Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Where does 5-Why Fit within the PRR process Understanding of 5-Why Quick 5-Why Exercise as a group Critique Sheet 5- Why Examples Wrap Up/Discussion
Security Classification
After a supplier has submitted an initial response and containment plan (Step # 2 in the PRR process), a detailed Step investigation is necessary to determine what caused the problem. Step # 4 (Supplier determines the root cause) requires a 5-Why analysis to help in identifying the root cause of the problem. Going back to one of the elements within the Purpose of a PRR to facilitate problem resolution, 5-Why is the prescribed tool for determining the root cause of the problem to facilitate problem resolution.
Security Classification
No Reaction
Cause Reaction & Research (Look at speedometer; Search for speed limit sign)
Global Supply Management January 2, 2006
Security Classification
Security Classification
Children!
Why?
because they keep asking objective, open-ended questions until the answer is simple and clear
When working with people to solve a problem, it is not enough to tell them what the solution is. They need to find out and understand the solution for themselves. You help them do this by asking openended , thought provoking questions.
Security Classification
7
Close-Ended:
Structures the response to be answered by one word, often yes or no. Usually gives a predetermined answer.
Open-Ended:
Leaves the form of the answer up to the person answering which draws out more thought or research.
Security Classification
Requires thought Promotes additional research Enhances problem solving skills Does not assume there is one right answer Avoids predetermined answers Stimulates discussion Empowers the person answering
In many circumstances, it is not only the answer itself, but the process by which the answer was determined that is important when asking an Open-Ended question
Security Classification
9
More Examples
Example 1: Did the lack of a PM system cause this tool to break? (Close-Ended question, can be answered by a yes or no, gives the person a predetermined answer that PM is to blame) What could have caused the tool to break? (Open-Ended, probing question forces the person to think about all possibilities, not just PM)
Example 2:
Would improving material flow help reduce lead times? (Good question but its still Close-Ended, focuses the person on material flow as a means to reduce lead time. Is this the best improvement?) What are some options on improving lead time? (Open-Ended, triggering more thought and research on all variables impacting lead time.)
Example 3:
Is equipment capability causing the variation in your process? (Close-Ended, can be answered by a yes or no, focuses the person on equipment being the source of variation) What could potentially cause variation in your process? (Open-Ended, triggering more thought and research, opens up possibilities of variation with man, material & method, not just machine)
Security Classification
10
5 Why Overview
Security Classification
11
Security Classification
12
5-Why Analysis
Corrective Action with Responsibility Define Problem Use this path for the specific nonconformance being investigated A Date
Root Causes
WHY?
Therefore
WHY?
Therefore
Use this path to investigate why the problem was not detected.
WHY?
Therefore
WHY?
Therefore
WHY?
Therefore
A
WHY? Therefore
Use this path to investigate the systemic root cause (Quality System Failures)
WHY?
Therefore
C
WHY? Therefore WHY? Therefore
B
Ref. No. (Spill, PR/R) WHY? Therefore
Date of Spill
WHY?
Therefore
Product / Process
Delphi Location
WHY?
Therefore
C
Problem Resolution Complete Communicate to Delphi Date: Process Change Break Point Date: Implement System Change Date:
Lessons Learned:
Security Classification
13
Security Classification
14
Brainstorming
Security Classification
15
Security Classification
16
Security Classification
17
5-Why Analysis
Security Classification
18
5-Why Analysis
Security Classification
19
5-Why Analysis
Step 5: Overall
Are there gaps or holes? Are there things missed or not documented? Do corrective actions address actions the Supplier owns? How many iterations of 5 Why Analysis have there been? Who prepared the 5 Why Analysis? One person? Sales representative ? Clerk? The best answer is a cross functional team that understand the product and process!
Security Classification
20
Therefore Test
Security Classification
21
5-Why Analysis
Problem
The problem is stated through the eyes of the customer
The first why is the main cause The second why is what causes the main cause Etc.
Etc.
Root Cause
You have root cause if you can demonstrate: cause on, problem on cause off, problem off
22
Security Classification
Problem
Root Cause
Security Classification
23
Problem
Test lead time not considered No system to accurately assess lead times of all PPAP elements
Root Cause
Security Classification
24
Problem
PPAP submitted late Did not react to the target submittal date Did not know the target submittal date had passed No requirement to follow-up on target submittal dates No standard system to manage PPAP submittal timeliness
Root Cause
Security Classification
25
Problem
Did not meet the annual business plan goal of a 10% increase in sales Did not thoroughly evaluate market/competition Did not have adequate resources Did not anticipate required resources
Root Cause
Security Classification
26
Problem
Did not meet the annual business plan goal of a 10% increase in sales Did not know the goal was not going to be met Did not evaluate the status of the goal until December Did not have alarms limits identified at strategic intervals (monthly, quarterly, etc.)
