Memorandum submitted by Ted Robins (CIT
48)
I am writing to you after watching BBC Parliament
yesterday. I write particularly with regard to the question and
answer session where the BBC reference was to Climate Change:
Citizens Agenda. Since watching the program I have also learned
more from the UK parliament web site.
For a number of reasons I anticipate that what
I have to say will probably be disjointed and may appear to be
unconnected. I ask your tolerance.
Before doing so, however, I repeat what Professor
Reg Revans said many years ago. Reg Revans is almost universally
said to be the founding father of Action Learning (AL). I am a
firm believer of the theory and practice of AL.
I paraphrase what Reg Revans said:
"There are clever men and there are wise
men. Clever men are almost invariably men that lecture others.
They are academics, experts and business consultants. Many of
them will have letters after there names. Wise men, however, are
learners. They often have had no formal training and no papers
to document their achievements. They have, however, learnt from
the experience and failures of themselves and others"
I refer to what Reg Revans said because thus
far I have seen nothing to indicate that the wise men, to which
he refers, are being given to opportunity to contribute to the
discussions. I was also surprised see that electrical and mechanical
engineers were not called to give evidence—I am however
not fully aware of your plans in that regard.
I will now, in a sense, provide you with food
for thought.
ACTION LEARNING
The process of action learning, as proposed
by Reg Revans, (there are other versions) is as follows. A small
group of people of experience and training get together and solve
problems by discussing those problems. The theory is that someone
in the group may have already experienced a similar problem. The
group as a whole then benefits from the experience and knowledge
of it's members.
FUNCTIONALLY IDENTIFIED
MAINTENANCE SYSTEMS
(FIMS)
FIMS were developed by the Systems Effectiveness
Laboratory of America in the 1960s to solve a serious problem
that existed in the armed forces in this country and in the United
States. The problem stemmed from the need to speedily locate and
fix faults in equipment. Mainly munitions equipment. I will not
explain how they did that or what the solution was. However, there
are pointers that can be learned from the process. I present the
important ones now.
Almost every process and piece of equipment
can be divided into separate component parts. For example, the
steps needed to make a pot of tea. Or the parts used to build
a motorcar.
Every step in a procedure and every part of
an assembly also performs a function—if it doesn't then
it is redundant.
An oversimplification of what SEL did was to
reverse engineer a piece of equipment working from assembly drawings.
Moving from the general to the particular they identified and
illustrated every active part of the equipment. They used simple
box outlines and connecting lines to illustrate the sequence in
which the various functions were designed to achieve. Consecutive
activities/functions were illustrated thus.
Concurrent activities/functions were illustrated
thus.
To keep matters simple I leave the SEL process
and illustrate the general theory by illustrating this everyday
process.
The steps/activities required to make a pot
of tea are as follows:
— Fill (container [kettle] with water)
— Heat (container [kettle] and water)
— Dispense (tea leaves/bag)
You may have already:
— realised that lower functions are
necessary (to fill the kettle for example).
— seen that if any of the activities
did not take place then the objective (to make a pot of tea) would
not be achieved.
— realised that the process can be
reversed. That is to, first set an objective, and then determine
and illustrate the functions/activities needed to meet that objective.
Now for something less obvious. Please consider
the following.
The above could represent a car repair shop
Or
A hospital
The methodology and the way information is presented
is always the same.
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN
The process of functional design is essentially
the reverse of that developed by SEL. Functional design calls
for:
1. an objective to be decided upon.
2. the functions/activities needed to achieve
those objectives listed.
3. the functions and the sequence of those
functions illustrated as shown above.
SUGGESTION (S)
I suggest that
— functional design should ALWAYS come
before product design.
— groups of people, similar to those
proposed in action learning and having no preconceived ideas,
should ALWAYS contribute in the process of functional design.
WHY
Because more innovative, and possibly un-thought
of designs would could be considered with development in mind.
A FEW, MAYBE,
CRAZY THOUGHTS
AND IDEAS
A car uses energy to climb a hill. And in braking
when going down hill. Some electric and hybrid cars employ regenerative
braking. Other cars could freewheel downhill if a freewheel clutch
were to be fitted.
In India and other places (including farms in
this country) animal waste is used to produce gas and sometimes
from that gas to electricity. Cattle and humans produce gas naturally—is
it not possible to convert human and domestic waste the same way?
The Wom brook that flows through Wombourne powered
several mills in years past. It does nothing now.
I have a clock that keeps accurate time from
a signal that comes from Germany. I also have a broadband connection
without wires. Question—is it not possible for similar and
other technologies to be used to switch lights on in occupied
rooms. And switch them off in unoccupied rooms? Such devices would
indicate the presence of intruders within commercial buildings
making burglar alarms unnecessary—and save electricity.
Refrigerators and freezers generate heat when
cooling/freezing. Could that heat not be used?
Shops are even more inefficient. They cool/freeze
goods. Heat the surrounding area. And then employ air conditioning
to reduce the air temperature.
A SHOPPING CENTRE
OF THE
FUTURE
Goods from all major manufacturers located in
one central storeroom. All goods sold Argos fashion—purchasers
place orders but do not collect goods immediately. Instead they
go to a central collection area where the goods are waiting for
them.
WHY
1. Because goods would be delivered to one
store room—thereby reducing transport pollution (Kelloggs,
for example, delivering goods for Tesco, Sainsbury, Asda, Waitrose,
Iceland, Aldi) to the same spot and at the same time.
2. Stocks would be maintained by using just
in time methods.
3. All frozen/refrigerated food would be
in one set of temperature-controlled rooms. The heat generated
would be used to heat water always and the building when required.
4. An electronic selling, payment, and goods
picking system would largely eliminate theft.
5. There would be grouped pick up points.
No travelling between shops and their car parks.
Plainly you may consider that the thoughts given
above are crazy. Crazy they may be but by sifting such thoughts
from a large number of individuals MIGHT, just might, bring to
your attention energy-saving and energy production methods currently
unheard of. This is where a version of action learning could be
used—a blog or blog(s) could be used maybe. And why not
involve children and young people in the process? A schools competition
perhaps.
FINALLY
All parties should consider using a similar
faultfinding process to avoid making mistakes similar to those
being made by this and previous government. By remembering that,
any organisation is only as efficient as the sum efficiency of
its component parts.
To improve efficiency it is important to determine
first WHAT each component part is designed to do—NOT
what it currently does. Only when that is known should the other
words WHY, WHEN, and HOW be considered. It is worthwhile noting
that the process outlined above enables work to start on individual
units without having to wait until all units have been theoretically
disassembled.
Several years ago several of my friends and
I considered the NHS. We came up with a controversial new approach
to the treatment of patients, hospitals and doctors surgeries.
But that is another story, for another day, maybe.
Thoughtfully yours,
Ted Robins
December 2006
| 
