When I was employed by Ford, they had a management seminar which used the movie Twelve Angry Men as a basis. They told us the basic plot of the movie and then had us watch the initial part of this great film. In the film, Henry Fonda is a jury foreman and he is the only one who thinks a kid may be innocent of murder. He slowly wins over each juror in a series of dramatic scenes.
After they paused the film, they asked us to individually put down the order in which the jurors changed their vote from the original guilty. All that data was collected. Next, we formed groups of six members and determined with group consensus what the order of the jurors changing their vote was. This group session was spirited and sometimes contentious. Each person had to give their reasons for their choice. When the group determination was collected, we went on break while the data was compiled.
The results were stunning. The best individual's performance was below the worst group's performance. One group got almost all of it right. As an example, one person in my group said, "Did you see the first jury vote? The old man started to raise his hand, but he quickly pulled it down when no one else seemed of like mind." That was indeed the first juror to change his vote.
My experience with group sessions have been extremely productive. There are only two rules that groups need to keep in mind. (1) everyone has input, and (2) there is no criticism of others' input.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Alpha Technical Associates, LLC
This blog has just been linked to Alpha Technical Associates, LLC. This is a firm established and run by two former industry 6-sigma blackbelt trained individuals. I have worked with both principals in Alpha Technical Associates and, in addition to being highly professional, they have a wealth experience and a proven track record.
One of the sub-goals of Alpha Technical Associates is to make sure that the training is fully received and the individuals being trained have all the tools and background needed to apply the methods and receive the benefits.
I highly endorse Alpha as a "go to" source which will end up being an investment.
One of the sub-goals of Alpha Technical Associates is to make sure that the training is fully received and the individuals being trained have all the tools and background needed to apply the methods and receive the benefits.
I highly endorse Alpha as a "go to" source which will end up being an investment.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Toyota Recalls
Does anyone have insight into the Toyota corporate stance on quality as a result of the public information associated with the sudden accelleration problem or the ABS Braking concern?
On the sudden acceleration problem, it is my perception that Toyota's fix is aimed at the effect rather than the cause. As made and tested, there was apparantly no indication of an issue. Throw in wear, environment, and other time-related factors and now they have to add a spacer to prevent binding of a (gear?) No one seems to be publicly addressing the question of "Why does the assembly now bind?"
On a higher level, Toyota should address another question, namely, what is the system root cause? This question would get to a new level of understanding regarding how did this concern go undetected both in Toyota's design development as well as in their prove-out testing.
It appears that the Toyota quality system is responding with a series of reactionary actions aimed at the effect (floor mat, spacer) while the root cause may be deeper within both the pedal mechanism and/or software.
On the sudden acceleration problem, it is my perception that Toyota's fix is aimed at the effect rather than the cause. As made and tested, there was apparantly no indication of an issue. Throw in wear, environment, and other time-related factors and now they have to add a spacer to prevent binding of a (gear?) No one seems to be publicly addressing the question of "Why does the assembly now bind?"
On a higher level, Toyota should address another question, namely, what is the system root cause? This question would get to a new level of understanding regarding how did this concern go undetected both in Toyota's design development as well as in their prove-out testing.
It appears that the Toyota quality system is responding with a series of reactionary actions aimed at the effect (floor mat, spacer) while the root cause may be deeper within both the pedal mechanism and/or software.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Cost Reductions - Watch Out for Traps
I believe that a company must continually reduce costs to remain competitive. I also think that it is easy to introduce a major error through the cost reduction process. The following is based on concerns which arise from basing individuals performance incentives (i.e. pay raises) on the amount of cost reductions achieved. This is not meant to be specific, but here goes . . .
It takes a team of planners and engineers months, even years, to develop a new design. In this effort, materials, designs, and manufacturing methods are based on design guides, competitive analysis, and any other collective experience the design & manufacturing team possesses. In this effort, megadollars may be spent on testing and prove out to a full design verification plan. (100K miles function cycling, environmental, heat, cold, etc).
Once a design is in the field, a cost cutting team may decide to explore a material change. This effort is usually backed up by a single short term test aimed at the primary function which the material imparts to the design. If the test passes, the team recommends the change and because it saves money, it usually goes through and the program savings are recorded but no one follows up to see the total cost to the system of each cost reduction. Typically, the duration of a cost reduction effort is accomplished in a very small fraction of the man-hours and total time of the original development.