Root Cause
Security Classification
Did not develop a plan to monitor the status of reaching the goal
27
Jake Ryan is the Quality Manager at Flex Industries. Flex is a component supplier that manufactures metal stampings and light assembly products. The company has a reputation for supplying high quality parts on a consistent basis. Seldom has there been a customer complaint. Flex has Quality representatives called Customer Support Engineers (CSEs) at every customer assembly plant. The CSEs report any problems to Jake for investigation and follow-up. At 7:00 a.m. this morning, Jake received a call from Janet, CSE at the Winding River Assembly Plant. Janet informed him that the customer had found five defective stabilizing brackets on second shift last night. She checked the remaining inventory and there were no defects in the remaining 326 pieces. The manufacturing sticker on the back of the brackets indicated that they were made by the second shift operator. Normally, the stabilizing bracket is fastened to the regulator motor with three rivets. The five defective brackets had only two rivets in them. The lower set of rivets on all five brackets was missing a rivet. This was the first time that the problem occurred.
Security Classification
28
Background
GOOD
BAD
Jake set-up containment procedures at the plant warehouse to sort for discrepant materials. As of this morning, two more defective brackets had been found in the remaining 2019 pieces of inventory at Flex.
Security Classification
29
Cause Investigation
Jake went out to the floor to talk with the team leader of the two rivet lines (East and West) and the area quality assurance auditor. He informed Sam (the team leader) of the quality problem and asked him to identify the line which runs the stabilizing bracket assembly. Sam directed Jake to the East line which runs Winding River assembly brackets only. At the East Line, he spoke with Judy (the QA Auditor for the area) and asked to see the quality log sheets. Jake and Judy reviewed the Nov. 11th log sheet and could not find anything out of the ordinary. He asked her to set-up in-house containment procedures to sort for any discrepant material in the finished goods area. Next, Jake tried to locate the second shift operator whose clock number was on the defective parts. Since that operator was gone, Jake spoke with the current machine operator (Ben). He asked Ben about any recent difficulties with the rivet machine. Ben said that he hadnt noticed anything out of the ordinary. Ben also mentioned, however, that there had never been any quality bulletins posted in the two years that this particular part has been running. Jake decided to stay in the area to watch the machine run for a while. After about 15 minutes, he watched Ben dump rivets into the feeder bowl to prepare for the next run.
30
Security Classification
Cause Investigation
Shortly after restarting rivet operations, Ben walked over to another riveter and came back with a steel rod. Ben poked around the rivet chute and then continued working. Jake approached Ben and asked him about the steel rod. Ben replied that from time to time the chute gets jammed and he has to clear it out. This happens two or three times during a shift. He didnt mention this in his earlier conversation with Jake because the problem has existed ever since he started working with this machine. The previous operator showed him how to clear the chute. All the rivet machines are like this. Jake called the Machine Repair Department and asked that someone look at the rivet track. A slight gap in the track was found and removed, and Ben continued to work. Two hours later, Jake got a call from Ben saying that the track was still jamming. As far as Jake could see, only rivets were in the bowl. Next, Jake looked into the rivet supplier containers. There was some foreign material in the blue container, but none in the red container. The label on the blue container showed that it was from Ajax Rivet, Inc., and the label on the red container indicated that it was from Franks Fasteners. Obviously, the foreign material was entering the rivet feeder bowl and jamming the track.
31
Security Classification
Cause Investigation
Jake called Maintenance and requested that the bowl be cleaned. He also added the cleaning operation to the preventive maintenance schedule on the equipment. He then called both Ajax Rivet, Inc. and Franks Fasteners. He asked about the cleaning procedures on the returnable containers. Franks did a full container purge and clean. Ajax just re-introduced the containers back into their system. When Jake asked why Ajax did not clean their containers, he was told that Ajax was not aware that such a policy was needed. Upon further investigation, Jake learned that Franks Fasteners supplies other major automotive companies. Since these companies require that all returnable containers be cleaned, Franks instituted the purge as part of its practice for all customers. Ajax Rivet, however, depends primarily on Flex as its major customer. No such policy has ever been required of them.
Security Classification
32
Cause Investigation
Jake called the Material Control Department and requested that a container maintenance policy be drafted which would apply to all their suppliers. He also asked that a machine modification be developed to sense for the presence of rivets. Hopefully, this would error-roof the process. Key Players
Jake Janet Sam Judy Ben Quality Manager CSE, Winding River Plant Team Leader, East Line QA Auditor, East Line Machine Operator
Security Classification
33
Generic Information for 5-Why Example: Regular Cola Soft Drink vs. Diet Cola
The
plant received a PR/R from a customer. (We use 5-Why Analysis to answer every PR/R.) The PR/R states that the customer received Regular Cola in the right container (same for both products) with the Diet Cola label. The order called for Regular Cola. The plant has two identical lines that are capable of running either of our two products. The lines are located immediately beside each other. The only differences in the products are the syrup and the labels. The plant runs both lines 24 hours per day. There are three shifts that run 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The date code indicates that the defective product was manufactured at 3:03 p.m. Defective product has been contained and sorted.
