Date post: | 01-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nikola-tonic |
View: | 246 times |
Download: | 5 times |
Global Supply Management
5 Why Analysis5 Why Analysis
Kristi Yonkers
January 2, 2006
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20062Security Classification
5-Why Training Agenda
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
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20063Security Classification
5-WHY
After a supplier has submitted an initial response and containment plan (Step # 2Step # 2 in the PRR process), a detailed investigation is necessary to determine what caused the problem. Step # 4Step # 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 Purpose of a PRRPRR “to facilitate problem resolution”, 5-Why is the prescribed tool for determining the root cause of the problem to facilitate problem resolution.
Where does it fit within the PRR process?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20064Security Classification
Is the powerful question… own it!!
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20065Security Classification
SpeedLimit
StrictlyEnforced
NoReaction
HowFast
Are YouGoing?
CauseReaction
(Look at speedometer)
HowFast
ShouldYou BeGoing?
CauseReaction & Research(Look at speedometer;
Search for speed limit sign)
Power of Asking Questions
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20066Security Classification
Who are the best at asking questions to solve problems?
Power of Asking Questions
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20067Security Classification
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 open-
ended , thought provoking questions.
Children!Why?
…because they keep asking objective, open-ended questions
until the answer is simple and clear
Power of Asking Questions
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20068Security Classification
Close-Ended: Structures the response to be answeredby one word, often “yes” or “no”. Usuallygives a predetermined answer.
Example: “Did the lack of standardization cause the incorrect setup?”
Open-Ended: Leaves the form of the answer up to theperson answering which draws out morethought or research.
Example: “How is setup controlled?”
Close-Ended vs. Open-Ended Questions
Global Supply Management – January 2, 20069Security Classification
Benefits of Open-Ended Questions
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
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200610Security Classification
Example 1:
“What could have caused the tool to break?”(Open-Ended, probing question forces the person to think about allpossibilities, not just PM)
Example 2: “Would improving material flow help reduce lead times?”(Good question but it’s still Close-Ended, focuses the person on materialflow as a means to reduce lead time. Is this the best improvement?)
“Did the lack of a PM system cause this tool to break?”(Close-Ended question, can be answered by a “yes” or “no”, gives theperson a predetermined answer that PM is to blame)
“What are some options on improving lead time?(Open-Ended, triggering more thought and research on all variablesimpacting 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 onequipment being the source of variation)
“What could potentially cause variation in your process? (Open-Ended, triggering more thought and research, opens up possibilitiesof variation with man, material & method, not just machine)
More Examples
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200611Security Classification
5 Why
Overview
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200612Security Classification
5-Why Analysis Three Paths
5-Why: Specific problem:
– Why did we have the problem?
Problem not detected:– Why did the problem reach the Customer?
System failure:– Why did our system allow it to occur?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200613Security Classification
5-Why Analysis Corrective Action with Responsibility Date
Define Problem Use this path for
the specific A nonconformance
being investigated Root Causes
WHY? Therefore
WHY? Therefore
Use this path to investigate why the
problem was not detected.
WHY? Therefore B
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 Content Latest Rev Date WHY? Therefore
C
Problem Resolution Complete Communicate to Delphi Date: Process Change Break Point Date: Implement System Change Date: Lessons Learned:
Specific
Detection
Systemic
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200614Security Classification
Root Cause Analysis
Delco fuse boxInsert example
What tool do We use for this?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200615Security Classification
Brainstorming
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200616Security Classification
Grasp the Situation
Part I – Grasp the Situation– Step 1: Identify the Problem
» In the first step of the process, you become aware of a problem that may be large, vague, or complicated. You have some information, but do not have detailed facts. Ask:
» What do I know?– Step 2: Clarify the Problem
» The next step in the process is to clarify the problem. To gain a more clear understanding, ask:
» What is actually happening?» What should be happening?
– Step 3: Break Down the Problem» At this point, break the problem down into smaller, individual elements, if
necessary.» What else do I know about the problem?» Are there other sub-problems?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200617Security Classification
Grasp the Situation
– Step 4: Locate the Point of Cause (PoC)» Now, the focus is on locating the actual point of cause of the problem. You
need to track back to see the point of cause first-hand. Ask:» Where do I need to go?» What do I need to see?» Who might have information about the problem?
