TROND: Welcome to another episode of the Augmented Podcast. Augmented reveals the stories behind a new era of industrial operations where technology will restore the agility of frontline workers. 

In this episode of the podcast, the topic is Executing on Manufacturing Technology. Our guest is Jane Arnold, Manufacturing Consultant, and Board Member. In this conversation, we talk about advanced manufacturing technology, the importance of material flow, transparency, throughput, cost cutting, and captivating users with digital tools. 

Augmented is a podcast for industrial leaders, process engineers, and shop floor operators hosted by futurist Trond Arne Undheim and presented by Tulip. 

Jane, how are you? Welcome to the show.

JANE: I'm doing very well. Thank you, Trond. Happy to be here.

TROND: Jane, you are a fascinating character. You've been in this business of various types of manufacturing for a while. You've worked in several different manufacturing businesses, and you started out with a math degree, so I guess very theoretical interest initially. That was down in Houston. And you became a process engineer in the chemical industry, and then your latest stint as a manufacturing executive at Stanley Black & Decker. But before that, I believe you had almost 30 years in controls engineering, and we'll talk about this a little bit. You've worked in Germany. You've worked in the U.S. What was it that got you started in manufacturing, Jane?

JANE: So actually, Trond, I started manufacturing as a summer job. I was not planning on manufacturing. I had visions of being a doctor or something. But my summer job turned into 16 years at Sterling Chemicals, which is a small chemical plant in Texas City, Texas. That first summer, I worked with a great group of people, and I learned so much. And I was fascinated by how things worked and how the people would interact with the instruments and the decisions they made. That's actually how I started. And the math degree came as kind of a pivot because they didn't offer engineering classes at night. So I finished up my degree with math in the evenings. It's been an interesting ride. 

So I did spend probably 20 years as a controls engineer, the 16 years at Sterling Chemicals. And then, I started at Covestro, which used to be Bayer MaterialScience, as a controls engineer. With Bayer, I ended up being a unit lead and a plant manager for some time. And that was probably the most fascinating to actually have every day something new happening. 

Towards the end of that assignment, as a plant manager or a unit lead, they asked me if I was interested in going to Germany in an executive position. And that was four years in that role, three years actually living in Germany. And it was really fascinating to go around the world and meet people and learn about different cultures and implementing technology in these different regions. When the pandemic started, I moved back to the U.S. to be near family. And everything kind of shifted from there, and I decided I wanted to learn something new and started at Stanley Black & Decker. And I found making things fascinating, and I'm really glad I made that switch.

TROND: I want to hear more about your perspective on what you just said, which is making technology work and going around the world watching and advising on technology implementation. Let's first maybe go to some of your experience as a process engineer. What is it that someone who's at more of a manager or executive level what is the first step for you when either you are told, you know, here's what we're implementing? 

Or you're more likely perhaps coming into the middle of something where there's a lot of stuff going on, a lot of technologies. And you're just trying to, I guess, optimize and figure out where do we go next? And, obviously, there are different technologies and different places, and you're trying to move things around. What are the things that are going through your mind in that process? What is the most important thing for you?

JANE: So it's kind of interesting when you say that. As a process control engineer, I always felt like it was my job to make things work after someone else decided what was happening. But early in my career, I think in the mid to late '90s, I actually worked as an operator. And we had already converted our panelboard instrument to DCS. And we had been slowly making process control improvements on the board. And there was a union strike, which turned into a lockout. 

So I spent four months as an operator. And those four months really changed my perspective on how things work, or should work, or could be successful because the nuance that the operator experiences every moment of his day is very important. And I think that when management makes decisions for operations, they don't understand that nuance. And so I've made it my mission from there to always work as close to the point of impact as possible and to make sure that my team is always advancing, following that same philosophy. So going around the world and meeting different people and learning what it took for them to be on board was really an important part of the whole process.

TROND: Jane, when you say operator, to you, that means basically the layer in a factory that actually executes the production of something, is that right? 

JANE: That's correct.

