Automation That Elevates: Building Meaningful Work in Smart Factories

Welcome to the Industry 4.0 Club's fireside chat. The club's purpose is to engage the power of diverse worldwide talent to accelerate the global evolution to Industry 4.0. We accomplish this by hosting and supporting respectful, thoughtful, and interdisciplinary open conversations and creating quality content on wide-ranging Industry 4.0 topics to expand the reach of our community. My name is Mike Ungar, and I'm the CEO of the Industry 4.0 Club. I have over 40 years of management and manufacturing experience, most of that at Michelin. I'm joined today by my co-host, Mike Yost. Mike, would you mind introducing yourself, please?

Wouldn't mind at all, Mike. Thank you. As Mike said, my name is Mike Yost. I am the volunteer chairman of the Industry 4.0 Club, one of its co-founders, and along with Mike, one of the co-hosts of our fireside chats. So been in industry pushing 40 years and been focused on the nonprofit side of things for the past 15. And really excited today to have a conversation here about automation that elevates, building meaningful work in smart factories. And to talk with us today is Kathy Miller, a senior manufacturing executive, a keynote speaker, and an ICF-certified executive coach. Kathy has led $3 billion-plus operations and major transformations across aerospace and automotive industries. She is a Woman in Manufacturing Hall of Famer, Shingo Prize recipient, and she's also the founder and CEO of More for Leaders, an independent board director, and the author of the book More Is Better: Leading Operations with Meaning, Optimism, and Relationships for Excellence. So, Kathy, we welcome you here to the fireside, and we look forward to the conversation.

Thank you for having me, Mike and Mike.

Well, it's, it's great to have the chance to talk with you again. I know we did this a couple of years ago, so it's wonderful to have you back on. So before we jump into today's topic, Kathi, I noticed that you, you started to use the acronym MORE, that, that with respect to the company you started as well as the book, can you explain a bit more about what MORE stands for and why it's important to you?

Absolutely. So MORE, as you said, is an acronym. The M stands for meaning, O stands for optimism, R stands for relationships, and those are the inputs to the E, which is excellence. So it's a leadership model for people who lead both on the carpet and the concrete. You know, some of organizational literature focuses mostly in professional services.

Yeah.

And I wanted to make sure that the organizational research is accessible to people in a more industrial environment. So I think it's so important to me because, as you know, the rate of implementing technology is accelerating, and it can really help us increase performance in our organizations. But if it's not implemented what I think is correctly, or by the more framework, it can also degrade pride, autonomy, and purpose of the workforce and actually may actually make the metrics that we're really concerned about actually decrease and cause a culture of compliance versus one of improvement. So again, we want to take this MORE acronym, which is backed by all the organizational research out there, and turn it into real actions. So meaning helps people keep dignity and purpose. Optimism gives us the energy to tackle problems and continuously improve. And the relationships really comes in where we're developing a culture of trust and teamwork.

Well, Kathy, there can oftentimes be a real tension in companies that are engaging in developing a lean culture and working to implement technology to drive productivity. With your experience, what separates companies where technology strengthens meaningful work or work that can be meaningful in the ways that you're talking about, versus those companies where, you know, the focus on technology can quietly erode that culture?

I think that the difference in those 2 types of companies you talked about is really the leadership intent and the design of how we implement it, not the technology itself, right? No technology is Inherently bad. We can only, um, we can only implement it and not so great a way. So the companies that do it well, um, they co-design, they co-design the system early, right? They include the operators, they include the maintenance team, the engineering team, and the people who are actually going to end up working with the technology when the implementation team has gone back to their day job. Right? So they're talking to the people who are going to have a new way of doing their job, are going to have a new piece of equipment or technology or software that they're going to have to work with. So they do these implementation processes with people, not to people.

Yeah, that's a, that's a wonderful Comment. You know, one of the things that I guess one of the principles that we talk about when we deploy lean is employee engagement. And so what you're really talking about is, as you bring— what I hear you talking about is, as you bring technology on, don't forget to continue to engage employees in order to— as one element of making sure it's successful.

