My apologies to those of you receiving this for a 2nd time. The transition
to Topica is not going as well as I had expected and about 150 subscribers
did not receive the newsletter when I originally sent it.

I have been working with Topica and they seem to think it may be on the
receiving end due to spam blockers. If you did not receive the newsletter
earlier this month, you may need to set your spam block software to
specifically accept ("whitelist") mail from johnhenry@...

I've not given up yet and will continue to work to resolve this problem. I
appreciate your patience.



(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) S.M.I.L.E(sm)
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) Setup Minimization Improves Line Efficiency
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) The Quick Changeover e-letter
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) Published monthly by Changeover.com
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+) Written by John R Henry, CPP
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)
(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)+(+)

###############################
###############################
###
### SEPTEMBER 2004
###
###############################
###############################
============================================================

NOTE: After 4 years at Yahoo and it’s predecessors we have moved to Topica
for hosting of the Quick Changeover Newsletter. One of the reasons for the
change is to allow the embedding of pictures and graphics in the
newsletter. This issue is all text based and should appear the same as past
issues. Any feedback will be appreciated.

This newsletter is a free service of Changeover.com. Visit our website at
http://www.changeover.com or contact us at john@...

Please feel free to forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be
interested

To subscribe visit www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm

To unsubscribe follow the instructions at the end of the newsletter or
e-mail me directly at johnhenry@...

Past issues are indexed and archived at www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm


Shameless self-promotion:

We have many potential clients around the world who would like to use our
services but find the costs prohibitive due to travel. One of the services
we offer is virtual assessments of your changeover and set-ups. The way it
works is, you videotape a changeover and send us the tape. We review it and
e-mail a report of our observations and improvement recommendations.

Our fee is $750 (US) per tape, up to 3 hours. Satisfaction is guaranteed.
If we are not able to show you savings of at least double or triple the
cost of the assessment, tell us and we will waive the fee.

E-mail me at john@... for more information.

=============================================================
SOME THOUGHTS ON...
SEA STORIES FOR OUR TIME

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following was written by a friend of mine who is a
retired US Navy Master Chief Petty Officer and a veteran of both WWII and
the Korean War. I will be happy to forward any comments to him.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The editor, seizing upon my claim that the duties of a U.S. Navy ship CO
were similar to those of a successful factory manager, asked me to explain
further.

Navy ship commanding officers are carefully selected. They have convinced
numerous selection boards of their competence to perform the duties of rank
(usually Commander of Captain) but must also pass a Screening Board which
recommends only those deemed fully qualified to command a warship or a
major command. You can be a perfectly respectable Captain in the U.S. Navy
and not have a prayer of commanding one of their ships. I assume that those
responsible for the governance of a factory that is expected to produce a
profitable product are equally careful in selecting factory managers.

Over the past few years, as the number of ships in the U.S. Navy have
declined, more COs have been relieved ‘for cause’ than previously. The
officer who relieves a CO of a ship under his jurisdiction usually cites ‘a
lack of confidence in his ability to command.’ According to an editorial in
Navy Times (28 June 2004), ten COs have been relieved in the first months
of 2004 and 27 in the past 17 months – more than in 2000, 2001, and 2002
combined. In some cases the reason given is “Inappropriate relations with a
person in his command.” Sex rears its ugly head, even in the senior
leadership of the Navy.

In my time (1943-64) each Navy ship produced a monthly Roster of Officers
which listed each officer in the command with some personal data; their
duty assignment, collateral duties, date of rank, duties in training for,
date of expected qualification and a code which indicated the source of
that officer – Naval Academy, ex-enlisted, NROTC, etc. To this white hat
the intriguing section was the line which listed the Commanding Officer.
His Collateral Duty was always Morale. Other officers had numerous
collateral duties – member of a Special Court Martial, Mess Treasurer, Mail
Officer, but the COs single collateral duty was Morale.

A very few Commanding Officers seemed overly concerned with their morale
but most took the stricture to mean the morale of their command. Following
are some examples of Commanding Officers. Most are dead now so aren’t
available for civilian employment – my argument is simply that their
background would have made them excellent candidates to manage a complex
factory. My preferences will be obvious; my morale as a white hat was what
was important to me.

All these COs had one thing in common; their word was their bond. This was
important, since many may be put at both physical and career risk as a
result of a very few words from the CO. You didn’t have to like your CO but
you didn’t lie to him. [This Nirvana was before pervasive political
correctness ruled the world.]

