Productivity

Jane Finlayson, EMA Head of Manufacturing Harm in New Zealand manufacturing is unacceptably high and urgent action is needed. The good news is that through a recent partnership between the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA), help is on the way. ACC claims costs for the manufacturing sector have skyrocketed, exceeding $165 million annually, with weekly compensation costs doubling from $51 million to $109 million between 2015 and 2024. Health and safety regulator WorkSafe estimates that chronic harm results in a staggering loss of 5,000 disability-adjusted life years each year, contributing to an economic burden of approximately $1.23 billion. The breakdown of this burden is alarming: 27% of injuries stem from musculoskeletal disorders, 17% from mental health issues, 16% from cancers, and 15% from respiratory problems. In a significant stride towards addressing this harm, ACC appointed the EMA to lead a by industry for industry project to create a harm reduction action plan.  The EMA stood up Project Whakahaumaru, which translates to ‘safeguard’ or ‘protect’, and gathered the perspectives of around  200 stakeholders from the manufacturing sector, health and safety professionals, and WorkSafe via focus groups, one-to-one interviews, co-designed workshops and surveys. EMA Head of Manufacturing Jane Finlayson says the recently released results of this discovery phase have been sobering. “We embarked on this journey to safeguard our industry, and the findings highlight a pressing need for change,” Finlayson says. “Injuries are not just numbers; they represent lives affected, families impacted, and potential futures altered. “We cannot ignore the implications of these injuries – not only for the workers but for businesses and the economy as a whole. “These figures are a call to action.” Over the past year, the EMA has worked with stakeholders across the sector to develop the Project Whakahaumaru Harm Reduction […]

Ian Walsh, Partner, Argon & Co NZ I was reflecting recently on how many business owners have started an improvement program with 5S and failed. Before I talk about the “why” and the “how” 5S implementations fail in these businesses, and for those who haven’t come across 5S before, allow me to briefly explain what 5S is. 5S is a practice that was developed at Toyota in the 1960s. 5S consists of 5 “S’s” based on Japanese words and the associated anglicised word: Seiri (Sort) – Eliminate unnecessary items from the workplace. Seiton (Set in Order) – Organize the necessary items so they are easy to use and accessible. Seiso (Shine) – Clean the workplace and keep it clean. Seiketsu (Standardise) – Standardise the best practices within the workplace. Shitsuke (Sustain) – Ensure discipline and commitment to maintain the 5S processes. All the business leaders that I’ve talked to about failed 5S implementations were unable to maintain the “standardise” and “sustain” the initiative. After a period of time, standards slipped and then eventually (or quite quickly) returned to the previous level with a few artifacts remaining. Most of these leaders said “we tried that, it didn’t work”. This needs a deeper analysis. There are examples across the globe of world-class companies that rely on 5S as a core practice and have succeeded in sustaining the practice. On that evidence, surely it’s not that 5S itself fails, but that particular implementations fail? Many of these business leaders I talked to stated that they were told something along the lines of “if you can’t do 5S you can’t do anything”, and so they started their improvement journey with 5S, usually with help from a “mentor”. Typically, they would do a 5S exercise in an area in 1-2 days and then move into […]

Read the best analysis and observations for the manufacturing future for New Zealand. Exchange opinions and experiences with your peers, who are  enhancing Productivity and market share in local and international markets. Subscribe to the magazine and send your success stories to us. We will share them for you.Contact publisher@xtra.co.nz 

From October issue NZ Manufacturer magazine www.nzmanufacturer.co.nz -Ian Walsh, Partner, Argon and Co Recently, I had the opportunity to work with business leaders on New Zealand’s productivity performance and, how it compares to key trading nations and OECD members. Over the past 50 years, New Zealand’s ranking has fallen from being in the top five to the bottom five. It’s a tough reality, but more interestingly, the discussion centred around why Scandinavian countries and Ireland excel while we continue to struggle. Many attribute New Zealand’s lagging performance to factors like distance to market, limited access to capital, and the small size of our domestic markets. Undoubtedly these do play a role, but they are largely beyond a business’s control. No matter how efficient we become, we still face the challenge of shipping goods across the globe. If we focus on these external factors alone, we will continue to run the risk of overlooking the most crucial areas where we can improve – leadership and people management. Studies show that New Zealand consistently underperforms in these areas compared to other OECD nations, and this is not a recent development. Over the last 40 years, other countries have systematically invested in cultivating great leaders, while New Zealand seems to have fallen into five fatal assumptions about leadership. The Five Fatal Assumptions About Leadership in New Zealand: Promoting the best operator to leader will work out Many workplaces fall into the trap of promoting the best operator to leadership roles. While they are often respected for their technical skills, they may lack the ability to manage people effectively. This can result in the loss of a great operator and sometimes even a demotivated team. Leadership requires a different skill set—one that needs to be developed, not assumed. Leaders are born, not made The […]