TROND: So it refers to the entire layer of the people who are actually usually on the factory floor implementing some step-by-step process and the people who are actually the factory workers. Is that what you're talking about, or does it also, for you, include the managers of those people and the supervisors and sort of those next layers?

JANE: So it's really all of it. So when I think of operator, I think of the person with their hands closest to the process. But when working with operators, I also work with the first and second layers of management because many of those people came up from operations. So they have a mix between understanding the actual process in the plant and the right way that things need to get done as far as procedurally. 

So I try to include as many people as possible when talking to them because you've got to get all those perspectives. It can't be one person making a decision. It has to be everyone working together in some fashion to be able to come up with the right solution.

TROND: I guess this is something that I've experienced over the last two years, spending much more time with factory workers and in factories, too. But I'm just curious, is there in your mind...you said that you were working as an operator, and you felt that that was sort of an eye-opening experience. Do you feel that that's a typical thing among senior managers to either come up from the ranks or to really spend a lot of time on the floor to understand what's going on there? Or do you feel that that is still a rarity?

JANE: I would say it's still a rarity. There are some people who do it by choice because they want to learn what it's like to actually work in the field or on the factory floor. And at Sterling, we actually encouraged people to work closely with operations for a number of weeks to make sure that there was a little bit better integration, but it doesn't happen enough. I think that every new engineer out of college should spend a month as an operator or a month as a maintenance hand and really learn how things work and how the people function in that environment.

TROND: Jane, this is not something I had rehearsed you on. But I know that you have spoken about this elsewhere, so I feel comfortable perhaps asking you, and you can answer if you want. But you're a female executive in an industry that doesn't have oodles of female executives that had this perspective that you are talking about now. How did that play out when you show up on factory floor? So would you say that that is largely an issue that is not so relevant anymore on factory floor?

JANE: In my early years, you know, my father raised me that anything was possible; I could do anything. In my early years, I heard a lot about, you know, that I was just a girl, I couldn't do that, that sort of thing. And that actually motivated me to do it and to learn more, and to push. And I even have one example where I had some senior manager in one company actually look me up and down and say, "No, you can't help me." I'm like, "Okay, well, when you want your plant to run, call me back." 

And I learned that it was just part of it because there were so few women, you know, out of 1,000 men on site, there were maybe 15 or 20 women, and half of those were administrative types, sort of a couple of chemists. And there was another one in the group with me. So it was a bit unusual. As I moved to Covestro or Bayer, it was different because I was more accepted as a woman. I didn't really feel that difference. I did feel a difference because I don't have a Ph.D., so that was something that I kind of felt, you know, maybe working for a German company where there's a lot of PhDs in leadership.

And then going to Stanley, it was, you know, more now what I see is that people are accepted by what they bring to the table. Discrimination is still there. It still exists, but it has been slowly improving. The pandemic didn't help because many more women went home as the primary caregiver than the men did. But I think that there are still a lot of opportunities for women and are able to do the things that need to be done.

TROND: Excellent. You mentioned Stanley. Let's talk a little bit about that for a second. So Stanley Black & Decker is a huge company, discrete manufacturing very challenging business. What is their approach to technology, and what were the kinds of things that you were faced with there? What was your role? And where are they in sort of this specter of technology development? What's their perspective?

JANE: So Stanley is a pretty interesting company. They have everything from fascinating products where they are very technically advanced to just the basics. And in manufacturing, it's the same. There are a few lighthouse sites that are very well-advanced, and in many sites, much has happened. So as far as technology, there was effort at one time to kind of do everything at once, and it just became too much, especially if you're working for a company that's looking at the P&L quarterly or monthly; it's difficult to do everything at once. 

And what we ended up doing at Stanley is that they continue to roll out the connected factory with a small workforce as well as Tulip to support the frontline operations and to solve problems at the point of impact. Overall, trying to do everything at once doesn't work. And I've seen across the industry that many companies will buy into the hype and have trouble with the full execution and follow-through because they're trying to do too much too fast. So you've got to be able to really integrate with the workforce and make sure that you're solving the problems that need to be solved.

