Providing results under high pressure

An almost unreal silence fell in the meeting room: the question had been asked and everyone present was waiting for an answer: ... from me.

The opposite side of the big table was occupied by the senior management of the NABC client (I will use this acronym to refer to the Big North America Customer), with directors and managers also coming from the country of the rising sun. On this side our whole team, with observers from the Japanese HQ Quality Department: a total of around twenty people.

Japanese customer, Japanese supplier, a quality accident in the automotive industry, in a foreign land... The Perfect Quality Storm.

Three months earlier there had been a spill of non-conforming product, caused by perhaps the most complicated and elusive variable to study: human error. The most complicated part to manage and track, when the quality problem stemmed from human behavior, was to define with reasonable accuracy a maximum number of cars that might have showed a problem during the first years of operation.

On the basis of the results that I would have presented in the next minutes, NABC would have decided whether to launch a more or less bloody recall campaign and possibly determine its breadth back in time.

The study for the search for the root cause did not take too long; in about 10 days we had defined very well what had happened, how, when and who. The last piece was the most complicated to place: how long we had produced with that potential cause of non-compliance.

Given the importance that the case had gradually assumed, the number of reports to be sent to multiple people and levels had escalated, with detailed explanations on the progress in the investigation.

Numerous techniques were used to breakdown the facts and get a clear understanding of what had happened, including x-ray analysis of partial product recalls from different customers in order to evaluate a whole series of variables more or less related to the mode of failure: no clue or suggestion was neglected and, week after week, we were able to better outline the suspect time window.

None of those present was really interested in the techniques, albeit refined, that we had used to come to the head of the rebus: they were all "big dogs", worried about having to start a recall campaign that, as we well know, no car OEMs want.

Despite little experience in recall campaigns regarding our products, “fortunately” I would add, we considered a reasonable number of suspect cars that the customer would be able to accept without having to recall from the market: the number outlined by the three-month study was reasonably close to that under consideration, so there was convergence amongst the team members on what to say. And so it was.

NABC welcomed our analysis without much comment and, shortly thereafter, it was clear that there would be no recall campaign, to mutual satisfaction (with gritted teeth).

The matter had profound repercussions in the company, especially at the level of engineering, production control and training, where actions of deep improvement were undertaken.

NABC wanted the whole company to be re-certified in detail according to the NABC standards within the following 150 days; five months later we faced the certification after a fairly grueling preparation at all levels.

The working group came out stronger than ever: everyone gave a stunning contribution demonstrating how, under a level of pressure for many of us still unknown, it is possible to increase cohesion and team spirit: not so much for the resolution of the quality problem as such, but for the recertification of the company that imposed a capillary analysis of the entire quality system and consequent actions of improvement and organizational innovation.

It was eight months in which we managed to produce excellent results under high stress.

A year later, in which we maintained the served quality at 0 ppm, the customer wanted to gratify us during a safety components suppliers conference (Columbus, Ohio, Lewis Center, 2016) citing us as an example in quality problems solving. The photo shows us at that moment together with our quality director and NABC's North America supplier development manager.

What to do not to be defeated by pressure at work

There is no magic recipe to better our performance under strong pressure, and it is not at all obvious that everyone has the ability to succeed: I have witnessed many times situations in which panic has taken over and the subject retreated.

1_ Surely the habit of personal study helps: a hard school career, which has forged us to intense study and to pass difficult exams, already teaches us to operate under the stress of timed deadlines.

2_ The deep technical knowledge of the topic in question provides security in the analysis: it is necessary to be careful connoisseurs of the product and of all the production phases;

3_ It is necessary to be a little visionary and creative: to glimpse viable ways out and follow them with all our strength; to foresee a certain final result already at the beginning; to think outside the box;

4_ Be lucky enough to have worked in a team with a leader accustomed to working under pressure;

5_ Be able not to drag additional problems at work, commonly family ones;

6_ Be used to making good decisions even if the database is not complete;

7_ Take care of the body and be able to rest even when you are in frustration;

8_ Work at least in pairs;

#underpressure #stress at work #results under stress