Internal Medicine: Open Access
Open Access

Safer Foods, Lower Costs, Quicker Response

Richard J. Schonberger^{* *}Correspondence: Richard J. Schonberger, 117 107 Ave., NE, Unit 2101, Bellevue, Washington, 98004, USA,

Author info »

Introduction

Packaged-food companies invest massive sums in ever speedier and more complex and breakdown-prone production equipment. Each factory typically includes very few production lines (example- 4, 3, 2, or even just one) for turning out hundreds, sometimes thousands of combinations of flavors and package sizes and types (example-paper, foil, plastic, and aluminum). The usually lengthy, many-step production lines are in a perpetual state of changing the equipment to accommodate those hundreds or thousands but with the impossibility of the vast quantities and product-mix schedules to be closely linked with final customer demand. To cope, companies continually “upgrade” the equipment for faster line speeds, with the unfortunate consequences of (a) increasing difficulties in executing product changeovers and (b) increasing breakdown incidence and severity. The risk of contamination is exacerbated in that each production stoppage uncovers and exposes the food items to the risk of contamination.

In packaged foods, where concerns over sources of contamination should be paramount, the industry clings to a mode that excessively relegates food safety to after the fact investigation. In this mini-review, I contrast that entrenched but badly flawed production mode with a superior manufacturing methodology whose early origins date back to developments among leading-edge Japanese manufacturers circa, late 1960s to 1980s [2-5]. Now well established globally and in various sectors, the mode, descriptively referred to as “concurrent production,” does not feature high-velocity automation or robotics, but rather a simplicity in the form of multiples of simple, low-cost equipment, each dedicated to its own small family of product types [6-8].

Coping

The dominant mode of producing packaged foods known pejoratively as “batch-and-queue” production needs a viable alternative. There is no need to look far because of the existence of a proven methodology widespread in other sectors, though hardly at all in foods. This concurrent production mode [9], also known as flow or lean or just-in-time production, calls for an The dominant mode of producing packaged foods known pejoratively as “batch-and-queue” production needs a viable alternative. There is no need to look far because of the existence of a proven methodology widespread in other sectors, though hardly at all in foods. This concurrent production mode [9], also known as flow or lean or just-in-time production, calls for an equipment configuration nearly opposite to that practiced by most food manufacturers. Its basis is multiple production units (example-10,15,20) each dedicated to its own narrow family of products such as, in bottling, one line dedicated to diet cola, six 16.9 fl. oz.bottles to a pack; another to the same drink but in 500 ml plastic bottles; and so on. Each employs simple, low-cost, comparatively low-speed equipment [10] configured as a small-scale production line or “cell” (example- a mini-factory) that runs at a non-rapid pace, close to the end- product sales for its product family.

The beauty of this formula-since each line/cell is dedicated to its own product family, there are few sources of variation and things to go wrong: Through repetition and experimentation the operator-“owners” of the entity, with manufacturing engineering support, can elevate the process to a state of high-quality control with a low incidence of stoppages and maintenance [11]; moreover, “When machines are devoted to one part or similar kinds of parts, changeover between parts is eliminated or is reduced to trivial steps” [12] thus allowing scant opportunities for admission of pathogens. For a product type with especially high market demand, one or more of the lines/cells within a product family may be “super-dedicated,” to the degree that it never undergoes changeovers. In that special case, in a period of maximal customer demand (example-busiest period or season) it may operate 24/7, and when low the line/cell operates in fewer shifts/hours. In that the equipment is small-scale and low-cost, there’s no pressure to keep the equipment in a constant state of operation. This ease of adjusting production rates to changeable market rates called market mediation [13] avoids inventory build-ups [14] so that any product recall is that much less widespread and deep. Moreover, the shortened time lag between discoveries of a product quality/safety issue engenders a fertile audit trail. Oppositely, most food producers with their complex usually highly automated, and expensive equipment press for high rates of equipment utilization, which results in outsized finished goods in distribution warehouses and beyond. All this magnifies costs and of critical import in foods, food-borne quality, and safety issues.

Scope and Implications

While these points are couched in the context of packaged foods, they apply as well to pharmaceuticals which, to its general discredit stay fixedly with the flawed batch-and-queue mode. On the other hand, the personal-care product sector, inclusive of deodorants, dental care, shavers has been coaxed, in small but increasing numbers of companies, to adopt concurrent production, with multiple product-family-dedicated cells/lines.

As an excellent example- Amorepacific (small cosmetics packets): Suwon, Korea [15] replaced a single long fill-and-pack line with some-30 compact cells, each dedicated to its product model reducing delivery lead-time to five days, and eliminating all sales reps/agents “because they distort demand!” The cells are small and scattered about a modest-sized packaging area, some operated by just one or two production associates, who are crosstrained to move from one cell to another as downstream customer demands wax and wane; rather than running to always fallacious demand forecasts, the cells ’ schedules as based on frequent daily sales data electronically conveyed from department stores and other sales outlets. [This author was able to observe all this from the vantage point of a mezzanine that overlooked the packaging floor].

Indeed, consumer packaged goods of all kinds have been top candidates for concurrent production [16]. Still, it is clear: Atop the list of most beneficial applications of this mode are sectors in which human health and risk of pathogens and disease are an issue: foods, pharmaceuticals, personal health care. I hope that this short review article will help spread the word that these sectors are in critical need of abandoning production practices and equipment that favor reckless speed, and instead follow the enlightened march toward that of dedicated simplicity.

References

1. Schonberger RJ. Packaged food industry: Wake up, your complex, costly equipment extends lead times and hides pathogens. Quality Mgmt J. 2019;26(3):122-128.
2. Schonberger RJ. The transfer of Japanese manufacturing management approaches to US industry. Acad Mgmt Rev. 1982;7(3):479-487.
3. Harmon RL, Peterson LD. Reinventing the factory: Productivity breakthroughs in manufacturing today. Free Press. 1990.
4. Nicholas J. Lean production for competitive advantage. CRC Press. 2nd edition. 2018.
5. Schonberger RJ. Japanese manufacturing techniques: Nine hidden lessons in simplicity. New York: Free Press. 1982.
6. Hyer N, Wemmerlov U. Reorganizing the factory: Competing through cellular manufacturing. CRC Press. 2001.
7. Hyer NL, Brown KA. Work cells with staying power: Lessons for process complete operations. Calif Mgmt Rev. 2003;46(1):27-52.
8. Schonberger RJ, Brown KA. A missing link in competitive manufacturing research and practice: Customer responsive concurrent production. J Opns Mgmt. 2017;49:83-87.
9. Schonberger RJ. With machinery purchases, small can be beautiful. 2017;40-43.
10. Schonberger RJ. Tangled mess: How better production designs can improve in-process and outgoing quality. Quality Progress. 2012;45(5):16-22.
11. Nicholas J. Lean production for competitive advantage. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press. 2018;2nd edition.
12. De Treville S, Shapiro RD, Hameri AP. From supply chain to demand chain: The role of lead time reduction in improving demand chain performance. J Opns Mgmt. 2004;21(6):613-627.
13. Schonberger RJ. Producing in synch with sales. Assembly Mag. 2014;57(9):42-45.
14. Schonberger RJ. Flow manufacturing what went right, what went wrong. 2019.
15. Schonberger RJ. Can lean manufacturing find its way in packaged goods? 2011;27(2):19-24.