Security Classification
34
BOTTLES
WATER
SYRUP
B O T T L I N G
35
LIDS
INSPECT
LABELS
Security Classification
plant received a PR/R from a customer. (We use 5-Why Analysis to answer every PR/R.) The PR/R states that the customer received Mixed/Foreign Material in Shipment. The supplied part is an O Ring seal for oil filter. A cutting operation produces the part to specified size. As the raw material (cylindrical component) goes through the cutting operation, the irregular end-cuts are removed from the station.
Cutting Station
Matl Flow
Security Classification
36
Operator did not return parts to the proper process step after rework
WHY?
No standard rework procedures exist This is still a systemic failure & needs to be addressed, but its not the root cause.
Security Classification
37
What caused the sensor to get damaged? Sensor to detect thread presence was not working
WHY?
No system to assure sensors are working properly This is still a systemic failure & needs to be addressed, but its not the root cause of the lack38 detection. of
Security Classification
Standardize
ACT
PLAN
5. Has a plan been identified to STANDARDIZE and take all lessons learned across products, processes, plants, functional areas, etc.?
1. Is the problem statement CLEAR and ACCURATE? 2. Has the SYSTEMIC root cause(s) been identified for all legs?
CHECK Follow-up
4. Has a plan been identified to verify the EFFECTIVENESS of all corrective actions?
DO
3. Has IRREVERSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTION(s) been implemented for ALL root causes?
Security Classification
39
Date
A 1. Replace worn tool (K. Jones) 2. Begin conducting PM on all dies after every run, minimum 1 x / day, to collect history (L. Burg) 3. Assess & adjust PM intervals for all dies based on history & mfg recommendations (B. Clark) Check 4. Track PM completion % to assure 100% conformance (C. Beckett) Plan
WHY?
6/1/03
6/1/03
7/31/03
6/1/03
Check 5. Check for burrs on threads for 60 days to verify c/a (M. Mendoeous) A Check 6. Track FTQ at stamping to monitor PM improvement (S. Boland)
6/1/03 7/31/03
6/1/03
Security Classification
40
General Guidelines: A.) Dont jump to conclusions!; B.) Be absolutely objective. C.) Dont assume the answer is obvious. D.) If you are not thoroughly familiar with the process yourself, assemble a cross-functional team to complete the analysis. Step 1: Problem Statement Is the analysis being reported on the problem as the Customer sees it? Step 2: Three Paths (Dimensional, Detection, Systemic) -Are there any leaps in logic? -Is this as far as the Whys lead? Can you still ask one, two, three more whys)? -Is there a true cause-and-effect path from beginning to end of each path? Is there statistical data/evidence to prove it? ---Can the problem be turned off and on? -Does the path make sense when read in reverse from cause to cause? (e.g.We did this, so this happened, so this happened, and so on, which resulted in the original problem.) -Do the whys go back to the actual error? -Does the systemic path tie back to management systems/issues? -Does the nonconformance path ties back to issues such as design, operational, tiered supplier management, etc? -Does the detection path ties back to issues such as protect the customer, control plans, etc?
Security Classification
41
Step 3: Corrective Actions -Does each corrective action address the root cause from a path? -Is there a separate corrective action for each root cause? If not, does it make sense that the corrective action applies to more than one root cause? -Is each corrective action possible to implement? -Are there corrective actions that affect the Customer or require customer approval? How will they be communicated to the Customer? -Is there evidence and documentation to support the validity of the corrective actions? -Are the corrective actions irreversible? If not, are there corrective actions in place that address containment? Step 4: Lessons Learned -How could this problem have been foreseen? -How will this information be implemented: a.) on the line or in the plant? b.) at the point of detection? c.) cross-functionally at the Supplier? d.) other product/plants? -Are there lessons learned for the Customer? Step 5: Overall -Do there seem to be big holes where ideas, causes, corrective actions, or lessons learned are being avoided? -Where things are missed or not documented? -Do the corrective actions address the actions the supplier owns? -How many iterations has the supplier gone through so far in preparing this 5-why (It doesnt happen on the first try!) -Who prepared the 5-why?
42
Security Classification
Security Classification
43
Security Classification
44
Security Classification
45
Security Classification
46
Security Classification
47
Security Classification
48
Security Classification
49