Is Utility What We Really Mean
When We Say Value?

Perhaps you’ll agree that increased utility is what we really mean when we say “added value.”

by Miles Free III

Director of Industry Affairs, PMPA

Published July 1, 2024

Download Magazine Article

Value, especially added value, seems to me to be a crutch to prop up lazy thinking where it is easier to broadly categorize the benefits as “added value,” rather than actually list and describe them. But in many cases, I ask, “Are there really any benefits to be had?”

The phrase “added value” is overused, overly broad, ambiguous, subjective and in many cases, invisible or opaque to all but the seller. Rather than describe the benefits to be received by the prospective customer, the ambiguity of the phrase “added value” provides a “packet of supposed benefits” without actually specifying them. Vagueness is a feature not a bug when a seller uses the phrase added value, or value add. It is marketing speak for “trust me.”

Excuses 2, 3 and 5 are not so much about how the leader feels about their ability and value as they are about dodging the real work of training the team and getting the work done by others. An important principle to me as a supervisor was to ensure that all tasks were performed at the lowest level that was capable of performing them. By assigning work in this way, all performers are working at (or close to) their highest and best use. No waste of human talent. Assigning the right tasks to the right performers is how leaders add value to our shops.
And what of excuse number 7? This is truly a failure of leadership. Failure to provide the resources needed (human resources) to accomplish a task. Perhaps it is fitting that the leader themselves finds themselves doing a task that should be delegated. Their failure to provide adequate resources not only causes them to perform at a lower level of performance than they are qualified, it also is creating waste in the organization by devaluing their contributions as leaders as well as not allowing others to perform at their own higher better use.

At best, if the benefits of the product or service are actually known and enumerable, added value can become shorthand for those benefits. For example, the phrase “cold-drawn steel bars the value-added steel,” does not really specify the benefits of the cold-drawing process such as free of abrasive oxide scale, smooth, polished cold drawn surface, tighter dimensional tolerance and concentricity, improved mechanical properties (higher tensile and yield strength) and improved straightness. Together, this listing of features does encompass a significant number of “value adds” to the user if they “value” freedom from abrasive oxide, a smooth surface, tighter dimensions, concentricity and so on.

So, value add can be a useful shorthand descriptor, as long as both parties are aware of the list of “values” being shared.

But when one uses value add as the reason to purchase, rather than specifying any true features or attributes that are beneficial to the purchaser, value add adds no value. Instead, it clouds the decision with a smokescreen of vagueness or ambiguity that hides or prevents those attributes from being considered.

Value is itself a term fraught with peril, as the word stands at the conjunction of two opposed points of view. The buyer’s point of view is that this value is worth having, while at that exact same price point, the seller is saying, “I no longer want to have this.” They agree on the value — but are of opposite opinions of worth — whether that value means that they should sell or buy. Instead of added value, I have committed to using the phrase “added utility” in my work.

The concept of utility is underutilized in the business writing and communications that I encounter. Utility is easy to see — the usefulness of the feature or benefit is instantly apparent to the purchaser — if they are savvy enough to know that they do not want their machine sumps filled with hard abrasive oxide scale, nor the excessive tool wear and expense from trying to cut through such a layer on parts for precision machining. As a concept, utility is objective, measurable and provides a clear reason for selection — not a vague homily to “goodness.” Rather, utility is a clear exposition of the usefulness and benefits to the buyer, should they choose to purchase the product or service.

Added value has become too easy a phrase to say in our commercial work, rather than doing the essential work of describing features and benefits. It is a Skinnerian conditioning prompt just to receive the dutiful nods of agreement. Added value is vague and is either a shortcut or smokescreen to reduce the work of the one using it to bolster their claim.

Added utility starts on the presumption of increased usefulness to the purchaser, and clearly states what useful attributes and benefits are available to benefit the buyer. Our precision machining shops “add value” to bar stock, castings or forgings. So what? Or do they? What our customers really seek is functionality. And by removing the waste — the excess material in the workpiece that is not needed for a component to function — our shops increase the utility of the material, enabling it to provide the customer with that needed functionality. Precision. Properties. Quality. Ensuring that their human safety critical device functions. Is that added value? Perhaps. Is it increased utility? You bet it is! Increased utility is quite easy to see. No vagueness in increased utility. Added value? Not so much. Think about it. How does removing 40-50% or more of the material (which we paid for) by machining it into chips add value? My answer is…by adding utility.

Please join me in my quest for clarity and less ambiguity. Let added value stay in vagueness where it belongs. Added utility — that is what I will be sharing.