100%. You know, business is human at the end of the day. And we want to help people and the humans who are going to interact with this technology still have a sense of autonomy and take advantage of their human judgment, which is something, you know, that many technologies still can't get us to, right, is that level of human judgment that we have, even though things are evolving rapidly. So it's very important. to include the operators. And it's also very important, like in implementing lean systems, that we teach the people who are going to be doing work differently. And, you know, it's— and like lean systems, right, it's not a one-and-done training. Yeah, we got that done, let's move on to the next part of our lean system we want to implement, right?

Yeah.

It's going to be more of an ongoing process and really demand continual upskilling of our current workforces.

So, so what do you see as common leadership mistakes when organizations are looking at technologies, probably looking at them for the right reasons, right, to help workers, to improve the bottom line, all that kind of stuff? But where do folks typically tend to go wrong?

I think if they're treating a technology implementation as like an IT project, you know, where you have to plug it in and it actually, it works, versus a change to the operating system, which is also similar to a lean implementation. I don't see, you know, where they're at odds. They can really miss out. You know, sometimes we just oversell the new technology with hype, um, and we underestimate what it's going to take to bring our workforce along in terms of acceptance, in terms of competency in using it. So those are a couple things. I would also say another mistake is not including those frontline leaders, right? They're the ones who carry the emotional load and the resistance of the workforce. And so if, you know, you've got somebody from engineering coming out and going around them and working with the operator and not including them in the process, they're going to be the ones again dealing with the complaints, dealing with the resistance once that implementation has moved along. So it is so, so important to include. that middle layer.

Just to piggyback on that for one second, your experiences with large organizations, and that's a very well-informed perspective. And I just wanted to add on that I was on a plant tour of a local manufacturer in Cleveland, Ohio last week, a smaller, much smaller organization. And that was the exact message that the leadership team gave with the systems that they're implementing. Essentially, it works for And is owned by the supervisors, and it's not a technology-driven initiative. So just want to reinforce that we're seeing that with smaller companies and with larger companies. So thank you for that.

No, you're welcome. I think it's really important that we don't, when we're implementing these technologies, underestimate The pain that may come with integrating with other systems in the system that are inevitably going to happen, right? You're never implementing this in isolation. So getting that input from those middle managers upfront is really going to help make it more adopted versus having to just comply with something that they did to us.

As you describe this idea of implementing technology, it makes me also think about the fact that there's nothing to stop where a leader should be independently almost, shouldn't wait for a technology project to behave in the way you're describing. It's almost as if, because if you don't, you have almost a— we call it hat burn, where all of a sudden they're behaving differently. than what they would have otherwise. So this idea of communicating change, as you alluded to, and involving others, it seems like good practices just for leadership, and not just for, you know, not only for when you implement a technical project.

Absolutely. But I think it's even more important, right, when you're doing a technical project, because people may be insecure about it. Right? They may be fearful of it. They may be concerned that they're going to lose their job. They're going to become a person who just monitors a system instead of, you know, able to contribute with their skills. And being worried about not being able to keep up with the new skills that are required. So I think it's very important that, you know, we are truthful with people, we're trustworthy with people, We communicate early and often with people to just put people at ease.

I think just again to piggyback just a little bit on that, it's also whether the systems help them do their job or if they slow them down. I use the example all the time of an app that the local high school uses to communicate with parents about their students and their grades and all that stuff. My son's excused from school today, and I got 3 text messages today telling me he's not in school. So I get really frustrated with a system when, you know, that's not the behavior that I want to see out of that system. And so I get to a point where I'll eventually just put it aside and do it the old way. So I think you have to be really careful as well that if it is changing work, it's changing work for the better.

Yeah, absolutely. You know, how does implementing this tie into a benefit for the plant, and even better yet, for the customer? You know, does it mean that less defects are going to be out there? Does it mean that we're going to decrease lead times so we'll be more competitive in getting high quality to our customers on time? You know, we don't ever want to be perceived as implementing technology for technology's sake. And I'll be real honest, I have inherited organizations where I've said, what are we doing with this? Well, isn't this really cool technology, Kathy? And I'm like, what's the application? What's the problem that it's solving? You know, and if you're adding friction, like you're saying, Mike, you know, okay, I know my son's not at school today. People are gonna fight against it, right? Or like you say, put it aside.

Right.

At least drag their feet.

Yeah. Yeah.

