Strategic Plan Proposal
Arthur M. Schneiderman
One of my earliest assignments at ADI was to develop a long range QIP implementation plan. I kept delaying this task because I new that I would be met with the usual “that’s all well and good but it doesn’t apply in our business” response; and this was a response for which I had no convincing answer.
On October 9-10, 1986, I attended Joe Juran’s annual IMPRO Conference. One of the presentations was from Texas Instruments’ Hiji Plant in Japan, a recent winner of the Deming Prize. They also had a booth where they posted charts describing their improvement effort. This plant made products almost identical to those produced at our largest manufacturing facility. At last I had the irrefutable data needed to prove that “QIP does apply here.”
My attempt to take a picture of their charts was greeted with an abrupt: “no cameras!” It took me many trips to the booth to capture all of the data in memory and transfer it to paper. I’m sure that the presenters were curious about my persistent interest in their results.
With the TI data in hand, on October 14, 1986, I met with Ray Stata (Chairman, CEO and President) and Jerry Fishman (Group Vice President, Components) to start the process of developing consensus on the QIP plan. I reviewed with them a set of handwritten slides. Over the next two weeks, I produced this presentation based on those handwritten slides and incorporated their suggestions:
Over the next several months, I gave the presentation at a number of planning meetings as part of the consensus building process.
NOTES: I’ve provided brief background notes only on those slides that bear on the subject of ADI’s balanced scorecard.
Some of the words on this slide were taken from a TI presentation at Juran’s IMPRO ‘86. As you will see, I patterned ADI’s overall goal on these words.
This chart really got people’s attention.
It showed that TI had succeeded in achieving defect levels that were
orders of magnitude lower than ADI’s for similar products.
It also validated my half-life method and showed improvement rates that
were an order of magnitude faster than our engineers were willing to commit to.
This one slide provided the breakthrough that I needed in order to win the argument over possible future states.
This slide provided a roadmap for QIP implementation. It helped in setting expectations that this would be a multi-year effort.
This was my attempt at integrating QIP into our other initiatives so that it didn’t appear as the flavor of the month.
This slide was based on Slide 3. The first version of this slide applied only to our Wilmington plant, which was similar to the TI Hiji facility. Once people were able to make the connection, it was easy to extend the logic to the entire company.
In contrast to the previous slide, this one identifies the internal drivers for the achievement of external goals.
The purpose of this slide was to highlight an area of
significant waste at Analog: Information Systems. We had lots of data and reports, but little useful
Also, since one of the basic tenets of TQM is “management by facts,” I proposed this as a major area for top management improvement activities.
Since the general theme of the internal perspective was the elimination of waste (“muda” in Japanese), I included these two classifications of waste that I had seen on earlier visits to Japan.
The October 14th version of this slide was directed toward my suggestion for Ray and Jerry’s goals for the year. They concluded that these personal goals should be applied to the entire top management team.
The following slides were taken from earlier materials and were used to expand upon some of the areas covered in the previous slides.
This slide is taken from my first Quality Progress article (see my list of publications) and was used to contrast incremental improvement (Kaizen) to the more common improvement method in use at Analog: innovation.
This slide contained the 1985 checklist for the Deming Application Prize and was used to demonstrate the breadth of coverage of QIP.
This slide represented the elements of a model I had developed for TQM deployment prior to joining Analog.
Ray wanted to assure
that what I was proposing built off of the start he had made in 1985.
We called it Phase 1, and my plan for the future was referred to as Phase
2. This slide represents a status
report of our QIP upon my arrival at ADI.
There was little consensus, however that the tops-down priorities represented the vital few things that we should be working on.
I created this slide to summarize the recent delivery
performance of the five divisions that constituted the components group.
The four categories represented a customer segmentation based mostly on
This format became our standard way of displaying comparable performance measures.
I created this slide to try to link performance improvement
to QIP activity. By constructing
similar slides for each of the divisions, I was able to demonstrate to the
General Managers that divisions that established QIP teams achieved more rapid
improvement (shorter half-lives).
I described the use of this chart in converting one skeptic to a champion in a JSPM article (see #4 on my list of publications).
This slide was used to establish continuity with our earlier QIP effort.
One of our Product Line Managers kept a log for me of the
reports he received on a regular basis. It
amounted to about 6" of paper per week.
He looked at less than 20 pages from these many reports on a regular
Without my asking, I was quickly added to most of the
distribution lists. One thick
report had no reference as to its source. None
of the other managers who received it knew where it came from either.
I remember that one of the measures in the report was “net gross
bookings.” No one could tell me
what it meant and since I couldn’t find the source, there was no one to ask.
I never did find the answer. The report kept coming until I left Analog and I wouldn’t
be surprised if it’s still being distributed (and probable still being sent to
This slide demonstrated that waste was not limited to manufacturing and that there was a big difference between data and information.
During this period we used Juran’s model for Quality Management. This slide contained his breakdown of responsibilities of the Quality Council and was used as a model for the General managers as they created their division QIP Councils.
Last modified: August 13, 2006