TROND: Well, so let's go a little closer on that because it does seem to me that some of the things that are happening at Stanley do answer that call, right? You correct me. But there seems to be a fairly strong focus on figuring out how you can empower operators themselves. So there's a focus on many things. Obviously, it's a big company, so there's a push towards more of the standard industry 4.0: let's do all of this. Let's automate. Let's completely transform everything. 

So you mentioned frontline operations. What did that mean to you when you were there? And what sort of experiences did you have? You mentioned Tulip. Can you tell me a little bit about how you came into that process and how that transpired during the period you were at Stanley?

JANE: Well, Tulip was already a vendor with Stanley when I joined. There was a colleague of mine who had worked with Tulip at a different company in the past. They were only at the beginning of doing any sort of deployment. And it's considered a next-gen MES which at first I was like, ah, there's no way this is an MES. I'm used to the big monolithic systems. I've installed many. And I was like, this isn't going to happen. 

But I was open-minded. We already had a contract, and we were going to start using it. And I realized over time that each project that we did was another MES concept. So I did the exercise of going back to the ISA-95 architecture and looking at what it was we were doing with Tulip. And architecture-wise, we were still following the principles, but from a technology standpoint, it was really flatter. And there were things that we were doing, like improving inventory management by connecting with SAP and doing online counting of parts. 

We were doing First Article Inspection and pushing that information into our quality system. And then we were also doing OEE, interfacing directly with the machines and looking to see how can we make improvements. And I realized kind of after the fact, hey, we're actually building our own MES. But instead of having to wait a year and spend a lot of money making a template, we were able to solve one problem at a time, scale it, and hook it all together. And so it all worked seamlessly. 

So it was really a nice surprise for me. And when we went into the factories, we asked them, "What's your biggest problem? What can I help you with?" And that's how it all came about. So we engaged operations and leadership in the factories and solved their problems.

TROND: Jane, this is so interesting to me as I have kind of walked around and asked different executives and also operators and people everywhere in an organization about this idea of whether you start top down or you start bottom up. You seem to be saying something in between. This was a bottom-up effort but, clearly, you were involved. So you were kind of the top-down element. And then you said scaling up.

Can you tell me a little bit about how that process must work in a large organization? Because clearly, you can't just give people a massive amount of tools or one tool and say, "Hey, do whatever you want." How does that balance get struck between, okay, so you're not buying this massive MES that has a whole template that you then have to agree all on, and then you launch it in 100 factories. You're doing it differently, but you still eventually want to scale it. 

I, for example, went to one Stanley factory and watched one quality manager who was there at the time, Sofia, and just watched her one or two applications that she had built as a non-software engineer and then talk to the operators that were using that. And I got to experience first-hand how happy the operators were and how surprised they actually were that they were excited about this app because they had expected, oh no, another training program. I don't even like computers. I don't know why management is having me do this. But this particular operator that I spoke to, I mean, he didn't seem like he was just a mouthpiece. He literally said this was very exciting for him. 

JANE: Yes.

TROND: He felt like he had almost built the app that he was now using, and he was like, "I never thought I would be this excited."

JANE: Right. So remember I mentioned that I used to be a unit lead, so a plant manager director-level over manufacturing, and I had four production units under me. Whenever senior management came in with a new initiative, if we waited long enough, it would go away, and they'd be focused on the other initiative. So I knew that the factory floor and the workforce not accepting some drive-by initiative was not going to work. 

So we took the approach where we would interface with multiple layers in the organization. So yes, we talk to the factory leader, the plant manager at the site. We would talk with the continuous improvement or quality engineers, but we would also talk with the operators and then maintenance folks because we wanted to make sure that we were addressing their problem. 

And when you actually include them as part of the process and get their feedback and incorporate their feedback, they become part-owners. And it makes a huge difference in the viability and longevity of this application. We had a small Center of Excellence team for Tulip. And what we would do is review each application to see when does it satisfy the privacy and security requirements? But also, is this something that we should roll out to other places?

We'd make sure that we'd make it as standard as possible. You still have to allow some flexibility because every factory is going to be different but to try and have that 80% piece that is standardized and locked down. So we used this method of what some people may think of overcommunication and over-engagement to make sure that it was successful.

