Howard W Penrose, Ph.D.
VP Electrical Reliability Programs
T-Solutions, Inc.
hpenrose@tsoln-inc.com
“We don’t want most of the business; we want all of it.” – Ernest Gallo
“We want to monopolize the software business.” – Bill Gates, 1970’s
“It is a war, and in wars people really do live and people do die.” – Leslie Wexner, CEO of The Limited, in WAR (Winning at Retail), 1999.
The Mission
The mission of a corporation is to make a profit. The mission of a federal agency, such as the military, is to protect the interests of a country, or to provide services, in the most economical way possible. Virtually all organizations have the mission of the effective use of resources to provide the greatest return on investment. The difference between the two is ‘profit,’ of which the best metric is money.
As you progress through an organization, many lose sight of the actual mission and mix daily tasks, effective or not, as accomplishment. As a result, when a program is cancelled, or other change is made, or even if the program is ignored by managers, frustration results. This is normally due to crossed purposes, and the frustration results from the fact that most professionals want to feel that their personal investment is important to the overall goal. The manager may become frustrated with a program because they do not see how the program affects the overall goal of their personal area of influence.
So, what happens through the organization?
The CEO and/or investors are looking for a return on investment. The owners, or investors, are looking for a way to increase profits in order to increase personal profit. The actual personal ‘need’ may be power, money, recognition, or a combination of the three. How the leader of a company maintains their position is by maximizing profits by making sound investment decisions in the business, normally for the long term. When short term goals are set in order to set maximum profit with little to no investment, the company does not survive. The drive for corporate and personal profit is important to company survival, and is, therefore, the actual mission of the company, regardless of what you find on a plaque. Once this is realized through the whole organization, then decisions begin to make more sense. Unfortunately, the balance is precarious where some forget that people are part of the corporate investment and the balance of need for power and profit become too dominant.
The executive managers of a corporation are normally striving for the top position in the organization and have the same mission in mind. The greater impact that a top level manager has on the overall business will impact their opportunity for the top position. They will have to translate long term vision and goals (Strategy) to tactics.
Mid-level managers are the front-line managers for ensuring that the mission moves forward. How well they perform will impact their opportunities. They implement the corporate tactics.
Supervisors carry out the direction of the corporate goals and requirements. Often they only see the day to day (or month to month) details of the overall corporate strategy.
Technicians, operators, and other hourly professionals are the troops on the front line. How they perform, knowing only the minute to minute details of the strategy and tactics, often presented as ‘mission and vision,’ has a direct impact on the mission of the company. This level is directly task-oriented, even when personal ‘buy-in’ of the strategy and tactics have occurred.
The internal organization also has different purposes:
Executives set the strategy and steer the company.
Marketing develops internal and external PR.
Sales is the front-line for moving product to the end user – bringing in the cash.
Production/Operations makes the product or concept that is sold.
Maintenance/Reliability ensures the availability of the equipment for Production/Operations.
Once, when I was working on my ‘sailor of the quarter,’ while serving on the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), in the 1980’s, I had a key question asked that helped me understand the overall mission. The purpose of an aircraft carrier is to project power by providing a platform for aircraft, etc. The question was: “What is the most important department on the ship?” What would you think? The operations, engineering, maintenance, propulsion, hull integrity, laundry and other divisions all have the goal of ensuring that aircraft can leave the deck. Are, therefore, the pilots and aircrew the most important people on the carrier? If you watch the news, Discovery Channel or read a military book, you might think so. The actual answer was: All departments are the most important. If any one of the departments failed in its set of tasks, then the whole vessel becomes ineffective.
Now, on the aircraft carrier, if the sailors are wasteful, slack in their tasks, etc. it becomes more expensive to operate the vessel. Yet, an investment must be made in training, watchstanding and other areas that cost money. The precarious balance has to do with coming up with the most effective way to ensure the readiness of the ship. The Captain is directly responsible for the effectiveness of the ship and the associated costs. He answers to an Admiral who is responsible for the effectiveness of a fleet (or group, etc) and is responsible for the associated costs. He answers, ultimately, to the President and the Congress/Senate, who all answer to the People. The People are taxed and a portion of the funds are provided for military. This money makes its way all the way back to the sailor who is performing his duty.
In a company, the profits generated from the purchase of the product produced by the company makes its way throughout the company. The result is that the mission of the corporation is the same, make a profit. When any part of the system is ineffective, it impacts the profitablity of the whole organization.
Returning to the point that we are trying to make:
Performing maintenance for the sake of performing maintenance on rotating machinery is not effective. Instead, we must think in terms of what is the most effective method for maintaining the availability of the equipment. We know, for a fact, that a lack of performance in maintenance has a direct, negative impact on ‘the bottom line.’ We sometimes do not realize that overperforming maintenance results in the same problem.