Whilst continuing under the new Covid-19 paradigm we have progressed our software a little, are reminded that we need to understand the customer’s customer’s requirements and must also address the importance of trust throughout the business.

So what went well this week? The experiment with the Production Manager and Operations Director taking turns to WFH has been largely successful, our electrician’s wife has presented us with a knitted bear that will be “Fred” our safety mascot which will feature in posters and reminders to maintain our social distance and we have not seen any loss of enthusiasm. The Pyrethrum powder blend has progressed well despite our needing to blend the three premixes before using them. Only 4 hours more before we finish all 14.5 tonnes of it. It was also a pleasure to be able to access our new manufacturing management software nearly six months after making the transition so I can explore it myself and begin to understand the user’s perspective.

I can also say that we have hand sanitizing gel as one of our achievements, the marker dye for a new customer is now in transit to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the parallel traders have their product and we have received all the packaging that we need to start the big urgent packing job that we won less than a month ago.

As I look back on the week I am left thinking about two main concerns: how to find a particular pallet box and how to communicate the importance of trust and trustworthiness throughout the business.

The pallet box is a tricky one but it is really only a manifestation of a much more significant general problem that is very difficult to solve even if you realise that it is a “known unknown” to use Mr Rumsfeld’s words. The problem occurs when the customer specifies something and you deliver it but the customer’s customer doesn’t like it and you are asked to do it again because the customer’s specification was not approved by his customer. Setting aside the question of who pays for the rework and the redesign and assuming that the relationship between all of the parties concerned is something that needs to be sustained, how should we ensure that we make something that both the customer and his customer wants?

The answer is in the questions that we should ask from the beginning of the enquiry and design development process. It is sometimes difficult to ask the questions if the customer doesn’t understand why the questions are necessary and may feel that they are impertinent or possibly invasive and suggestive of an unhealthy interest in his customer. The questions are especially important if the ultimate user is from a market sector or industry that is unfamiliar to you. You don’t know what you don’t know and so you don’t ask. When we were asked to use a box that would fit on a pallet on a racking space that is only 1600 mm high we didn’t think to ask if that was the only racking space that was to be used, and missed that half of them were 1400 mm high. In fact the details of the pallet to be used and the way it is to be wrapped, strapped and labelled can prove to be a significant factor in the successful completion of a project yet they may not feature in the initial enquiry at all. To many customers all pallets are the same and are invisible.

It is probably true that you can never have too much information about what the ultimate consumer needs from the product that you are making. If your customer doesn’t want to pay you to provide it, that’s another thing!

The importance of trust throughout the business is enormously important. It is something that is more powerful than any number of contractual documents, written agreements and procedures. It lies at the heart of an individual’s and an organisation’s integrity. This issue arose this week in connection with two recent incidents in which two different supervisors were involved in damaging equipment whilst driving a fork lift truck. The fact that they were supervisors is all the more disappointing because neither of them reported the incident to their immediate superior nor reported it as a “near miss”.

The specifics of the cases are unimportant in so far as they did not involve any injury but did result in damage that not only had some financial significance but also would, if unnoticed, have delayed production on the next occasion that the equipment was used. The dereliction of the duty to report the damage is thus more significant than the accidents that caused them. The duty to report damage is enshrined in procedures and the employee handbook as is the duty to report “near misses”. So what has this to do with trust?

In my view the failure to report the incident has two links with trust. One, that fear of the disciplinary consequences suggest a possible lack of trust in the business’s ability to deal with the accident appropriately and fairly. Two, that the business has no reason to trust that the individual would fulfill any of their responsibilities in accordance with instructions and procedures.

The first contains an irony that by seeking to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions the supervisors automatically undermine the right of their own subordinates to expect fair treatment if they were involved in a similar incident. The second strikes at the heart and soul of the whole business because if we can’t trust our employees to follow the rules and procedures how can our customers trust the business to make their products correctly and to treat them honestly? It is laughable to imagine that our accreditation under ISO9001 is a substitute for the trust that we will do as we promise. The ISO certificate is no more than a paper confirmation that trust is possible, only the behaviour everyday by everyone of us makes that trust substantial.