MID-ROLL AD:

In the new book from Wiley, Augmented Lean: A Human-Centric Framework for Managing Frontline Operations, serial startup founder Dr. Natan Linder and futurist podcaster Dr. Trond Arne Undheim deliver an urgent and incisive exploration of when, how, and why to augment your workforce with technology, and how to do it in a way that scales, maintains innovation, and allows the organization to thrive. The key thing is to prioritize humans over machines. 

Here's what Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, says about the book: "Augmented Lean is an important puzzle piece in the fourth industrial revolution." 

Find out more on www.augmentedlean.com, and pick up the book in a bookstore near you.

TROND: Well, broadening this a little bit beyond one particular company, you mentioned sort of the industry 4.0 general rhetoric, which I think on this podcast we have been fairly skeptical about. Why is it that this particular broad notion of these clusters of technologies gets so much talked about in executive circles? And why is that somewhat toxic? It seems to me that you agree with many people that we have on this podcast that have experienced this, you know, the backside of the hype around these manufacturing technologies. Can you enlighten us on how you see this? 

There is excitement among the executives, usually around these clusters of industry 4.0, whether it is AI or robotics and advanced machinery of any sort and then IoT kind of knitting it all together. Why isn't that in and of itself helping anybody? Why does it need so much translation to be effective?

JANE: So I think that industry 4.0 is fascinating. So the phrase was coined, I think, in 2011 at Hannover Messe in Germany. And it's all about we have this advanced computing power and technology, and it's easier to create software that have an impact. The results that you get from implementing or deploying the software is real. It does happen. What they didn't start at the same time was how do you do it, so it's sustainable that people actually engage and do that? 

And what I've seen at many companies is that industry 4.0 fails because they have not actually engaged the workforce. They bought something. They're expecting magic. But they haven't got an embedded team that's actually making a difference all the way through. It's not something that happens overnight. It takes months, years of effort to make sure that everyone keeps using it. All the problems are solved. And then it's easy to use. It's really important that it's easy to use. 

So now I'm starting to see more companies looking to, well, how do we make it sustainable? I had a company ask me the other week, you know, "What are we missing by not implementing technology?" And at the end of the discussion, the plant manager said to me or the CEO he's like, "Well, you're very pragmatic. And the message that I get over the last three hours is that it's people-focused and not technology-focused." And I said "That's right. You've got to have the technology, but you have to have the people want it. They need to pull. And you need to include them in the process so they'll accept it and actually make it better."

TROND: So it seems to me that what you're sort of saying is that the technology piece is almost actually the easiest part in the sense that I think many think of it as an enormous investment, so it doesn't feel easy. But you need to pick really carefully because you can overinvest in a technology, and then I guess it just gets put in the back room. Or really, it certainly doesn't always contribute exactly what you thought it would. So how do you avoid that then, Jane? 

And in large large organizations, they have big budgets, and obviously, the problems become bigger if you invest wrongly. But in more smaller...the U.S. manufacturers, a lot of them are small. How should they approach this? Is it the same thing? They also have to start with their workers first. Or is it an easier decision for them?

JANE: I think it's really a lot of the same. So they need to decide what is the problem we need to solve? Is it actually a material flow problem in the factory? Is it an inventory management problem? Is it, you know, whatever it is, supply chain problem? And start from, you know, you've got to have the executive say, "Hey, this is the big problem I wanted to solve." But as you're solving that problem, you need to interact with all the people who are involved in that space because they're going to know where all the problems are, and there's no getting around that. Just buying the software, which I agree with you is the easy part, is not enough. 

I mentioned that I was actually wanting to be a doctor. I was wanting to be a psychiatrist. And so, in college, I took a lot of sociology and psychology classes. And then when I started working in manufacturing, I was looking at, you know, studying body language and things like that. And when you engage the workforce properly, you see a difference in the acceptance, and the way they listen to you, and the overall success of the project you're doing.

TROND: So a factory psychologist is essentially good for when you're implementing technology.

JANE: Yeah, very correct. [laughs] Yes.