So thinking more specifically then about the foundations of meaningful work, if a plant manager could focus on one of those when introducing new automation, what would you prioritize first and why?

So there's a number of pillars associated with that. I think They should focus on autonomy, but only if they're providing a system and technology with fairness and safety, right? That always— we always have to assume that safety is there. It's, it's a non-negotiable, right? So if we're going to go backwards in safety, that's a problem. Got to do a big timeout, right?

Exactly.

But when we get into the higher order things, I think it's about that autonomy, right? And just expressing clarity around the goals and the guardrails and letting people know, you know, how we're going to operate with this. What decisions are the system going to make? What decisions are the humans going to make? What if the system's wrong? You know, I'm, you know, I've hired an AI coach. I'm all about it. I'm adopting it with rigor, but it's a lot like those early GPS systems where it gets you there 9 out of the 10 times, but the one time you end up in a whole different state, right, of where you were trying to go. And I find that the models right now, they're not perfect, right? Right? So what happens if they're not perfect and we don't recognize that? And when things do go wrong, how are we going to escalate things so that we learn from them and there's not any sort of culture of blame, you know, put into the system? It's, it's challenging when you're implementing technology, right? It's a whole different ball game in many cases. So, and it rarely Does it go as the implementation plan outlines? So really, we want to make sure that we're not shutting people off in terms of their ability to contribute to the system as we're working through the kinks.

I'm wondering, Kathy, have you either seen directly or do you envision a time coming where businesses take it upon themselves to make sure that the workers— you just talked about the fact that we could implement this technology, improve our quality, improve our lead times, those sorts of things. How about from the compensation perspective to the employees? And I know this is sort of off script and not necessarily something you have direct answers to. I'm just trying to get a feeling for, you know, are businesses coming around to the fact that if we can actually quantify the, you know, the work that folks are doing and how their performance is helping drive value for the company, that there are financial rewards, you know, that they're sharing in that, that gain, you know, that goal that we're trying to get to at the, at the end of the shift or end of the quarter or whatever it is?

Yeah, I've seen— that's a great question, Maik. I've seen the entire spectrum of that, right, of, this is our pay scale. You know, and, you know, this is, this is what we pay value-added workers, you know, and then sometimes there's compensation for how long you've been there. And sometimes there's profit sharing for our value-added workers if the company's profitable, right? I've seen all of those things. What I've been in a few discussions lately with HR people about, I know you have your model of compensation and different levels of skills required and that sort of thing. But there are some critical skills, especially as we're becoming more technology-enabled, you know, cybersecurity skills, we may just have to pay a little bit more for that. because of the potential implications of not having the right skillset, the right talent. So I think it's really challenging our traditional compensation systems. And some are on top of that and some are still reeling from it, quite honestly. I think though, one thing that will ease the pressure of that, escalating costs, right, associated with technical talent is that the next generation coming in is going to expect there to be technology, right? They're going to be ready for it. They've grown up with cell phones, GPS systems, you know, they, they're not necessarily tolerant of the, uh, manual spreadsheet that they need to You know, keep up with. So at a certain, you know, the education system, the technical schools, and just the way kids are being brought up, you know, they're going to come with a certain level of skills that some of us other generations are trying to catch up on. Does that make sense?

It certainly does.

Yeah, you know that when you speak about that, it's interesting because, you know, I remember back in the '90s we went through, um, the computer phase where we had to learn a computer because we brought computers to the shop floor, right?

Right.

So we went through a period of time of reading and writing, learning, making sure everybody could read, um, write, and do basic math and use the— do the basics on a computer. And we had some folks that couldn't Accomplish that. We were very kind, we gave them time. At the end of the day, we had some folks who chose to retire, they were of an older age, rather than go through that learning curve. We know some folks won't be able to pick up new technology, our history shows us that. What's the balance that leaders should take between compassion for them, but also making sure that people move forward. How would you manage that? How have you mastered that?

It's a delicate balance. It really is. But I think it starts with being trustworthy with the organization and telling the truth. We don't want to tell everybody that there will be a place for the same people in the new world as there is right now for 100% of the people. You know, compassion is about helping people preserve dignity and providing pathways for them, whether it's with us in the new technology, whether it's another place within the company, you know, where they can add value, they can keep up. And sometimes the inevitable happens, but we need to— help them get rehomed with support. I think that's the right thing to do. I think that in times of change, people will watch how the company, how the leadership treats those who can't come along, right?