1944-45 The Supply Depot of a Pacific Advanced Base. The Supply Officer was
a Regular Navy Lieutenant Commander, soon promoted to Commander and then,
as the Supply Center on an island in the Pacific grew in importance,
‘spotted’ to Captain. A ‘spot’ promotion lasted only as long as you held
the position you had. Once relieved, you reverted to your previous rank.
From my standpoint, our CO was fine until he made Captain – then the new
rank seemed to take precedence over everything else. Okay, maybe it wasn’t
that way but that’s the way we saw it.

1945 The relief for the previous CO was a Captain in the Supply Corps, a
long-time personal friend of Fleet Admiral Nimitz, boss of the U.S. Pacific
Fleet and Pacific Ocean Areas. He was very low key. The only time I saw him
in action was when he was sending off a Lieutenant (who was somewhat
flustered as this was a no-notice immediate transfer) to become the Navy’s
supply representative on Iwo Jima. His advice which this eavesdropper heard
was: “Joe. Help everybody you can. Just remember you are in the Navy.”
1948 Aboard an ESSEX-class carrier for a Mediterranean cruise. The CO was
very quiet and reserved. But he was a tiger on zone inspections, held every
Friday where groups of officers inspected the ship for material
deficiencies that were reported to the CO.

The Captain led one of the groups. It was only years later that I learned
why the materiel condition of the almost-new ship meant so much to him. At
the beginning of WWII he had been CO of a converted WWI destroyer which
served as a tender for my brother’s wing of PBYs which the Japanese quickly
tore up but his ship wasn’t badly damaged. Off Iwo Jima, he had been CO of
the last U.S. carrier lost in the war, a ‘jeep’ carrier sunk by a Kamikaze
with great loss of life. Jeep carriers had no armor. He wrote letters to
the parents and widows of those hundreds lost.

1949 Same carrier; new CO. The most gentlemanly officer I ever met. He had
a great deal of experience aboard carriers during WWII. He had once been
one of the section officers in VF-2, the “Flying Chiefs.” Then (early
1930s) all the pilots in VF-2, except for the CO and section leaders, had
been chief petty officers. Highly skilled and sometimes highly unorthodox.
A sense of proportion and humor. As a retired admiral, he used to attend
our ship reunions as long as he was able. Unfortunately for us, he was
relieved from command just as the Korean War began so he could become the
chief of staff of the 7th Fleet Commander off Korea. Always considerate of
the crew, his officers, and our escorting destroyers – a new experience for
the destroyers.

1961 CO of a destroyer tender in the Pacific. He managed by walking around
and observing – tenders do their important work in port. He came into our
shop unexpectedly, looked around, spoke genially to everyone and then,
“Chief, don’t you think this space could use a coat of paint?” Painting
followed almost immediately. I remember this Captain most because of his
campaign against swearing. He made it clear there was to be no swearing
aboard his ship. He didn’t threaten bread-and-water but it just wasn’t to
be done. Banning swearing aboard a Navy ship is akin to banning bikinis at
all beaches during spring break, but he pretty much made it stick.
An incident which made our crusty chief boatswain’s mate laugh until he
almost cried happened during this command. We seldom went to sea, but the
Captain spent a lot of time on the bridge. One morning in Yokosuka, a
boatswain’s mate had a crew working on the foc’stle. They were too
lackadaisical by his standards and he started to tell them so. Then he saw
the Captain was on the bridge, watching with interest. He began explaining
the proper procedures to his crew but couldn’t get the words right. The
chief boatswain’s mate was also watching, protected from the light rain
(and the CO’s surveillance) by standing under the bridge overhang. Finally,
the BM1 came to where the chief was standing and said, very quietly,
“Chief, what do you call dumsumbitches when you can’t call them dumsumbitches?”




TIP OF THE MONTH...
PHOTOEYES

Camera based machine vision systems have been used for years for
inspection, verification and control of manufacturing tasks. They have
proven to be very effective. Costs have been dropping dramatically with
some basic systems now under $5,000 (US). I am certainly a fan of vision
and recommend it's use where appropriate.

However, camera based systems are still relatively expensive and complex
compared to photoeye based systems. Photoeyes have been improving and
becoming more versatile as well. They are currently in use for such
applications as part and component orientation, size and position
verification, level control and other tasks. One interesting application
from Tri-Tronics www.ttco.com has a highpowered infrared photoeye that can
look through an opaque pouch or carton to verify the presence of product or
bottle inside. This means that a $1,000 photoeye based inspection/rejection
system could replace a $25,000 checkweigher in some applications.





Best,

John R Henry CPP

Visit the Quick Changeover website at http://www.changeover.com

Subscribe to the Quick Changeover Newsletter at
http://www.changeover.com/newsletter.htm