Every Tuesday is our routine weekly meeting for Production Control, with all Production Control staff and the Plant Manager in attendance.
Today was different—the Materials Department supervisor and ITS were also at the table.
Officially, this was a meeting to “optimize the Production Control workflow.”
The company is well aware that we in Production Control spend far too much time on things we shouldn’t—linking scattered data, repeatedly copy-pasting, and manually compiling reports just to figure out where an order is stuck.
I’ve always felt that what Production Control should really be doing is adjusting and controlling schedules, tracking production progress, and anticipating risks and communicating them—not acting as data porters. But the reality is that the company’s information is too fragmented; there’s no single place where someone can see the overall situation at a glance.
The Materials Department’s participation isn’t without reason.
They already have a successful optimization case, and our department has truly spent too much effort on this area. Not to mention, I myself am the clearest example—a newcomer of only three months, yet working overtime until seven or eight every day.
The Plant Manager’s thinking is straightforward:
If some tasks can be replaced by tools or AI, we shouldn’t keep wasting manpower on them. Production Control should focus on “control” rather than “handling miscellaneous work.”
At the start of the meeting, every unit was quite helpful.
Everyone tried to clarify our pain points through systems, processes, and division of labor. The atmosphere was rational and practical. But the more we talked, the clearer it became to me—the real bottleneck isn’t at the back end.
The source is our supervisor.
He handles the initial board arrangement, simultaneously managing the needs of three Production Controllers: system lines, outsourced orders, and direct packaging and shipping orders. To be fair, he’s already working hard to chase materials and coordinate, but the shortage of boards is an undeniable fact for those of us at the back end.
The bigger problem is that his current workflow doesn’t allow those downstream to know “when the boards will arrive.”
Without knowing the timing, we can’t schedule subsequent processing. If we can’t schedule processing, assembly and shipping time gets compressed, and in the end, all the pressure piles up at the back.
We all know about this issue and want to improve it. In a few months, the supervisor even plans to hand this part over to me and two other colleagues—we want this resolved more than anyone.
But during today’s meeting, when the Plant Manager, the Materials supervisor, and ITS one by one raised questions, pressed for answers, and demanded improvements on this环节, all I could feel was one thing: our Production Control department was embarrassed.
It wasn’t the feeling of being scolded—it was the feeling of being seen through.
Having other units point out problems, lecture us on processes, and remind us “this won’t do,” I suddenly wanted to shrink myself smaller while sitting there.
I couldn’t help but think:
Can a supervisor’s personality and leadership style really affect an entire department to this extent?
The Production Control role is supposed to be one that people trust.
Not because we’re fierce or domineering, but because we have the full picture and what we say puts people at ease. Yet at that moment, I clearly felt we were being questioned, doubted, even somewhat looked down upon.
That feeling of not being able to hold my head up was heavy.
I’m not afraid of difficult work or a broken system. What really hurts is that even though I’m trying hard to do things well, structural problems end up making the whole department look unreliable.
I still hope that one day, Production Control can stand back in that position—not being pushed along or chased with questions, but being someone people feel confident handing things over to.