NZ Manufacturer magazine

 

 

Guest Article

by Theresa Grainger, The Lean Hub & Productivity Excellence Academy.

Every manufacturer is striving to lift productivity and much of the current focus is on investing in smarter machines, automated processes and AI.

But the real question isn’t what we are going to automate, it is what state we are automating.

Because if the system underneath is unhealthy, for example unclear processes, tired teams, neglected assets, then new technology doesn’t fix the instability, it amplifies it.

One of the clearest indicators of system health and a direct driver of productivity is how well we maintain the discipline of improvement.

In New Zealand, many manufacturers are pushing hard to stay competitive in a tough global economy, yet beneath the surface we are seeing an imbalance. While the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle is a core framework for improvement, in practice we tend to excel at the “Plan” and “Do” stages.

However, the final two steps “Check” and “Act” are often overlooked, limiting our ability to learn, improve, and sustain gains.

When productivity slips, our instinct is often to add capacity, new machinery, software, or automation.

But more often, the real issue isn’t a lack of resources, it is that silos have formed and people, processes, and systems are no longer aligned or working together effectively.

An asset might fail because it wasn’t serviced, but teams often miss their targets for less visible reasons, like unclear communication, blurred accountability, or lack of clear ownership.

Just as machines need regular maintenance, so do our organisational systems and leadership. A regular check on system health and culture can reveal the early signs of misalignment before they impact performance.

When we build a culture that pauses to reflect, learn and reset, we create the conditions for genuine improvement. It’s not just about chasing KPIs, it is about cultivating awareness of how our systems perform, and the agility to adjust before problems grow.

Too often, teams feel pressure to meet targets rather than reveal the truth behind them. When people don’t feel safe to be honest, data loses its integrity and reliability suffers long before performance does.

The best performing plants I have seen in New Zealand are not the ones with the newest machinery; they are the ones where leaders ask:

• What did we learn from this week’s downtime and the moments that tested the reliability of our systems?
• What patterns or underlying habits are driving waste in our operations?
• Are we solving surface level issues, or are we addressing the deeper conditions that allowed them to happen?

Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) is a structured approach used to keep physical assets performing reliably and safely by identifying failure modes and selecting the most effective maintenance strategies.

What if we applied that same disciplined thinking to our organisational systems, especially culture? When communication breaks down, teams disengage and leadership becomes misaligned, these are not soft issues, they are cultural failure modes that threaten the health of the entire system.

The real opportunity lies in learning how to extract as much value from our culture as we do from our equipment. Both require regular health checks and maintenance to remain reliable and drive value under pressure.

Reliability centred leadership means treating people and systems with the same rigour as physical assets. It asks:

• Are our leaders aligned around the core function and purpose of the organisation and making decisions that consistently enable it?
• Do teams have the skills, feedback, and psychological safety to drive the most value out of the systems and processes they work within?
• Are we creating flow between departments or reinforcing silos?

When leadership reliability improves, so does operational reliability. Culture is not a “soft” variable, it is an operating system that determines how well every process runs.

New Zealand has been talking about productivity for decades, we benchmark, compare and analyse and yet the gap persists.

Is our productivity challenge driven by technology? or by the organisational culture and the structure it operates within?

Technology can accelerate output, but it cannot fix cultural friction. True productivity emerges when people understand their role in the system, can see where and how they add value, and feel confident and capable to improve it.

Every new tool from AI to robotics, needs a stable foundation of psychological safety, clear communication, and feedback loops that help teams learn and adapt.

Without that, automation only makes dysfunction happen faster.

Before the next investment cycle, it’s worth asking:

• Do our leaders have the time and do our systems have the operating discipline, to think, reflect, build capability and coach?
• Are we measuring not just outputs, but the health of our system and how well we prevent and protect, rather than simply respond and recover?
• Do our daily routines include time to check what’s working and adjust what’s not?

These are the quiet disciplines that strengthen organisations, helping them move from managing day to day pressures to becoming self-improving systems where learning drives progress and a focus to continuously improve is shared by all.

The early indicators of system strain are often subtle, but visible to those who are looking:

• Are teams spending more time firefighting than improving?
• Are meetings helping us make decisions. or just circling problems?
• Is feedback a routine part of daily work or something that waits for review?
• When issues arise, do we fix the problem or the cause?

Improvement doesn’t always start with big change; it starts with better observation. Small 1% shifts in routine behaviours can unlock more value from the system you already have.

Innovation is exciting and necessary, but the next wave of technology won’t fix broken systems, it will expose them.

Before the robots roll in, take a closer look at your systems, your processes, your people and your culture.

Machines don’t create productivity; they amplify what is already there. Whether they accelerate chaos or enable an uplift in productivity depends on the strength of our systems and the health of our culture.