Yeah.

So you kind of want to segment your workforce. Who are the people we can upskill quickly? Who Who are the ones we can upskill, but it's going to take more time, more support? And who are the ones who are going to need reassignment support? You know, and just be honest. Honesty is the best policy. It really is. And, you know, if you're making promises that you can't keep, then the organization, the people who can upskill, are going to see that you're not honest, that you're not trustworthy.

Mm-hmm.

erodes the culture.

What you're— you know, it's funny, what you're speaking about relates really, really, really well with the challenges we have today in attracting and retaining employees as well. You know, when you start— when you treat your individuals with respect and transparency, um, that gets out into the community. People want to work at a place where they know where they stand. And so it's interesting because companies that do that, it's actually logically will lead them to being able to be an attractive employer.

That's right. That's right. And it reduces turnover. And, you know, reducing turnover leads to stability. And it kind of becomes a virtuous cycle where your results get better by having that culture. that attracts the right people.

Yeah, exactly. For sure.

I just want to remind everybody that we are talking with Kathy Miller here today about building meaningful work in smart factories. Been a good conversation so far. And I'm wondering, Kathy, we've been talking about leaders and how they lead in these times. If you could give manufacturing leaders one guiding principle to keep their organizations both technologically advanced and connected from a deep human perspective, what would that principle be or what would that advice be?

I would always start with the human problem, not the tool. If we're going to make a change, does it make work safer or easier? Does it make work more meaningful or skilled? And, you know, how are we going to involve the team once we do pick a tool? But don't start with a cool technology and try to find an application for that. And you would be surprised how often I have seen that.

That jives with what we see as well. I tell everybody I'm a recovering solution provider, so I've spent a good, good bit of my career on that side of the fence talking about the technology itself. We certainly see that in the conversations that we have here.

Fantastic. Well, as we get ready to wrap up today, we want to be able to leave our audiences typically with final thoughts. I'm going to ask Mike to start and then Kathy as well. You'll follow Mike. What are your final thoughts today relative to what we've been talking about that you want to leave with our audience? Mike, would you start us off?

Sure. I think lots of great points. And probably the main point as we have a technology discussion here today is we're talking more about the human factors and the leadership issues. I think that that's really important and that's actually what's encouraging for me as well. Because if it's a matter of everybody learning the modern technology and keeping pace with how quickly it changes, I don't know how good a job we could do of that. I would say Kathy's point about this being a leadership challenge and encouraging leaders to co-design with the teams and keeping their perspectives in mind would be the golden nugget I would take away from today's conversation.

Thanks, Mike. Kathy, your thoughts, your final thoughts?

Yeah. Thanks for that, Mike. My final thoughts are Industry 4.0 really gives us an opportunity to modernize, but we can't lose the humanity along the way, right? Just because something's installed doesn't mean it's accepted and adopted by the workplace. And so, you know, keep it simple. More is better. Do you remember what MORE is all about?

Yes.

Optimism and relationships for excellence. That would be my final thought. More is better.

Thank you. No, thank you, Kathy. So really, thank you for taking time out of your schedule to join us. You know, just to sort of say it one more time, Kathy has just recently published her second book called More Is Better: Leading Operations with Meaning, Optimism, and Relationships for Excellence. So thank you, Kathy, for taking time to join us and share your thoughts on meaningful work in smart factories. So the Industry 4.0 Club, we would like to encourage you to take action. Pick up Kathy's book, read a book, read an article, watch a webinar, maybe encourage your factory to take and do a smart manufacturing roadmap. Or maybe even take that leadership role yourself. We'd love to know what you're doing. So drop us a note at our website at www.industry4oclub.com and share, share what you're doing to advance the deployment of Industry 4.0, or drop us a note on our LinkedIn page. We'd love to hear from you. We also host broadcasts like this weekly. And so if you'd like to be a future guest with us, we'd love to also hear from you. So with that, uh, again, Kathy, thank you so much for your time. Mike, thank you as well. And we wish everybody a good rest of the day and a good rest of the week.

Thank you, Mike.

Thank you, Kathy. Take care, everybody.

Bye-bye.