– Step 5: Grasp the Tendency of the Problem» To grasp the tendency of the problem, ask:» Who?» Which?» When?» How often?» How much?» It is important to ask these questions before asking “Why?”
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200618Security Classification
5-Why Analysis
Step 1: Problem Statement– Is the problem statement clear & accurate?– Is the analysis on the problem as the customer sees it?
Step 2: Three Paths– Are all three legs filled in?– Are there any leaps in logic?– Can you ask one, two, or three more Whys?– Is there a cause-and-effect relationship in each path?– Can the problem be turned “on” and “off”?– Does the path make sense when read in reverse?– Do the whys relate to the actual error?– Does the non-conformance path tie to design, operations, dimensional issues,
etc.?– Does the detection path tie to the customer, control plans, etc.?– Does the systemic path tie to management issues or quality system failures?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200619Security Classification
5-Why Analysis
Step 3: Corrective Actions– Is there a separate action for each root cause?– Is it possible to implement each corrective action?– Do corrective actions require Customer approval? If so, how will they be
communicated to the Customer?– Is there evidence to support verification of corrective actions?– Are corrective actions irreversible?If not, do actions address ongoing
containment?– Is there a plan to standardize lessons learned across products, departments, etc?
Step 4: Lessons Learned– How could the problem have been foreseen?– How will information be implemented?
» On the line or in the plant?» At the point of detection?» Cross functionally at the Supplier?» Other products/plants?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200620Security Classification
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!
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200621Security Classification
Therefore Test
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200622Security Classification
5-Why Analysis
The problem is stated through the eyes of the customerProblem
The first why is the main cause
Etc.
You have root cause if you can demonstrate:• cause on, problem on• cause off, problem off
Root Cause
The second why is what causes the main cause
Why?
Therefore
Etc.
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200623Security Classification
Cookies taste really badProblem
Used goose eggs rather than chicken eggs
Recipe did not specify bird typeRoot Cause
Ingredients are wrong
Cookies are undercooked
Why?
There
fore
5-Why Example
(Non-conformance)
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200624Security Classification
PPAP submitted lateProblem
Test lead time not considered
No system to accurately assesslead times of all PPAP elementsRoot Cause
Validation testing not complete
PPAP package not complete
Why?
There
fore
5-Why Example - PPAP Submittal
(Non-conformance)
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200625Security Classification
PPAP submitted lateProblem
No requirement to follow-up on target submittal dates
No standard system to manage PPAP submittal timelinessRoot Cause
Did not know the target submittal date had passed
Did not react to the target submittal date
Why?
There
fore
5-Why Example - PPAP Submittal
(Detection)
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200626Security Classification
Did not meet the annual business plan goal of a 10% increase in sales
Problem
Did not anticipate requiredresources
Did not develop a plan as to“how” the goal would be reachedRoot Cause
Did not have adequate resources
Did not thoroughly evaluatemarket/competition
Why?
There
fore
5-Why Example - Business Plan
(Non-conformance)
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200627Security Classification
5-Why Example - Business Plan
(Detection)
Did not meet the annual business plan goal of a 10% increase in salesProblem
Did not develop a plan to monitorthe status of reaching the goal
Root Cause
Did not know the goal was notgoing to be met
Why?
There
fore
Did not have alarms limits identified at strategic intervals(monthly, quarterly, etc.)
Did not evaluate the status ofthe goal until December
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200628Security Classification
Flex Industries Case Study-
Background
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 (CSE’s) at every customer assembly plant. The CSE’s 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.
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200629Security Classification
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.
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200630Security Classification
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 hadn’t 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.
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200631Security 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 didn’t 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 Frank’s Fasteners. Obviously, the foreign material was entering the rivet feeder bowl and jamming the track.
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200632Security 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 Frank’s Fasteners. He asked about the cleaning procedures on the returnable containers. Frank’s 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 Frank’s Fasteners supplies other major automotive companies. Since these companies require that all returnable containers be cleaned, Frank’s 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.
