Monthly Archives: September 2013

Robots in Surgery Don’t Always Work

Posted on by

SEPTEMBER 12, 2013

The da Vinci surgical system

Robotic surgery has grown dramatically, increasing more than 400% in the US between 2007 and 2011, reports The New York Times(Sept. 10, 2013). About 1,400 da Vinci systems, made by Intuitive Surgical Inc. of Sunnyvale, Calif. and costing $1.5- $2.5 million each, have been purchased by hospitals. On the market for more than a decade, more than a million procedures have been performed with the da Vinci.

But a new study follows a series of reports critical of robotically assisted surgery. Documents against Intuitive have outlined the aggressive tactics used to market the equipment and raised questions about the quality of training provided to surgeons, as well as the pressure on doctors and hospitals to use it–even in cases where it is not the physician’s first choice and he or she has little hands-on experience.

Almost 57% of surgeons surveyed anonymously said they had experienced irrecoverable operative malfunctions while using the da Vinci system. And between 2000 and 2012, thousands of da Vinci mishaps were reported to the F.D.A., including 174 injuries and 71 deaths, according to The Journal for Healthcare Quality (Aug. 27, 2013). Yet by combing news reports and court records, researchers at Johns Hopkins were able to find examples of botched operations that were not reported to the agency. They concluded that adverse events associated with the da Vinci were “vastly underreported.”

Reports made to the F.D.A. represent only “the tip of the iceberg” of surgical complications and adverse drug reactions, says the president of the National Research Center for Women and Families. “The consequence,” she states, “is that little is known of the real disadvantages of the equipment, and the injuries and deaths it may cause, even as robotic surgery is widely marketed to consumers.”

This post provided courtesy of Jay and Barry’s OM Blog at www.heizerrenderom.wordpress.com. Professors Jay Heizer and Barry Render are authors of Operations Management , the world’s top selling textbook in its field, published by Pearson.

Trying to Shutter a French Auto Plant

Posted on by

SEPTEMBER 10, 2013

peugeot plantAt Peugeot’s soon-to-close car factory just north of Paris, writes Barron’s Business (Sept.9, 2013), management is grappling with an ambitious year-end production quota: finding jobs for the factory’s nearly 3,000 workers. This was the promise Peugeot made to win government and union approval for closing the largest French auto plant in 2 decades. The job placement effort, costing $749 million, underscores how expensive and time consuming it is to close even a single factory in Western Europe, when it is politically feasible at all.

Peugeot joins companies, including GM and Ford, that have begun the process of closing plants in Western Europe, where a glut of excess production capacity has made many factories unprofitable. But even though more shutdowns are necessary to adapt to depressed European sales, tough experiences for all 3 car makers may give others pause.

“It can cost a billion euros ($1.31 billion) or more to close a vehicle-assembly plant in Western Europe,” said one expert, who said companies have put off closing plants because of the cost. “That’s not an environment that encourages investment.” (U.S. factory shutdowns were quicker and cheaper to pull off. In the U.S., auto makers culled 24 factories during the 2008 economic meltdown.)

Peugeot has been through a year long wringer, with political obstacles followed by union protests that at times turned violent. In the end, the company agreed to give its workers a package of retraining, job placement and severance benefits that are generous even by French standards. As an example, a dozen auto workers were taking shifts driving a bus in a parking lot to train for future jobs Peugeot has lined up for them at Paris’s transit agency. Peugeot is paying for the $13,000-a-person training. “It is the least they can do,” said one worker.

“The alternative to shutting down capacity is being more flexible with capacity,” said Peugeot’s HR chief.

This post provided courtesy of Jay and Barry’s OM Blog at www.heizerrenderom.wordpress.com. Professors Jay Heizer and Barry Render are authors of Operations Management , the world’s top selling textbook in its field, published by Pearson.

New Looks at Loading and Boarding Planes

Posted on by

SEPTEMBER 9, 2013

alaska air jetwayLoading an airplane quickly and efficiently isn’t an easy task. “It should be, and could be, but the humans involved can’t seem to get with the program,” writes Wired Magazine (Aug. 28, 2013). Better loading means more time in the air – which is where airlines make their money. The boarding process is far from standard – there are almost as many boarding procedures as there are airlines. This problem has long been pondered by operations managers, without a definitive answer. But there have been a few promising experiments.

The most unusual and deceptively simple idea is opening the door at the rear of the plane in addition to the door at the front. Alaska Airlines is trying this. The idea isn’t entirely new–many airlines open the front and rear doors at those airports where there is no jetway, only a staircase leading to the tarmac. Alaska has a new tool to help facilitate using both doors–a solar-powered ramp. Mounted on wheels, the ramp can be driven to the backdoor of the airplane, and passengers make two switch-back turns down the ramp to the ground, providing an alternative to stairs for easy suitcase rolling and wheelchair access. Using the aft door to unload passengers can reduce the turnaround time by 10 minutes.

One of the big reasons boarding has slowed to a crawl is people are carrying more bags aboard to avoid baggage fees. So American Airlines is experimenting with letting those who checked their bag board first. Ideally, these passengers will simply walk to their row and sit down. The airline says that overall it has shaved a few minutes off the boarding process.

Although airlines commonly board by sections, it’s generally a free-for-all with regard to where in that section you are. United uses the “outside-in” method of seating window passengers first, then middle, then aisle seats. The airline has been organizing passengers in better defined lines at the gate for each group, with the hope is there will be less of a bottleneck.

This post provided courtesy of Jay and Barry’s OM Blog at www.heizerrenderom.wordpress.com. Professors Jay Heizer and Barry Render are authors of Operations Management , the world’s top selling textbook in its field, published by Pearson.