportunities for discussing chemistry in its relations to arts and manufactures. Such facts are, in themselves, sufficient proof of the economic value of the science. Inducements are held out to the student to avail himself of the means offered on every side to adopt applied chemistry as a calling. We find teachers of chemistry asserting the claims of chemistry as the one science on which modern industry depends for its development. There is no industry, from biscuit manufacture to sulphuric acid manufacture, that does not find its chances of success certainly increased by employing scientific chemists to control the details of manufacture and its ultimate failure assured by its declining to avail itself of the resources of chemistry.

WE write on the eve of an Annual Meeting of the Library Association. We expect many interesting things from it, for although it is not the first meeting under the new constitution, it is the first in which all the sections will be actively engaged. From a membership of eight hundred in 1927 we are, in 1930, within measurable distance of a membership of three thousand; and, although we have not reached that figure by a few hundreds—and those few will be the most difficult to obtain quickly—this is a really memorable achievement. There are certain necessary results of the Association's expansion. In the former days it was possible for every member, if he desired, to attend all the meetings; today parallel meetings are necessary in order to represent all interests, and members must make a selection amongst the good things offered. Large meetings are not entirely desirable; discussion of any effective sort is impossible in them; and the speakers are usually those who always speak, and who possess more nerve than the rest of us. This does not mean that they are not worth a hearing. Nevertheless, seeing that at least 1,000 will be at Cambridge, small sectional meetings in which no one who has anything to say need be afraid of saying it, are an ideal to which we are forced by the growth of our numbers.