TROND: Well, there's something to that. Technology is personal, I guess. 

JANE: Yes.

TROND: All technology is. It would seem that it's an abstract force that just comes in and makes everything very efficient and smooth. But you, I guess, have to accept that's going to happen and accept that these are positive changes. As you look into the future, Jane, what do you see for manufacturing? What is happening now that gives you either hope or are you perhaps more skeptical about the ways this is moving? 

I know there are a lot of opinions out there about whether industry is moving in the right direction. There's obviously also fear around robotics. And the workforce issues are persistent in the sector, whether it is calls for more training or calls for better relationships generally between management and workers. I mean, these are things that have been with us from the beginning of all industrial revolutions. Where do you see this sector moving?

JANE: So manufacturing is not going away. It's here to stay. We have to make products for humans. Now, what I've seen over the past few years with the pandemic and the supply chain issues is that there have been quite a bit of jobs that have returned to the United States from overseas. And I'm seeing more companies focus on making where they sell to try to reduce the impact of supply chain problems. 

And when we look at the workforce shortage, I mean, it's real. It's not something made up. And the way you overcome that workforce shortage is to implement technology. So maybe you needed 10 people to run a line before, but you've automated some portions of it. And you've got applications built. So work instructions are there, visual AI, and telling you if there are any problems and things like that. And maybe then you only need five people to run it. 

Well, if you only had five people to begin with because you only have 50% of the workforce because you can't hire anyone, then you solve your problem with technology. I've never seen robotics as replacing the workforce but actually enhancing the workforce or augmenting the work that's happening on the factory floor. And I think you have to have both going forward to be successful.

TROND: A lot of people would say that manufacturing is difficult. Is it becoming simpler because of new technologies or perhaps new management perspectives where we understand challenges better or technologies better? Or would you say it is just a very difficult business to be in? Because there are very real constraints, I guess, in the factories themselves or their physical infrastructure. And there are people issues, obviously. Like you said, factory psychologists are needed here. You need to motivate people to work together as a team. Is it just a hard business?

JANE: I think it is a hard business. It doesn't have to be. But there's often so much change, the work, the people. So you'll have a high turnover in factories or in manufacturing for whatever reason, maybe because the work is hard, or there's a better opportunity down the street or something like that. Whenever you have that workforce turnover, you're going to not quite start at zero, but you're starting over because the new workforce has to learn the process, has to learn the problems, and take all that on. And I think that's always going to be an issue. 

Now, if you have some locations where the workforce is very consistent and steady, then you'll see, over time, slow, steady improvements. So when I worked at the chemical plant in Texas City and the one in Baytown, it was the same. You look back over time, and you say, "Oh, all those changes." Most of them are actually sustainable and still running. And it is possible that it does take a dedicated workforce to make any difference. Again, it's not magic.

TROND: But it does seem to me, Jane, that if you could train just in time, you know, you were talking about digital work instructions. It would seem to me that there are two kinds of fixes to these challenges; one is obviously working on the culture, and the compensation and the excitement around the work so that you get a better workforce. And there are some countries where there are structural things that the government does, making it harder to fire people or basically just encouraging employers to build these more stable careers, which Japan and Germany come to mind in manufacturing and Scandinavia more generally. 

But the other thing is, of course, to make work itself just quicker to jump into so that the training isn't five months to understand a machine. It actually shows up as digital work instructions right there. Have you seen any changes there? And the frontline operation platforms that you have experienced, is that process being taken care of, that challenge of training?

JANE: So absolutely, we're doing that at Stanley Black & Decker. And I'm hoping as I explore other companies that, I see more of it happening. At Stanley, we would video record and train through DeepHow, which is AI, and you can translate the language and then build the applications with Tulip and actually record the whole thing and train people that way. So it might have taken, for example, two hours to train on one thing on one machine. We could then do it in a few minutes. 