Ok, maybe this is a simplification, but the major points are:
(1) The team approving the cost-save change is sharply reduced from the original design team
(2) The testing required for approval of the cost-save is extremely limited and tends to not look for interactions.
(3) There is no effort to predict or track the total cost to the system of a given change. (This should even include things like lower high mileage quality/reliability, lower resale value, etc)
It takes a team of planners and engineers months, even years, to develop a new design. In this effort, materials, designs, and manufacturing methods are based on design guides, competitive analysis, and any other collective experience the design & manufacturing team possesses. In this effort, megadollars may be spent on testing and prove out to a full design verification plan. (100K miles function cycling, environmental, heat, cold, etc).
Once a design is in the field, a cost cutting team may decide to explore a material change. This effort is usually backed up by a single short term test aimed at the primary function which the material imparts to the design. If the test passes, the team recommends the change and because it saves money, it usually goes through and the program savings are recorded but no one follows up to see the total cost to the system of each cost reduction. Typically, the duration of a cost reduction effort is accomplished in a very small fraction of the man-hours and total time of the original development.
Ok, maybe this is a simplification, but the major points are:
(1) The team approving the cost-save change is sharply reduced from the original design team
(2) The testing required for approval of the cost-save is extremely limited and tends to not look for interactions.
(3) There is no effort to predict or track the total cost to the system of a given change. (This should even include things like lower high mileage quality/reliability, lower resale value, etc)
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Design Guides
Have you had experience with design guides?
If properly constructed and maintained, the design guides would be a living document and contain the collective corporate knowledge relating to its designed components.
As part of this topic, how would design guides be used to maximize their impact on an organization?
If properly constructed and maintained, the design guides would be a living document and contain the collective corporate knowledge relating to its designed components.
As part of this topic, how would design guides be used to maximize their impact on an organization?
Supplier Quality Assurance
What is your experience with Supplier Quality Assurance (or, Supplier Quality Engineering)?
Companies that purchase engineered components often feel the need to send out a delegate into the suppliers sites to ensure that parts are being produced which meet all of the engineering requirements. The role of the SQA representative is to review the process, the documentation, and the parts produced and provide either (a) Approval or (b) a list of deficiencies and recommendations on how to corrrect them.
In your experience, is the SQA system working to maximize quality and minimize total cost?
Companies that purchase engineered components often feel the need to send out a delegate into the suppliers sites to ensure that parts are being produced which meet all of the engineering requirements. The role of the SQA representative is to review the process, the documentation, and the parts produced and provide either (a) Approval or (b) a list of deficiencies and recommendations on how to corrrect them.
In your experience, is the SQA system working to maximize quality and minimize total cost?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
What is your experience with "first run capability" as an ongoing process metric?
"First run capability" is a relatively simple concept with a direct method of calculation. The concept is reflected in the statement below:
"If you loaded the process inputs with enough raw material and parts to produce, say, 10,000 parts, how many would be produced if there were no repairs or other corrections to the process?"
If 9,000 parts were produced, your first run capability would be 90%. The objective then is to track first run capability and use the data to improve the process.
To further illustrate the concept suppose there was a 3 step process. Each step in the process passed 90% of the work presented to it. Then your first run capability would be 72%. (0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9). The 28% that is lost represents waste and/or added cost to repair. There are added quality concerns about the 28% the deviate from the straight-through process.
Comments and/or experiences with this metric?
"First run capability" is a relatively simple concept with a direct method of calculation. The concept is reflected in the statement below:
"If you loaded the process inputs with enough raw material and parts to produce, say, 10,000 parts, how many would be produced if there were no repairs or other corrections to the process?"
If 9,000 parts were produced, your first run capability would be 90%. The objective then is to track first run capability and use the data to improve the process.
To further illustrate the concept suppose there was a 3 step process. Each step in the process passed 90% of the work presented to it. Then your first run capability would be 72%. (0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9). The 28% that is lost represents waste and/or added cost to repair. There are added quality concerns about the 28% the deviate from the straight-through process.
Comments and/or experiences with this metric?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