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200633Security Classification
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 Quality Manager– Janet CSE, Winding River Plant– Sam Team Leader, East Line– Judy QA Auditor, East Line– Ben Machine Operator
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200634Security Classification
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.
Generic Information for 5-Why Example: Regular Cola Soft Drink vs. Diet Cola
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200635Security Classification
Bottling Process Flow for 5-Why
INSPECT
LIDSBOTTLING
WATER
BOTTLES
SYRUP LABELS
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200636Security Classification
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 “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.
Generic Information for 5-Why Real Example: “O” Ring Seal
Cutting Station
Mat’l Flow
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200637Security Classification
Missing o-ringon part number
K10001J
Parts missed theo-ring installation
process
Parts had to be reworked
Operator did not returnparts to the proper process
step after rework
No standard rework procedures exist
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
Why did theyhave to rework?
This is still a systemic failure& needs to be addressed,
but it’s not the root cause.
Is this a good or bad “Non-Conformance” leg?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200638Security Classification
Missing threadson fastener partnumber LB123
Did not detectthreads were
missing
Sensor to detectthread presence was not working
Sensor was damaged
No system to assure sensors areworking properly
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
What causedthe sensor toget damaged?
This is still a systemic failure& needs to be addressed,but it’s not the root causeof the lack of detection.
Is this a good or bad “Detection” leg?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200639Security Classification
A good 5-Why will answer “Yes” to the five PDCA questions:
PLAN
DOCHECK
ACT
1. Is the problem statementCLEAR and ACCURATE?
2. Has the SYSTEMICroot cause(s) been
identified for all legs?
3. Has IRREVERSIBLECORRECTIVE ACTION(s)
been implemented forALL root causes?
4. Has a plan been identifiedto verify the
EFFECTIVENESSof all corrective
actions?
5. Has a plan been identifiedto STANDARDIZE and takeall lessons learned across
products, processes,plants, functional areas, etc.?
Understand the problem
Execute the PlanFollow-up
Standardize
“A problem well definedis a problem half solved”
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200640Security Classification
Is this a good Corrective Action plan?
A
Corrective Action w/ Responsibility Date
Fastener P/N 10001 would not assemble
Burrs on the thread
Worn stamping tool
Tool exceeded recommended wearlife
PM interval not adequate
PM failure; No system to strategically setPM intervals
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
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)
A
6/1/03
6/1/03
3. Assess & adjust PM intervals for all dies based on history & mfg recommendations (B. Clark)
7/31/03
Plan
Plan
Do
Do/Act
Do/Act
4. Track PM completion % to assure 100% conformance (C. Beckett)
6/1/03
6. Track FTQ at stamping to monitor PM improvement (S. Boland)
6/1/03
5. Check for burrs on threads for 60 days to verify c/a (M. Mendoeous)
6/1/03 -7/31/03
Check
Check
Check
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200641Security Classification
5-Why Critique Sheet
General Guidelines: A.) Don’t jump to conclusions!; B.) Be absolutely objective. C.) Don’t 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 StatementIs 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 why’s)?-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 why’s 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…?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200642Security Classification
5-Why Critique Sheet (cont) 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 doesn’t happen on the first try!)
-Who prepared the 5-why?
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200643Security Classification
5-Why Analysis: Cola Example – Path A
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200644Security Classification
5-Why Analysis: Cola Example – Path B
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200645Security Classification
5-Why Analysis: Cola Example – Path C
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200646Security Classification
5-Why Analysis: “O”Ring Example – Path A
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200647Security Classification
5-Why Analysis: “O”Ring Example – Path B
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200648Security Classification
5-Why Analysis: “O”Ring Example – Path C
Global Supply Management – January 2, 200649Security Classification
5-Why Analysis: Green, Yellow, Red– G: Can follow logic and flow of all 3 legs of 5 why's. The legs all
differentiate "What is the problem, why wasn't it detected, and what happened systemically."
– Y: All 3 legs filled out, some leaps of logic, needs minor corrections to improve.
– R: 1 or 2 legs missing, Leg 1 repeated as leg 2 or 3, not understanding what the different legs mean--typically missing what the systemic leg is. Poor answers on 2 or more legs.
Problem Case Audit Standards