Points of view | Insights

The Covid-19 crisis was a revelation of French deindustrialization and the catalyst for a national awareness of the importance of a strong industry. At Pagamon, we believe that new organizational models, in particular agility, represent a major performance lever that is still largely under-exploited by industrial companies.

Our interview “Industry at the time of agility”, conducted with two key players of the industrial world, aims to share with as many people as possible the best practices that will accelerate the movement towards agility in industry.

Here is a look back at this discussion with Patrice Coumont, plant manager, and Benoît Gaudron, product manager at Comptoir Général du Ressort (CGR). CGR specializes in co-engineering and serial production of mechanical-end mechatronic components by cold transformation and overmolding of metal.

INTERVIEW

What are your responsibilities at CGR

Patrice Caumont: I am a physicist by training and I now manage the Saint-Yorre plant. The group is divided into 5 activities: flat springs, threaded springs, aeronautics, mechatronics and cold forming. I am responsible for the cold forming division with plants in France, Poland and Mexico.  

Benoît Gaudron: I am an Arts & Métiers engineer (Bordeaux 2000) and have been working for CGR for 17 years now. As a product manager, I am in charge of the development of parts, from the definition of the customer’s needs to the production run. I also participate in the continuous improvement of the processes. More specifically, I develop spiral springs and wiper arms. We serve many customers such as Valeo for the arms and Faurecia or Proma for the springs, used in particular in seats.  

CGR was founded in 1963 and has undergone many organizational and cultural transformations during its history (lean, robotization, digital…). What major differences do you see between agility and these other forms of transformation, in terms of objectives and impacts for example?

Agility is a buzzword and encompasses many notions. We often hear about “human agility” but it doesn’t make much sense to me. It reminds me of the injunction: “we must innovate”. On the other hand, agility clearly needs to be reinforced within organizations: it is the lack of agility of the structures that we are talking about. In short, people need meaning and structures need agility.

For the record, in the 1960s, factories recruited mostly peasants. Because of their activities in the fields, they only worked when it was really necessary: schedules varied greatly depending on the weather, the season… But these working methods could not be replicated in the factory. In order to integrate these recruits into their new positions, structures were gradually put in place: job descriptions, machine processes, shift schedules, etc. It was this structuring and its replicability that made globalization possible. Today, we can see the limits of this heritage: we no longer recruit farmers but people who are often already trained and capable of greater autonomy. This necessarily leads to a change in working methods. Beyond the processes, it is a bit like Taylorism that is disappearing.

To illustrate this change, I like the metaphor of a kayak: in calm waters, everyone paddles quietly and we can rely on relatively rigid structures. In whitewater, however, these working methods no longer work and agility becomes essential. In the past, we have seen the world with a lot of certainty: these are the calm waters of my metaphor. Although we were already facing uncertainties 20 or 30 years ago, but we didn’t identify them as clearly. As the Covid-19 crisis shows, we perceive the white waters today with much greater acuity. Hierarchical structures, well-suited to calm waters, are struggling to adapt without oppressing employees in their work. 

Do you have any examples of behaviors that would no longer be appropriate?  

I have two examples in mind. First example: the time clock. This is a real tool of mistrust. At CGR, time clocks are only used in a few plants. Second example: quotas. They lead to a vicious logic: you exchange a salary for hours, which is not the best motivator. These two simple examples show us how far we still have to go, and the reluctance to change that these changes can cause.

So how do “whitewater” management styles adapt?  

There is no single answer. The first necessity is sincerity. It is also necessary to explain, explain, explain. This takes a lot of time.  

The other important idea is to involve the person in a process that leads them to take the initiative to do better themselves. To do this, we need to provide information and eliminate irrelevant KPIs, such as the OEE on unloaded machines (editor’s note: the synthetic efficiency rate is an indicator designed to monitor the rate of use of machines), reporting and, more generally, the tools for controlling individuals. In our management approach, we want everyone to have the same level of information. As Jean-Claude Van Damme would say: be “aware”. In concrete terms, we provide small connected tablets – called A-boxes – which display a certain amount of information in real time, such as the performance of the stations, and can alert the operators. These tools are key to dealing with problems as soon as possible.   

And how is CGR’s organization and teams adapting?  

We have moved from a siloed organization by business line to an organization by product line. Within the same line, we are co-located, which allows us to distribute information very quickly, often without the need for formal meetings. Autonomous and multi-skilled teams work together. This significantly reduces the time needed to make decisions. Everyone has a specific role. There is no “leader” per se. 

Did you encounter any difficulties in allowing these teams to become autonomous?     

Yes, of course, especially when setting up the teams. Switching from a service system to a unit-based system takes time, sometimes even several years, because it changes the organization in depth. We have developed multi-skills that we would never have envisaged: for example, some people have maintenance and quality skills within the same unit. This partly solves the problem of team building, and brings a new dimension to career development.   

What has changed in the way you interact with your customers?       

It’s hard to say because we were already very close to our customers. The actions we take ultimately result in improved customer service. This is why Toyota has rewarded us for the last 3 years for our quality of service. With them, we counted only one incident last year. Valeo has also increased the quantity of its orders because we were able to demonstrate our ability to react very quickly (a few days from design to production). Being responsive and close to our customers clearly translates into improved business. 

By improving our quality, our costs and our lead times, we put the customer back at the center, since the gains are shared: half is redistributed to the customer.  

How could we summarize your approach?               

Our approach is defined in 6 key ideas:

• A vision and values: the essential basis for implementing the following ideas.
• Robust product/customer pairs: for example, the Valéo/wiper arm pair.
• Recognizing employee commitment: we put the employee back at the heart of the system, the tool is at the service of the men and women.
• Autonomous units, as we have seen before.
• A collective project: each team co-constructs its project. Time is devoted to formalizing this project at the level of the group’s management, the plants and each unit.
• The customer at the center: we place the customer at the center of our intentions and information.

In conclusion, we seek to create an “intelligent company“: we trust people and their ability to work autonomously, to best satisfy the customer within the framework of a shared project and values. We want to free our employees from all the unproductive constraints accumulated over time, and create the conditions and the environment to maximize the motivation of each person.