And then you have it available at the station where you've got a DeepHow screen for, hey, do you want to rewatch this? And then you maybe have a work instruction screen for Tulip as to what's happening and your Gemba Boards and things like that. So I do see a change there because with the shifting workforce, and then in layoffs that happen or turnover of personnel, you've got to find a way to quickly train, or you're never going to make progress. And using technology has definitely made an impact at Stanley. 
TROND: Well, as you're looking to take your next step, I know that you're sort of getting involved with advising companies because these things don't happen automatically. And it does take sometimes an experienced hand to take a good look at what management thinks that they want to change and have that balance of understanding the language of management and understanding the operator needs. I just wanted you to lastly fill us in a little bit on as you're advising, let's call it small and medium-sized manufacturers or even mid-sized manufacturers; what are the few things that they should start with when they're considering making improvements? What is the process for you that you lead them with?

JANE: When I meet with a company, say, a mid-sized company, and talk about how can we implement technology in the manufacturing space, we start with a discussion about what's possible, you know, not some pie in the sky. It's about the possible. But based on my 30-plus years of experience, what have I accomplished, and how did I do it? And what did I find to be successful? Seeing the light go on behind people's eyes when they are talking to me and understanding, wow, this really is possible, and it's not that hard, then it gets them excited. 

And then, the next step is in a factory; you need to look at material flow. I know it's not the same for chemicals and oil and gas, but in discrete, definitely you need to make sure that everything is set up properly. And then you start looking at, okay, what are your pain points? Can we add...maybe digitalize the Gemba Board? Or maybe add instructions and just start piecing it all together. 

Once you've improved your material flow, you can look and see does something makes sense to actually automate and put robotics in or cobots in? And it's a whole process. There are all kinds of tools that can help companies plan their roadmap. But I feel like the benefit that I can give is that I've worked as an operator. I've worked in the field. And I've worked as a senior executive. And I can speak the language at all the different levels to try and do that engagement. And I think that makes a difference.

TROND: Well, it's fascinating to hear how you are kind of merging these two perspectives of the bottom up and the top down because it seems like regardless of the size of an organization, you can't just come at it from one angle. [laughs] Like, if you think you have the perfect solution, you might be alienating your workers. And if you think you're giving workers all the control, then you probably can't scale it across all of your operations. 

So there is this balance. And some people want to use consultants to help them to do that. Others, I guess, believe in an internal process. But whatever it is, it seems that frontline tools that let you have a bit more control, whether you are an implementer, or the organization themselves, it does help a little bit. 

Jane, it's been fascinating to hear about your experience. I'm excited to hear about your next steps. I hope that we can have you back. Undoubtedly, some organization or two is going to benefit from this experience. It's not something you can learn overnight, I guess. Experience in manufacturing doesn't come easy.

JANE: That's true. It doesn't. And it's been a fascinating journey for me. As far as my next steps, I'm kind of exploring some exciting opportunities. And I hope to catch up with you in the future and let you know how that's all going.

TROND: Fascinating. Jane, thank you very much. It's been a pleasure.

JANE: Thank you, Trond.

TROND: You have just listened to another episode of the Augmented Podcast with host Trond Arne Undheim. The topic was Executing on Manufacturing Technology. Our guest was Jane Arnold, Manufacturing Consultant, and Board Member. In this conversation, we talked about advanced manufacturing technology and the importance of material flow, transparency, throughput, cost cutting, and captivating users with digital tools. 

My takeaway is that execution is everything in manufacturing. You can have any technology you want, but it's only going to be as good as the execution, both among executives and among managers all along the supply chain and all across the factory. 

Thanks for listening. If you liked the show, subscribe at augmentedpodcast.co or in your preferred podcast player, and rate us with five stars. If you liked this episode, you might also like Episode 100: Innovating Across the Manufacturing Supply Chain. Hopefully, you'll find something great in these or in other episodes, and if so, please let us know.

The Augmented Podcast is created in association with Tulip, the frontline operation platform that connects people, machines, devices, and systems in a production environment. Tulip is democratizing technology by empowering those closest to operations to solve problems. 

Please share this show with colleagues who care about where industrial tech is heading. You can find us on Twitter and LinkedIn. We are Augmented Pod there and Augmented Podcast on Facebook and YouTube. 

Augmented — industrial conversations that matter. See you next time.