blastuponsometerries t1_isar0yj wrote on October 14, 2022 at 3:16 PM

Reply to comment by Tubtimgrob in Ethics of Nuclear Energy in Times of Climate Change: Escaping the Collective Action Problem by CartesianClosedCat

I think that is too gloomy of a lens. Maybe you are correct with regards to maintenance schedules. But there is so much more then that.

If an organization is too rigid, it won't be able to respond effectively to newly arising problems. A lot of it comes down to a few basic principles (they are just hard to do consistently).

One major piece is empowering the low-level employees that are actually doing the real work and day to day interactions with the equipment. That means sometimes they are going to raise problematic issues at inconvenient times.

Are these individuals punished or ignored? Or are they taken seriously and allowed to make consequential decisions, like stopping work until a problem is solved? The Toyota Production System is famous for this feature. A line worker can shut down a whole production train if they find a defect at great cost to the company. Yet, over time the company understands that solving defects early on is overall far far cheaper then allowing them to accumulate silently.

But that means a specific plant can't only be judged on total output at any given time, so the incentives and directives given to middle management have to align with longer term company goals. The work culture has to incorporate these ideas into everyday operations, not just tacked on as an afterthought.

A second major piece involves looking at top level design and revisit periodically as time goes by. Etc...

[deleted] t1_isdtbv5 wrote on October 15, 2022 at 5:10 AM

[deleted]

Tubtimgrob t1_isdtj8j wrote on October 15, 2022 at 5:12 AM

You are highlighting the freedom aspects of a quality system and everything you say is correct. But you will also know that it all still needs to exist within a rigid system. The system is routinely updated based on feedback and the expertise of employees. On a daily basis it's still a framework with strict rules and procedures. The culture must exist inside that framework with the power and authority to make improvements.

Toyota is a good example. They pioneered a lot of quality principles. Yes, a worker can shut down production - if shutting down is part of the process. Not if they suddenly feel like it. Can the employee ask for the process to change because they have a better practice? Of course. The system restricts the individual in certain tasks, so they have time and power to do other things. Besides, all Toyota production is done by robots. Why? To avoid variation and increase performance. In other words, humans are slow and erratic. Automation is now replacing many retail jobs for the same reason.

This may seem gloomy and tedious, but it's the main way companies stay competitive. I also believe philosophy should spend more time on these principles. They are the only solution to urgent problems in larger society.