Author

Miles Free III is the PMPA Director of Industry Affairs with over 50 years of experience in the areas of manufacturing, quality and steelmaking. Miles’ podcast is at pmpa.org/podcast. Email Miles

Leadership Deep Dive — Delegation

Being effective as a leader requires many different attributes. The ability to delegate to subordinates is one of the most critical.

by Miles Free III

Director of Industry Affairs, PMPA

Published June 1, 2024

Download Magazine Article

When we think of leadership, it is easy to list the attributes that an ideal leader needs to have — anticipation, knowledge, gratitude and humility come to mind.
Anticipation. If leaders don’t anticipate, they aren’t leading, they are just coping.
Knowledge. Leaders need to understand what they know and what they don’t.
Gratitude. Leaders need to recognize others for their work. Gratitude builds and sustains a team’s coherence.
Humility. Leaders must understand that taking credit for the work of others demotivates their subordinates and makes leadership impossible.
In addition to these, one might argue that having empathy, being honest and having discipline to maintain accountability are also important for true leadership.
But I would argue that it is the ability to delegate that is most critical to being a successful and effective leader. Delegation is the difference between effective leaders and those that fail to inspire followership in their direct reports. Delegation is also very difficult to master. 

The Excuses
Over the course of my career, I have found the following seven “excuses” that explain why managers fail to delegate, and thus fail to lead:

1. I like to do this. I am good at it. It’s what I do.
2. I don’t have time to train/explain. I’ll just do it myself.
3. They don’t like to do this. I’ll just handle it.
4. I’m the only one that knows how to/can do this.
5. They’ll just make a mess of it.
6. I can do it better/faster.
7. No one else is available.

If you are an owner, manager, supervisor or team lead — any level or leadership — ask yourself, do I fail to delegate? Do I use any of the above excuses and which are most frequent? How much operational efficiency is failing to delegate costing our company? Which of these are contributing to poor morale among our performers?
Let’s look for some common themes, so that we can address these “implied objections” to sharing/delegating responsibilities.
Excuses number 1, 4 and 6 all come from a place of personal pride and security on behalf of the leader. The pride and reward of being competent at that task is a worthwhile personal accomplishment. So why prevent others from gaining the experience needed that they too might share that same pride and feeling of being an important contributor to the company’s important work?
Excuses 2, 3 and 5 are not so much about how the leader feels about their ability and value as they are about dodging the real work of training the team and getting the work done by others. An important principle to me as a supervisor was to ensure that all tasks were performed at the lowest level that was capable of performing them. By assigning work in this way, all performers are working at (or close to) their highest and best use. No waste of human talent. Assigning the right tasks to the right performers is how leaders add value to our shops.
And what of excuse number 7? This is truly a failure of leadership. Failure to provide the resources needed (human resources) to accomplish a task. Perhaps it is fitting that the leader themselves finds themselves doing a task that should be delegated. Their failure to provide adequate resources not only causes them to perform at a lower level of performance than they are qualified, it also is creating waste in the organization by devaluing their contributions as leaders as well as not allowing others to perform at their own higher better use.

Fear
What are some of the possible fears that a leader may be feeling?

• I want to maintain control.
• Performers will outperform me.
• Insecurity.

When these three possible fears are examined, the root cause is clear. Also knowing that leaders have the “secret knowledge” often makes them feel more valuable and less replaceable. Those are natural feelings; however, by not transferring the knowledge, the business can suffer. Leaders not only need to recognize the fears or excuses in themselves, but in their subordinate supervisors, because helping them overcome their personal fears will help make them more effective delegators and leaders. 

Training
One of the attributes of effective leadership that was not included above is the ability to train and advance the capabilities of the entire team. Training is not just about training – it is about continuous improvement of our individual performers. And as they improve and grow in knowledge, so too does our organization grow in its capabilities, reliability and quality, since more people can contribute to lessons learned and processes reduced in variability. Clearly, a leader’s duty is to improve the people and processes under their authority. This “leads to” (pun intended) continuous improvement, improved quality performance, less waste and improved profitability.
Leadership requires many attributes to be executed correctly to be effective. Leaders must have the discipline to hold themselves to the standard of ensuring that all performers are performing at their highest and best use. And that means training them to upgrade their skills and performance, as well as holding themselves accountable for not wasting the human resources under their authority and responsibility. The obligation of leadership is to effectively marshal, the resources available in order to meet the organization’s mission, vision and purpose. How does failing to delegate work help achieve success? 

Effective leaders – delegate!

Author

Miles Free III is the PMPA Director of Industry Affairs with over 50 years of experience in the areas of manufacturing, quality and steelmaking. Miles’ podcast is at pmpa.org/podcast. Email Miles

Honor Your Scope

Your quality system’s scope statement minimizes risk as well as
describes what you do.

by Miles Free III

Director of Industry Affairs, PMPA

Published May 1, 2024

Download Magazine Article

Shops today have quality management systems (QMS) registered and compliant with various quality system standards. ISO 9001:2015, TS-16949 and AS9100D come to mind as typical QMS standards in precision machining today. Shops that achieve and demonstrate compliance are awarded certificates which they display in their lobbies and feature prominently online. A key feature of these certificates is a statement of scope.

• The manufacture of pins, shafts, and similarly configured parts for Aerospace, Defense, Medical, Technology, and other precision industries, worldwide.” (Horberg Industries ISO 9001-2015/AS9100D) bit.ly/PMPA-PM0524A
• “The Manufacture of Precision CNC Milled/Turned Products, Precision Swiss CNC Products, Precision Progressive Die Stampings, Precision Slide formed Products and Chaplets” (Smith and Richardson ISO 9001:2015) bit.ly/PMPA-0524b
• “The Provision of Precision Ground Bar Materials, Custom Mechanical Components and Pin Gage Products [Boston Centerless AS9100:2016 (techn. equiv. to EN9100:2018 & JIS 9100:2016) & ISO 9001:2015] bit.ly/PMPA-PM0524c
•  “Development, Production, and Distribution of Grooving and Groove Milling Tools.” (Horn USA Inc. ISO 9001:2015) bit.ly/PMPA-PM0524d

The purpose of a scope statement is to precisely describe the products and services that your company provides, including the regulatory requirements, activities, locations and facilities supported by your company’s QMS. The scope statement describes fully and completely, exactly what your business does.
The failure to include some aspect in your company’s scope statement similarly proclaims to the world what is not covered by your QMS. What is not providable by your company. What is excluded.

Engineering and Design
Look at your company’s quality certificate. Read the scope. Does it say “design and development of…” or
“engineering design, development and…” or words to that effect? In our precision/production machining and contract manufacturing shops, we typically do not include design scope in our QMS. Our core competencies are the production of high-precision components from customers’ drawings or prints. We are not in a position to know, understand or engineer solutions for end-use applications for which we have no data.
What does this mean to you? Th ere are three potential traps when you receive a job to quote that can expose your company to full or partial liability for product failure — because you are operating outside the scope authorized by your company’s QMS.

Trap 1: Here is the print — you pick the grade.
On what basis? As a manufacturer, you will likely choose to maximize manufacturability, not some needed performance aspect unknown to you. How would you know?

Trap 2: We can’t get the grade we want, will grade X work for this part?
Again, as a shop you can answer about your ability to fabricate, but you have no idea as to whether that substitute will perform in the same manner as the originally requested material. What design aspects are important to performance? All that you know are the dimensions and geometric relationships on the drawing. You know nothing of stresses, pressures or torques applied or to be withstood in the end use.

Trap 3: We don’t care what grade you use as long as it is (fill in the blank … aircraft quality, medical quality and so on).
Perhaps this is the most dangerous trap, as you may think that you are ok to share that another material is, in fact, an aircraft quality or medical quality material. It probably is, I mean you trust the supplier and their cert, right? But by warranting that the material is aircraft or medical quality did you just become the “Engineer of Record?”
These three traps can be avoided by recognizing that they share a common trait – they are asking you to do something that is outside the scope of your QMS. Probably outside your education and licensing, too. 

Bottom Line – Who is the “Engineer of Record?”
“The Engineer of Record shall be responsible for the final design and construction of the project and the submittal of all required documents. a) all judgement decisions affecting the design or altering the design will be the responsibility of the engineer of record”
bit.ly/PMPA-PM0524E
Who is the Engineer of Record? In California, the engineer of record is defined as “the Engineer who has prepared the plans and specifications:’ In many states, this requires state licensure as a professional engineer (PE).
Engineer of Record can also mean the PE that develops the criteria and concept for the project, performs the analysis and is responsible for the preparation of the plans (drawings) and specifications of the work.
When the customer invites you to “pick the grade;’
“confirm to them that a substitute material will work for their application” or “assure them that the material chosen is suitable;’ because it meets some broad classification, the question you must ask yourself is “on what basis of authority can you answer?” If you are not a licensed professional engineer, if your company’s QMS scope does not include design, development or engineering, then you must decline their invitation.
Stay out of these traps! You lack the credentials, the authority, the knowledge of all necessary factors needed to be considered for the application. Without these, you are
“hazarding a guess;’ which is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “to risk doing something that might cause harm to someone or something else:’
bit.ly /PMPA-PM0524f

Avoid the hazard. Honor your scope.

Author

Miles Free III is the PMPA Director of Industry Affairs with over 50 years of experience in the areas of manufacturing, quality and steelmaking. Miles’ podcast is at pmpa.org/podcast. Email Miles